BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH

Published online before print June 8, 2009
British Journal of Radiology 2009, doi:10.1259/bjr/80279516
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by CARTON, A-K
Right arrow Articles by MAIDMENT, A D A
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by CARTON, A-K
Right arrow Articles by MAIDMENT, A D A
© 2009 The British Institute of Radiology

SHORT COMMUNICATION

Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis — a feasibility study

A-K CARTON 1, S C GAVENONIS 1, J A CURRIVAN 1, E F CONANT 1, M D SCHNALL 1, A D A MAIDMENT 1

1 Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiology, 1 Silverstein, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA


   Abstract

Contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis (CE-DBT) is a novel modality for imaging breast lesion morphology and vascularity. The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility of dual-energy subtraction as a technique for CE-DBT (a temporal subtraction CE-DBT technique has been described previously). As CE-DBT evolves, exploration of alternate image acquisition techniques will contribute to its optimisation. Evaluation of dual-energy CE-DBT was conducted with IRB approval from our institution and in compliance with federal HIPAA guidelines. A 55-year old patient with a known malignancy in the right breast underwent imaging with MRI and CE-DBT. CE-DBT was performed in the medial lateral oblique view with a DBT system, which was modified under IRB approval to allow high-energy image acquisition with a 0.25 mm Cu filter. Image acquisition occurred via both temporal and dual-energy subtraction CE-DBT. Between the pre- and post-contrast DBT image sets, a single bolus of iodinated contrast agent (1.0 ml kg–1) was administered, followed by a 60 ml saline flush. The contrast agent and saline were administrated manually at a rate of ~2 ml s–1. Images were reconstructed using filtered-back projection and transmitted to a clinical PACS workstation. Dual-energy CE-DBT was shown to be clinically feasible. In our index case, the dual-energy technique was able to provide morphology and kinetic information about the known malignancy. This information was qualitatively concordant with that of CE-MRI. Compared with the temporal subtraction CE-DBT technique, dual-energy CE-DBT appears less susceptible to motion artefacts.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2009 by the British Institute of Radiology.