Background enhancement in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): are there qualitative and quantitative differences between imaging systems?
Daniel Wessling, Simon Männlin, Ricarda Schwarz, Florian Hagen, Andreas Brendlin, Susann-Cathrin Olthof, V. Hattermann, Sebastian Gassenmaier, Judith Herrmann, Heike Preibsch
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the digital mammography imaging system on overall background enhancement on recombined contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) images, the overall background enhancement of two different mammography systems was compared. METHODS: In a retrospective single-center study, CESM images of n = 129 female patients who underwent CESM between 2016 and 2019 were analyzed independently by two radiologists. Two mammography machines of different manufacturers were compared qualitatively using a Likert-scale from 1 (minimal) to 4 (marked overall background enhancement) and quantitatively by placing a region of interest and measuring the intensity enhancement. Lesion conspicuity was analyzed using a Likert-scale from 1 (lesion not reliably distinguishable) to 5 (excellent lesion conspicuity). A multivariate regression was performed to test for potential biases on the quantitative results. RESULTS: Significant differences in qualitative background enhancement measurements between machines A and B were observed for both readers (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001). The quantitative evaluation showed significant differences in background enhancement with an average difference of 75.69 (99%-CI [74.37, 77.02]; p < 0.001). Lesion conspicuity was better for machine A for the first and second reader respectively (p = 0.009 and p < 0.001). The factor machine was the only influencing factor (p < 0.001). The factors contrast agent, breast density, age, and menstrual cycle could be excluded as potential biases. CONCLUSION: Mammography machines seem to significantly influence overall background enhancement qualitatively and quantitatively; thus, an impact on diagnostic accuracy appears possible. KEY POINTS: • Overall background enhancement on CESM differs between different vendors qualitatively and quantitatively. • Our retrospective single-center study showed consistent results of the qualitative and quantitative data analysis of overall background enhancement. • Lesion conspicuity is higher in cases of lower background enhancement on CESM.