Phantom-based analysis of variations in automatic exposure control across three mammography systems: implications for radiation dose and image quality in mammography, DBT, and CEM
Gisella Gennaro, Sara Del Genio, Giuseppe Manco, Francesca Caumo
{"title":"Phantom-based analysis of variations in automatic exposure control across three mammography systems: implications for radiation dose and image quality in mammography, DBT, and CEM","authors":"Gisella Gennaro, Sara Del Genio, Giuseppe Manco, Francesca Caumo","doi":"10.1186/s41747-024-00447-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>Automatic exposure control (AEC) plays a crucial role in mammography by determining the exposure conditions needed to achieve specific image quality based on the absorption characteristics of compressed breasts. This study aimed to characterize the behavior of AEC for digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and low-energy (LE) and high-energy (HE) acquisitions used in contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for three mammography systems from two manufacturers.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>Using phantoms simulating various breast thicknesses, 363 studies were acquired using all available AEC modes 165 DM, 132 DBT, and 66 LE-CEM and HE-CEM. AEC behaviors were compared across systems and modalities to assess the impact of different technical components and manufacturers’ strategies on the resulting mean glandular doses (MGDs) and image quality metrics such as contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>For all systems and modalities, AEC increased MGD for increasing phantom thicknesses and decreased CNR. The median MGD values (interquartile ranges) were 1.135 mGy (0.772–1.668) for DM, 1.257 mGy (0.971–1.863) for DBT, 1.280 mGy (0.937–1.878) for LE-CEM, and 0.630 mGy (0.397–0.713) for HE-CEM. Medians CNRs were 14.2 (7.8–20.2) for DM, 4.91 (2.58–7.20) for a single projection in DBT, 11.9 (8.0–18.2) for LE-CEM, and 5.2 (3.6–9.2) for HE-CEM. AECs showed high repeatability, with variations lower than 5% for all modes in DM, DBT, and CEM.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>The study revealed substantial differences in AEC behavior between systems, modalities, and AEC modes, influenced by technical components and manufacturers’ strategies, with potential implications in radiation dose and image quality in clinical settings.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Relevance statement</h3><p>The study emphasized the central role of automatic exposure control in DM, DBT, and CEM acquisitions and the great variability in dose and image quality among manufacturers and between modalities. Caution is needed when generalizing conclusions about differences across mammography modalities.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Key points</h3><p>• AEC plays a crucial role in DM, DBT, and CEM.</p><p>• AEC determines the “optimal” exposure conditions needed to achieve specific image quality.</p><p>• The study revealed substantial differences in AEC behavior, influenced by differences in technical components and strategies.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Graphical Abstract</h3>\n","PeriodicalId":36926,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology Experimental","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology Experimental","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-024-00447-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Automatic exposure control (AEC) plays a crucial role in mammography by determining the exposure conditions needed to achieve specific image quality based on the absorption characteristics of compressed breasts. This study aimed to characterize the behavior of AEC for digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and low-energy (LE) and high-energy (HE) acquisitions used in contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for three mammography systems from two manufacturers.
Methods
Using phantoms simulating various breast thicknesses, 363 studies were acquired using all available AEC modes 165 DM, 132 DBT, and 66 LE-CEM and HE-CEM. AEC behaviors were compared across systems and modalities to assess the impact of different technical components and manufacturers’ strategies on the resulting mean glandular doses (MGDs) and image quality metrics such as contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR).
Results
For all systems and modalities, AEC increased MGD for increasing phantom thicknesses and decreased CNR. The median MGD values (interquartile ranges) were 1.135 mGy (0.772–1.668) for DM, 1.257 mGy (0.971–1.863) for DBT, 1.280 mGy (0.937–1.878) for LE-CEM, and 0.630 mGy (0.397–0.713) for HE-CEM. Medians CNRs were 14.2 (7.8–20.2) for DM, 4.91 (2.58–7.20) for a single projection in DBT, 11.9 (8.0–18.2) for LE-CEM, and 5.2 (3.6–9.2) for HE-CEM. AECs showed high repeatability, with variations lower than 5% for all modes in DM, DBT, and CEM.
Conclusions
The study revealed substantial differences in AEC behavior between systems, modalities, and AEC modes, influenced by technical components and manufacturers’ strategies, with potential implications in radiation dose and image quality in clinical settings.
Relevance statement
The study emphasized the central role of automatic exposure control in DM, DBT, and CEM acquisitions and the great variability in dose and image quality among manufacturers and between modalities. Caution is needed when generalizing conclusions about differences across mammography modalities.
Key points
• AEC plays a crucial role in DM, DBT, and CEM.
• AEC determines the “optimal” exposure conditions needed to achieve specific image quality.
• The study revealed substantial differences in AEC behavior, influenced by differences in technical components and strategies.