Literature DB >> 22711250

Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.

T Olgar1, T Kahn, D Gosch.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the average glandular dose (AGD) in digital full-field mammography (2 D imaging mode) and in breast tomosynthesis (3 D imaging mode).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the method described by Boone, the AGD was calculated from the exposure parameters of 2247 conventional 2 D mammograms and 984 mammograms in 3 D imaging mode of 641 patients examined with the digital mammographic system Hologic Selenia Dimensions. The breast glandular tissue content was estimated by the Hologic R2 Quantra automated volumetric breast density measurement tool for each patient from right craniocaudal (RCC) and left craniocaudal (LCC) images in 2 D imaging mode.
RESULTS: The mean compressed breast thickness (CBT) was 52.7 mm for craniocaudal (CC) and 56.0 mm for mediolateral oblique (MLO) views. The mean percentage of breast glandular tissue content was 18.0% and 17.4% for RCC and LCC projections, respectively. The mean AGD values in 2 D imaging mode per exposure for the standard breast were 1.57 mGy and 1.66 mGy, while the mean AGD values after correction for real breast composition were 1.82 mGy and 1.94 mGy for CC and MLO views, respectively. The mean AGD values in 3 D imaging mode per exposure for the standard breast were 2.19 mGy and 2.29 mGy, while the mean AGD values after correction for the real breast composition were 2.53 mGy and 2.63 mGy for CC and MLO views, respectively. No significant relationship was found between the AGD and CBT in 2 D imaging mode and a good correlation coefficient of 0.98 in 3 D imaging mode.
CONCLUSION: In this study the mean calculated AGD per exposure in 3 D imaging mode was on average 34% higher than for 2 D imaging mode for patients examined with the same CBT. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22711250     DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1312877

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rofo        ISSN: 1438-9010


  11 in total

1.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas; Gopal R Vijayaraghavan; Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  [Digital breast tomosynthesis].

Authors:  H Preibsch; K C Siegmann-Luz
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 0.635

3.  Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications.

Authors:  Ji Soo Choi; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Young Ko; Ga Ram Kim; Eun Sook Ko; Ko Woon Park
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Joy Melnikow; Joshua J Fenton; Evelyn P Whitlock; Diana L Miglioretti; Meghan S Weyrich; Jamie H Thompson; Kunal Shah
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Radiation-Induced Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality From Digital Mammography Screening: A Modeling Study.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Jane Lange; Jeroen J van den Broek; Christoph I Lee; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Dominique Ritley; Karla Kerlikowske; Joshua J Fenton; Joy Melnikow; Harry J de Koning; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Integrating mammographic breast density in glandular dose calculation.

Authors:  Moayyad E Suleiman; Patrick C Brennan; Ernest Ekpo; Peter Kench; Mark F McEntee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer.

Authors:  Ji Soo Choi; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Young Ko; Eun Sook Ko; Soo Yeon Hahn; Jung Hee Shin; Min Jung Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images.

Authors:  Margarita L Zuley; Ben Guo; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Amy E Kelly; Amy H Lu; Grace Y Rathfon; Marion Lee Spangler; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Andriy I Bandos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Progress in diagnosis of breast cancer: Advances in radiology technology.

Authors:  J Mari Beth Linder; Alan D Schiska
Journal:  Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs       Date:  2015 Jul-Sep

10.  Estimation of cancer risks during mammography procedure in Saudi Arabia.

Authors:  A Sulieman; O Serhan; H I Al-Mohammed; M Z Mahmoud; M Alkhorayef; B Alonazi; E Manssor; A Yousef
Journal:  Saudi J Biol Sci       Date:  2018-10-04       Impact factor: 4.219

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.