4.4 Article

Exploring silver as a contrast agent for contrast-enhanced dual-energy X-ray breast imaging

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 87, Issue 1041, Pages -

Publisher

BRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20140081

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Department of Defense [W81XWH-09-1-0055, W81XWH-11-1-0246]
  2. National Institute of Health [NIH/NBIB R21-EB013754]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Through prior monoenergetic modelling, we have identified silver as a potential alternative to iodine in dual-energy (DE) X-ray breast imaging. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of silver and iodine contrast agents in a commercially available DE imaging system through a quantitative analysis of signal difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR). Methods: A polyenergetic simulation algorithm was developed to model the signal intensity and noise. The model identified the influence of various technique parameters on SDNR. The model was also used to identify the optimal imaging techniques for silver and iodine, so that the two contrast materials could be objectively compared. Results: The major influences on the SDNR were the low-energy dose fraction and breast thickness. An increase in the value of either of these parameters resulted in a decrease in SDNR. The SDNR for silver was on average 43% higher than that for iodine when imaged at their respective optimal conditions, and 40% higher when both were imaged at the optimal conditions for iodine. Conclusion: A silver contrast agent should provide benefit over iodine, even when translated to the clinic without modification of imaging system or protocol. If the system were slightly modified to reflect the lower k-edge of silver, the difference in SDNR between the two materials would be increased. Advances in knowledge: These data are the first to demonstrate the suitability of silver as a contrast material in a clinical contrast-enhanced DE image acquisition system.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available