Literature DB >> 23734057

'In vivo' average glandular dose evaluation: one-to-one comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography.

Francesca Cavagnetto1, Gianni Taccini, Raffaella Rosasco, Rossana Bampi, Massimo Calabrese, Alberto Tagliafico.   

Abstract

We analysed 300 patients X rayed with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and 'COMBO' (single view both in FFDM and DBT in a single breast compression)-Hologic Selenia Dimension-W/Rh-Ag-Al: three different anode-filter combinations-automatic exposure control modalities. Examination parameter data collection (EPDC) and 'in vivo' dosimetry using metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) were utilised to determine and compare entrance skin air kerma (ESAK) and average glandular dose (AGD) from a radioprotection viewpoint in the DBT and COMBO modalities. MOSFET has been tested to be introduced in clinical routine. EPDC of DBT underlines increase in ESAK and AGD compared with FFDM (p < 0.05). The mean percentage increase was 34 % (+17 %) in ESAK and 46 % (+16 %) in AGD. In the COMBO modality, the mean percentage increase in ESAK was 162 % (+41 %) and in AGD was 202 % (+61 %). Differences between MOSFET measurement and calculated values were <8 % for breasts thicker than 30 mm; otherwise, the errors are >15 %. DBT increases ESAK and AGD, due to the 3D acquisition modality. MOSFET may be considered in DBT as a routine check.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23734057     DOI: 10.1093/rpd/nct120

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry        ISSN: 0144-8420            Impact factor:   0.972


  6 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

Review 2.  Screening for breast cancer in 2018-what should we be doing today?

Authors:  J M Seely; T Alhassan
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 3.677

3.  Dosimetry in x-ray-based breast imaging.

Authors:  David R Dance; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2016-09-12       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study.

Authors:  Alberto Tagliafico; Giovanna Mariscotti; Manuela Durando; Carmen Stevanin; Giulio Tagliafico; Lucia Martino; Bianca Bignotti; Massimo Calabrese; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) and the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa).

Authors:  Daniela Bernardi; Paolo Belli; Eva Benelli; Beniamino Brancato; Lauro Bucchi; Massimo Calabrese; Luca A Carbonaro; Francesca Caumo; Beatrice Cavallo-Marincola; Paola Clauser; Chiara Fedato; Alfonso Frigerio; Vania Galli; Livia Giordano; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Paola Golinelli; Doralba Morrone; Giovanna Mariscotti; Laura Martincich; Stefania Montemezzi; Carlo Naldoni; Adriana Paduos; Pietro Panizza; Federica Pediconi; Fiammetta Querci; Antonio Rizzo; Gianni Saguatti; Alberto Tagliafico; Rubina M Trimboli; Marco Zappa; Chiara Zuiani; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 3.469

6.  Comparison of radiation doses between diagnostic full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a clinical study.

Authors:  Akram M Asbeutah; Abdullah A AlMajran; Ajit Brindhaban; Saad A Asbeutah
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2020-06-03
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.