Literature DB >> 24165162

Personalized estimates of radiation dose from dedicated breast CT in a diagnostic population and comparison with diagnostic mammography.

Srinivasan Vedantham1, Linxi Shi, Andrew Karellas, Avice M O'Connell, David L Conover.   

Abstract

This study retrospectively analyzed the mean glandular dose (MGD) to 133 breasts from 132 subjects, all women, who participated in a clinical trial evaluating dedicated breast CT in a diagnostic population. The clinical trial was conducted in adherence to a protocol approved by institutional review boards and the study participants provided written informed consent. Individual estimates of MGD to each breast from dedicated breast CT was obtained by combining x-ray beam characteristics with estimates of breast dimensions and fibroglandular fraction from volumetric breast CT images, and using normalized glandular dose coefficients. For each study participant and for the breast corresponding to that imaged with breast CT, an estimate of the MGD from diagnostic mammography (including supplemental views) was obtained from the DICOM image headers for comparison. This estimate uses normalized glandular dose coefficients corresponding to a breast with 50% fibroglandular weight fraction. The median fibroglandular weight fraction for the study cohort determined from volumetric breast CT images was 15%. Hence, the MGD from diagnostic mammography was corrected to be representative of the study cohort. Individualized estimates of MGD from breast CT ranged from 5.7 to 27.8 mGy. Corresponding to the breasts imaged with breast CT, the MGD from diagnostic mammography ranged from 2.6 to 31.6 mGy. The mean (± inter-breast SD) and the median MGD (mGy) from dedicated breast CT exam were 13.9 ± 4.6 and 12.6, respectively. For the corresponding breasts, the mean (± inter-breast SD) and the median MGD (mGy) from diagnostic mammography were 12.4 ± 6.3 and 11.1, respectively. Statistical analysis indicated that at the 0.05 level, the distributions of MGD from dedicated breast CT and diagnostic mammography were significantly different (Wilcoxon signed ranks test, p = 0.007). While the interquartile range and the range (maximum-minimum) of MGD from dedicated breast CT was lower than diagnostic mammography, the median MGD from dedicated breast CT was approximately 13.5% higher than that from diagnostic mammography. The MGD for breast CT is based on a 1.45 mm skin layer and that for diagnostic mammography is based on a 4 mm skin layer; thus, favoring a lower estimate for MGD from diagnostic mammography. The median MGD from dedicated breast CT corresponds to the median MGD from four to five diagnostic mammography views. In comparison, for the same 133 breasts, the mean and the median number of views per breast during diagnostic mammography were 4.53 and 4, respectively. Paired analysis showed that there was approximately equal likelihood of receiving lower MGD from either breast CT or diagnostic mammography. Future work will investigate methods to reduce and optimize radiation dose from dedicated breast CT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24165162      PMCID: PMC3872967          DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/22/7921

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  54 in total

1.  The myth of the 50-50 breast.

Authors:  M J Yaffe; J M Boone; N Packard; O Alonzo-Proulx; S Y Huang; C L Peressotti; A Al-Mayah; K Brock
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  NPS characterization and evaluation of a cone beam CT breast imaging system.

Authors:  Ricardo Betancourt Benítez; Ruola Ning; David Conover; Shaohua Liu
Journal:  J Xray Sci Technol       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.535

3.  The effect of skin thickness determined using breast CT on mammographic dosimetry.

Authors:  Shih-Ying Huang; John M Boone; Kai Yang; Alexander L C Kwan; Nathan J Packard
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  A factorization approach for cone-beam reconstruction on a circular short-scan.

Authors:  Frank Dennerlein; Frédéric Noo; Harald Schöndube; Günter Lauritsch; Joachim Hornegger
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 10.048

5.  Observer detection limits for a dedicated SPECT breast imaging system.

Authors:  S J Cutler; K L Perez; H X Barnhart; M P Tornai
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-03-12       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  A pooled analysis of interval cancer rates in six European countries.

Authors:  Sven Törnberg; Levent Kemetli; Nieves Ascunce; Solveig Hofvind; Ahti Anttila; Brigitte Sèradour; Eugenio Paci; Cathrine Guldenfels; Edward Azavedo; Alfonso Frigerio; Vitor Rodrigues; Antonio Ponti
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.497

7.  PET characteristics of a dedicated breast PET/CT scanner prototype.

Authors:  Yibao Wu; Spencer L Bowen; Kai Yang; Nathan Packard; Lin Fu; George Burkett; Jinyi Qi; John M Boone; Simon R Cherry; Ramsey D Badawi
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2009-06-17       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Evaluation of tilted cone-beam CT orbits in the development of a dedicated hybrid mammotomograph.

Authors:  P Madhav; D J Crotty; R L McKinley; M P Tornai
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2009-05-28       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Characterizing anatomical variability in breast CT images.

Authors:  Kathrine G Metheany; Craig K Abbey; Nathan Packard; John M Boone
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Further factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols.

Authors:  D R Dance; K C Young; R E van Engen
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2009-06-23       Impact factor: 3.609

View more
  21 in total

1.  Three dimensional dose distribution comparison of simple and complex acquisition trajectories in dedicated breast CT.

Authors:  Jainil P Shah; Steve D Mann; Randolph L McKinley; Martin P Tornai
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  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 3.  Newer Technologies in Breast Cancer Imaging: Dedicated Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography.

Authors:  Avice M O'Connell; Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham; Daniel T Kawakyu-O'Connor
Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 1.875

4.  Emerging Breast Imaging Technologies on the Horizon.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas
Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR       Date:  2017-09-13       Impact factor: 1.875

5.  Investigation of x-ray spectra for iodinated contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT.

Authors:  Stephen J Glick; Andrey Makeev
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-01-26

6.  Cone-beam breast computed tomography using ultra-fast image reconstruction with constrained, total-variation minimization for suppression of artifacts.

Authors:  Hsin Wu Tseng; Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 2.685

7.  Library based x-ray scatter correction for dedicated cone beam breast CT.

Authors:  Linxi Shi; Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas; Lei Zhu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 8.  Ultrasound Imaging Technologies for Breast Cancer Detection and Management: A Review.

Authors:  Rongrong Guo; Guolan Lu; Binjie Qin; Baowei Fei
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 2.998

9.  Large-angle x-ray scatter in Talbot-Lau interferometry for breast imaging.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Linxi Shi; Andrew Karellas
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.