European journal of radiology · 2017
Contamination artifact that mimics in-situ carcinoma on contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gluskin Jill, Click Michael, Fleischman Richard, Dromain Clarisse, Morris Elizabeth A, Jochelson Maxine S
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is an advanced breast imaging technique using iodinated intravenous contrast to detect breast cancer. This article describes imaging features of a skin contamination artifact on CEDM that mimics in-situ carcinoma in a case series.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five patients were identified whose CEDM images demonstrated apparent calcifications and non-mass enhancement suspicious for in-situ carcinoma, with no subsequent evidence of disease. Retrospective image analysis was performed on the unprocessed image data, processed images, and imaging parameters. Dual-energy mammographic technique was performed on two breast phantoms with varying degrees of topical contrast contamination.
RESULTS: Temporal analysis confirmed the suspicious finding was neither an abnormality of the compression paddle nor the receptor. Comparison of LE and HE images demonstrated the suspicious finding attenuated near the K-edge of iodine, suggesting contrast contamination. Iodinated contrast applied to the surface of breast phantoms replicated the artifact, with a pattern of apparent enhancement similar to the appearance of in-situ carcinoma.
CONCLUSION: Skin contamination with iodinated contrast can result in an artifact on post-contrast digital mammography that mimics the appearance of in-situ carcinoma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five patients were identified whose CEDM images demonstrated apparent calcifications and non-mass enhancement suspicious for in-situ carcinoma, with no subsequent evidence of disease. Retrospective image analysis was performed on the unprocessed image data, processed images, and imaging parameters. Dual-energy mammographic technique was performed on two breast phantoms with varying degrees of topical contrast contamination.
RESULTS: Temporal analysis confirmed the suspicious finding was neither an abnormality of the compression paddle nor the receptor. Comparison of LE and HE images demonstrated the suspicious finding attenuated near the K-edge of iodine, suggesting contrast contamination. Iodinated contrast applied to the surface of breast phantoms replicated the artifact, with a pattern of apparent enhancement similar to the appearance of in-situ carcinoma.
CONCLUSION: Skin contamination with iodinated contrast can result in an artifact on post-contrast digital mammography that mimics the appearance of in-situ carcinoma.