Contrast-to-noise ratios of different elements in digital mammography: Evaluation of their potential as new contrast agents

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 42, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 319-325

  Diekmann, Felix ^a   Sommer, Alexander ^b   Lawaczeck, Ruediger ^c   Diekmann, Susanne ^a   Pietsch, Hubertus ^c   Speck, Ulrich ^a   Hamm, Bernd ^a   Bick, Ulrich ^a  

^a CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^b Reference Center for Mammography   (Germany)

^c BAYER PHARMA AG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Contrast medium; Contrast enhanced mammography; Digital mammography

Indexed keywords

BISMUTH; CONTRAST MEDIUM; DYSPROSIUM; GADOLINIUM; IODINE; OIL; WATER; YTTERBIUM;

ARTICLE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTRAST NOISE RATIO; COPPER FILTER; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DOSIMETER; FILTER; NOISE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIMULATION; THICKNESS; TISSUE;

EID: 34147129822     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.rli.0000258682.99546.9f     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BL, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:168-175.
2. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002;225:165-175.
3. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1773-1783.
4. Tanaka T, Honda C, Matsuo S, et al. The first trial of phase contrast imaging for digital full-field mammography using a practical molybdenum x-ray tube. Invest Radiol. 2005;40:385-396.
5. Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Richter K, et al. Near monochromatic x-rays for digital slot-scan mammography: initial findings. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:1641-1646.
6. Suri JS, Danielson T, Guo Y, et al. Fischer's fused full field digital mammography and ultrasound system (FFDMUS). Stud Health Technol Inform. 2005;114:177-200.
7. Niklason LT, Kopans DB, Hamberg LM. Digital breast imaging: tomosynthesis and digital subtraction mammography. Breast Dis. 1998;10:151-164.
8. Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Jeunehomme F, et al. Digital mammography using iodine-based contrast media: initial clinical experience with dynamic contrast medium enhancement. Invest Radiol. 2005;40:397-404.
9. Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Taupitz M, et al. Use of iodine-based contrast media in digital full-field mammography - initial experience. Rofo. 2003;175:342-345.
10. Diekmann F, Grebe S, Bick U, et al. [Improved diagnosis through digital mammography with the assistance of computer algorithms]. Zentralbl Gynakol. 2001;123:117-122.
11. Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology. 2003;228:842-850.
12. Lawaczeck R, Diekmann F, Diekmann S, et al. New contrast media designed for x-ray energy subtraction imaging in digital mammography. Invest Radiol. 2003;38:602-608.
13. Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology. 2003;229:261-268.
14. Skarpathiotakis M, Yaffe MJ, Bloomquist AK, et al. Development of contrast digital mammography. Med Phys. 2002;29:2419-2426.
15. Fischer DR, Wurdinger S, Boettcher J, et al. Further signs in the evaluation of magnetic resonance mammography: a retrospective study. Invest Radiol. 2005;40:430-435.
16. Liberman L, Morris EA, Derschaw D, et al. Ductal enhancement on MR imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:519-525.