Investigation of test methods for QC in dual-energy based contrast-enhanced digital mammography systems. Part II: artefacts/uniformity, exposure time and phantom-based dosimetry.
Nicholas W MarshallLesley CockmartinHilde BosmansPublished in: Physics in medicine and biology (2023)
Part II of this study describes constancy tests for artefacts and image uniformity, exposure time, and phantom-based dosimetry; these are applied to four mammography systems equipped with CEM capability. Artefacts were tested using a breast phantom that simulated breast shape and thickness change at the breast edge. Image uniformity was assessed using rectangular poly(methyl)methacrylate PMMA plates at phantom thicknesses of 20, 40 and 60mm, for the low energy (LE), high energy (HE) images and the recombined CEM image. Uniformity of signal and of the signal to noise ratio (SNR) was quantified. To estimate CEM exposure times, breast simulating blocks were imaged in automatic exposure mode (AEC). The resulting x-ray technique factors were then set manually and exposure time for LE and HE images and total CEM acquisition time was measured with a multimeter. Mean glandular dose (MGD) was assessed as a function of simulated breast thickness using three different phantom compositions: i) glandular and adipose breast tissue simulating blocks combined to give glandularity values that were typical of those in a screening population, as thickness was changed ii) PMMA sheets combined with polyethylene blocks iii) PMMA sheets with spacers. Image uniformity was superior for LE compared to HE images. Two systems did not generate recombined images for the uniformity test when the detector was fully covered. Acquisition time for a CEM image pair for a 60mm thick breast equivalent phantom ranged from 3.4s to 10.3s. Phantom composition did not have a strong influence on MGD, with differences generally smaller than 10%. MGD for the HE images was lower than for the LE images, by a factor of between 1.3 and 4.0, depending on system and simulated breast thickness. When combined with the iodine signal assessment in part I, these tests provide a comprehensive assessment of CEM system imaging performance.