Literature DB >> 26407015

Average glandular dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of phantom and patient data.

R W Bouwman1, R E van Engen, K C Young, G J den Heeten, M J M Broeders, S Schopphoven, C R L P N Jeukens, W J H Veldkamp, D R Dance.   

Abstract

For the evaluation of the average glandular dose (AGD) in digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) phantoms simulating standard model breasts are used. These phantoms consist of slabs of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) or a combination of PMMA and polyethylene (PE). In the last decades the automatic exposure control (AEC) increased in complexity and became more sensitive to (local) differences in breast composition. The question is how well the AGD estimated using these simple dosimetry phantoms agrees with the average patient AGD. In this study the AGDs for both dosimetry phantoms and for patients have been evaluated for 5 different x-ray systems in DM and DBT modes. It was found that the ratios between patient and phantom AGD did not differ considerably using both dosimetry phantoms. These ratios averaged over all breast thicknesses were 1.14 and 1.15 for the PMMA and PMMA-PE dosimetry phantoms respectively in DM mode and 1.00 and 1.02 in the DBT mode. These ratios were deemed to be sufficiently close to unity to be suitable for dosimetry evaluation in quality control procedures. However care should be taken when comparing systems for DM and DBT since depending on the AEC operation, ratios for particular breast thicknesses may differ substantially (0.83-1.96). Although the predictions of both phantoms are similar we advise the use of PMMA  +  PE slabs for both DM and DBT to harmonize dosimetry protocols and avoid any potential issues with the use of spacers with the PMMA phantoms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26407015     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/20/7893

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


  4 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: a manufacturer- and metrics-specific analysis.

Authors:  A Hadjipanteli; M Kontos; A Constantinidou
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 3.989

3.  The effect of breast density on the missed lesion rate in screening digital mammography determined using an adjustable-density breast phantom tailored to Japanese women.

Authors:  Mika Yamamuro; Yoshiyuki Asai; Naomi Hashimoto; Nao Yasuda; Yoshiaki Ozaki; Kazunari Ishii; Yongbum Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Breast Radiation Exposure of 3D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared to Full-Field Digital Mammography in a Clinical Follow-Up Setting.

Authors:  Marcel Opitz; Sebastian Zensen; Katharina Breuckmann; Denise Bos; Michael Forsting; Oliver Hoffmann; Martin Stuschke; Axel Wetter; Nika Guberina
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-10
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.