Literature DB >> 28149921

Mean glandular dose in digital mammography: a dose calculation method comparison.

Moayyad E Suleiman1, Patrick C Brennan1, Mark F McEntee1.   

Abstract

Our objective was to analyze the agreement between organ dose estimated by different digital mammography units and calculated dose for clinical data. Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine header information was extracted from 52,405 anonymized mammograms. Data were filtered to include images with no breast implants, breast thicknesses 20 to 110 mm, and complete exposure and quality assurance data. Mean glandular dose was calculated using methods by Dance et al., Wu et al., and Boone et al. Bland-Altman analysis and regression were used to study the agreement and correlation between organ and calculated doses. Bland-Altman showed statistically significant bias between organ and calculated doses. The bias differed for different unit makes and models; Philips had the lowest bias, overestimating Dance method by 0.03 mGy, while general electric had the highest bias, overestimating Wu method by 0.20 mGy, the Hologic organ dose underestimated Boone method by 0.07 mGy, and the Fujifilm organ dose underestimated Dance method by 0.09 mGy. Organ dose was found to disagree with our calculated dose, yet organ dose is potentially beneficial for rapid dose audits. Conclusions drawn based on the organ dose alone come with a risk of over or underestimating the calculated dose to the patient and this error should be considered in any reported results.

Entities:  

Keywords:  dosimetry; organ dose; radiation; screening mammography

Year:  2017        PMID: 28149921      PMCID: PMC5260632          DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.4.1.013502

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)        ISSN: 2329-4302


  18 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.  A parametric method for determining mammographic X-ray tube output and half value layer.

Authors:  K J Robson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for arbitrary X-ray spectra in mammography: computer-fit values of Monte Carlo derived data.

Authors:  John M Boone
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol.

Authors:  D R Dance; C L Skinner; K C Young; J R Beckett; C J Kotre
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Clinical dose performance of full field digital mammography in a breast screening programme.

Authors:  J B McCullagh; P Baldelli; N Phelan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-05-17       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Parametrization of mammography normalized average glandular dose tables.

Authors:  W T Sobol; X Wu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 7.  Diagnostic reference levels in digital mammography: a systematic review.

Authors:  Moayyad E Suleiman; Patrick C Brennan; Mark F McEntee
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2014-12-27       Impact factor: 0.972

8.  Analysis of breast cancer mortality and stage distribution by age for the Health Insurance Plan clinical trial.

Authors:  K C Chu; C R Smart; R E Tarone
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1988-09-21       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  A study to determine the differences between the displayed dose values for two full-field digitalmammography units and values calculated using a range of Monte-Carlo-based techniques:a phantom study.

Authors:  M Borg; I Badr; G J Royle
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2012-08-26       Impact factor: 0.972

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
  3 in total

1.  Characterization of the imaging settings in screening mammography using a tracking and reporting system: A multi-center and multi-vendor analysis.

Authors:  Bruno Barufaldi; Samantha P Zuckerman; Regina B Medeiros; Andrew D Maidment; Homero Schiabel
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 2.685

2.  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

3.  Comparison between Recorded and Measured Radiation Doses in Diagnostic Full-field Digital Mammography: A Phantom Study.

Authors:  Akram Mahmoud Asbeutah; Ajit Brindhaban
Journal:  J Clin Imaging Sci       Date:  2020-11-13
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.