title: Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) examination results in a low-energy (LE) and contrast-enhanced image. The LE appears similar to a full-field digital mammogram (FFDM). Our aim was to evaluate LE CESM image quality by comparing it to FFDM using criteria defined by the European Reference Organization for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (EUREF).
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 147 cases with both FFDM and LE images were independently scored by two experienced radiologists using these (20) EUREF criteria. Contrast detail measurements were performed using a dedicated phantom. Differences in image quality scores, average glandular dose, and contrast detail measurements between LE and FFDM were tested for statistical significance.
  
  
  RESULTS
  No significant differences in image quality scores were observed between LE and FFDM images for 17 out of 20 criteria. LE scored significantly lower on one criterion regarding the sharpness of the pectoral muscle (p < 0.001), and significantly better on two criteria on the visualization of micro-calcifications (p = 0.02 and p = 0.034). Dose and contrast detail measurements did not reveal any physical explanation for these observed differences.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Low-energy CESM images are non-inferior to FFDM images. From this perspective FFDM can be omitted in patients with an indication for CESM.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  • Low-energy CESM images are non-inferior to FFDM images. • Micro-calcifications are significantly more visible on LE CESM than on FFDM. • There is no physical explanation for this improved visibility of micro-calcifications. • There is no need for an extra FFDM when CESM is indicated.
authors: Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
authors: U C
authors: UC
authors: Lalji
authors: C R L P N
authors: CR
authors: Jeukens
authors: I
authors: I
authors: Houben
authors: P J
authors: PJ
authors: Nelemans
authors: R E
authors: RE
authors: van Engen
authors: E
authors: E
authors: van Wylick
authors: R G H
authors: RG
authors: Beets-Tan
authors: J E
authors: JE
authors: Wildberger
authors: L E
authors: LE
authors: Paulis
authors: M B I
authors: MB
authors: Lobbes
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D001940:Breast / Q000528:radiation effects; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D002114:Calcinosis / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D055088:Early Detection of Cancer; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008327:Mammography / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D008875:Middle Aged; D010369:Pectoralis Muscles / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000528:radiation effects; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D011786:Quality Control; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D011856:Radiographic Image Enhancement / Q000379:methods; D011897:Random Allocation; D012015:Reference Standards; D012189:Retrospective Studies