Literature DB >> 25554018

Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography.

T M Svahn1, N Houssami2, I Sechopoulos3, S Mattsson4.   

Abstract

We examined how radiation dose levels in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) differ from those used in 2-view full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Acquisition parameter settings and information on the average absorbed dose to the glandular tissues within the breasts were reviewed based on clinical studies that evaluated DBT and FFDM. Dose ratios (DDBT/DFFDM) were derived from imaging protocols, which included tomosynthesis in 1- or 2-views alone, and as an adjunct technique to FFDM. Stand-alone DBT was associated with a much lower to a slightly higher radiation dose compared to that of comparable FFDM units, as summarized in dose ratio ranges of 0.34-1.0 for 1-view DBT, and 0.68-1.17 for 2-view DBT. One of the lowest reported dose estimates was obtained using a photon-counting DBT unit (avg. 0.70 mGy/scan; range: 0.28-1.26 mGy). Breast doses for DBT combined with FFDM are summarized in dose ratio ranges of 1.03-1.5 for 1-view DBT plus FFDM, and 2.0-2.23 for 2-view DBT plus FFDM. In the latter of these settings, the dose was reduced by ∼45% when 2D-views, reconstructed from the DBT images ("synthetic 2D images"), were used as a substitute for FFDM. Stand-alone DBT operated at lower to slightly higher radiation doses in comparison to FFDM. For DBT combined with FFDM, radiation doses were elevated, at maximum by a factor ∼2 1/4 of that of FFDM alone. In this setting, a replacement of FFDM with synthetic 2D-views reduced the breast dose approximately by half, which has substantial implications for population screening programs.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Digital breast tomosynthesis; Full-field digital mammography; Radiation doses to the breast

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25554018      PMCID: PMC5064843          DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2014.12.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast        ISSN: 0960-9776            Impact factor:   4.380


  40 in total

1.  Glandular breast dose for monoenergetic and high-energy X-ray beams: Monte Carlo assessment.

Authors:  J M Boone
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study.

Authors:  Matthew G Wallis; Elin Moa; Federica Zanca; Karin Leifland; Mats Danielsson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-01-24       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study.

Authors:  Walter F Good; Gordon S Abrams; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; David Gur
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  The ACR's Mammography Accreditation Program: ten years of experience since MQSA.

Authors:  Judy M Destouet; Lawrence W Bassett; Martin J Yaffe; Priscilla F Butler; Pamela A Wilcox
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 5.532

5.  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

6.  Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization.

Authors:  Steve Si Jia Feng; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-02-13       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  M J Michell; A Iqbal; R K Wasan; D R Evans; C Peacock; C P Lawinski; A Douiri; R Wilson; P Whelehan
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 2.350

8.  The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study.

Authors:  T Svahn; I Andersson; D Chakraborty; S Svensson; D Ikeda; D Förnvik; S Mattsson; A Tingberg; S Zackrisson
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2010-03-12       Impact factor: 0.972

9.  Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study.

Authors:  David Gur; Margarita L Zuley; Maria I Anello; Grace Y Rathfon; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; Luisa Wallace; Amy Lu; Andriy I Bandos
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-11-18       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  Glandular radiation dose in tomosynthesis of the breast using tungsten targets.

Authors:  Ioannis Sechopoulosa; Carl J D'Orsi
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2008-10-24       Impact factor: 2.102

View more
  40 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.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Concepts and Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Alice Chong; Susan P Weinstein; Elizabeth S McDonald; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Applications of Advanced Breast Imaging Modalities.

Authors:  Arwa A Alzaghal; Pamela J DiPiro
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 5.075

4.  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

5.  Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast: Appearance on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Ahuva Grubstein; Yael Rapson; Sara Morgenstern; Itai Gadiel; Amit Haboosheh; Rinat Yerushalmi; Maya Cohen
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2016-10-12       Impact factor: 2.860

6.  Can the synthetic C view images be used in isolation for diagnosing breast malignancy without reviewing the entire digital breast tomosynthesis data set?

Authors:  Mark C Murphy; Louise Coffey; Ailbhe C O'Neill; Cecily Quinn; Ruth Prichard; Sorcha McNally
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 1.568

7.  Implementation of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography in a Population-based Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Program.

Authors:  Samantha P Zuckerman; Emily F Conant; Brad M Keller; Andrew D A Maidment; Bruno Barufaldi; Susan P Weinstein; Marie Synnestvedt; Elizabeth S McDonald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Diagnostic value of the stand-alone synthetic image in digital breast tomosynthesis examinations.

Authors:  Julia Garayoa; Margarita Chevalier; Maria Castillo; Ignacio Mahillo-Fernández; Najim Amallal El Ouahabi; Carmen Estrada; Alejandro Tejerina; Olivia Benitez; Julio Valverde
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 9.  An overview of kidney stone imaging techniques.

Authors:  Wayne Brisbane; Michael R Bailey; Mathew D Sorensen
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 14.432

10.  Cost-effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Population-based Breast Cancer Screening: A Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis.

Authors:  Valérie D V Sankatsing; Karolina Juraniec; Sabine E Grimm; Manuela A Joore; Ruud M Pijnappel; Harry J de Koning; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-08-04       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.