Abstract
An artefact is typically defined as any feature in an image or sequence that misrepresents the object in the field of view. Artefact manifestations include an additional unexpected signal on the image or sequence, a lack of signal or image distortion.
As with any imaging modality, artefacts in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) can interfere with image quality, and their effects can vary from negligible to severe, possibly leading to unnecessary procedures or hiding underlying abnormalities. Although some of these artefacts are similar to those observed with full-field digital mammography (FFDM), many are unique to CEDM.
In this chapter, we survey examples of artefacts and other factors that interfere with image acquisition observed with CEDM in our clinical practices at Careggi University Hospital and Kuala Lumpur Hospital (KLH), and we highlight the necessary steps to reduce and eliminate these artefacts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Yagil Y, Shalmon A, Rundstein A, Servadio Y, Halshtok O, Gotlieb M, et al. Challenges in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography interpretation: artefacts lexicon. Clin Radiol. 2016;71(5):450–7.
Bhimani C, Li L, Liao L, Roth RG, Tinney E, Germaine P. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: modality-specific artifacts and other factors which may interfere with image quality. Acad Radiol. 2017;24(1):89–94.
Lalji UC, Jeukens CR, Houben I, Nelemans PJ, van Engen RE, van Wylick E, et al. Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(10):2813–20.
Ayyala RS, Chorlton M, Behrman RH, Kornguth PJ, Slanetz PJ. Digital mammographic artifacts on full-field systems: what are they and how do I fix them? Radiographics. 2008;28(7):1999–2008.
Daniaux M, De Zordo T, Santner W, Amort B, Koppelstatter F, Jaschke W, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;292(4):739–47.
Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Adler G, Garbay JR, Delaloge S. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2009;69(1):34–42.
Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, Heerdt AS, Thornton C, Moskowitz CS, et al. Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology. 2013;266(3):743–51.
Lobbes MB, Smidt ML, Houwers J, Tjan-Heijnen VC, Wildberger JE. Contrast enhanced mammography: techniques, current results, and potential indications. Clin Radiol. 2013;68(9):935–44.
Geiser WR, Haygood TM, Santiago L, Stephens T, Thames D, Whitman GJ. Challenges in mammography: part 1, artifacts in digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(6):W1023–30.
Jayadevan R, Armada MJ, Shaheen R, Mulcahy C, Slanetz PJ. Optimizing digital mammographic image quality for full-field digital detectors: artifacts encountered during the QC process. Radiographics. 2015;35(7):2080–9.
Chaloeykitti L, Muttarak M, Ng KH. Artifacts in mammography: ways to identify and overcome them. Singap Med J. 2006;47(7):634–40; quiz 41.
Lewis TC, Patel BK, Pizzitola VJ. Navigating contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Appl Radiol. 2017;46(3):21–8.
Sogani J, Morris EA, Kaplan JB, D'Alessio D, Goldman D, Moskowitz CS, et al. Comparison of background parenchymal enhancement at contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and breast MR imaging. Radiology. 2017;282(1):63–73.
Gluskin J, Click M, Fleischman R, Dromain C, Morris EA, Jochelson MS. Contamination artifact that mimics in-situ carcinoma on contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2017;95:147–54.
Bhimani C, Matta D, Roth RG, Liao L, Tinney E, Brill K, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: technique, indications, and clinical applications. Acad Radiol. 2017;24(1):84–8.
Choi JJ, Kim SH, Kang BJ, Choi BG, Song B, Jung H. Mammographic artifacts on full-field digital mammography. J Digit Imaging. 2014;27(2):231–6.
Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S, Rimareix F, Delaloge S, Tardivon A, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(3):565–74.
Hill ML, Mainprize JG, Carton AK, Saab-Puong S, Iordache R, Muller S, et al. Anatomical noise in contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Part II. Dual-energy imaging. Med Phys. 2013;40(8):081907.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kaur, M., Piccolo, C.L., Dao, V.C.X. (2018). Artefacts in CEDM. In: Nori, J., Kaur, M. (eds) Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94553-8_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94553-8_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94552-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94553-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)