Literature DB >> 29400552

Integrating mammographic breast density in glandular dose calculation.

Moayyad E Suleiman1, Patrick C Brennan1, Ernest Ekpo1, Peter Kench1, Mark F McEntee1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This work proposes the use of mammographic breast density (MBD) to estimate actual glandular dose (AGD), and assesses how AGD compares to mean glandular dose (MGD) estimated using Dance et al method.
METHODS: A retrospective sample of anonymised mammograms (52,405) was retrieved from a central database. Technical parameters and patient characteristics were exported from the Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM) header using third party software. LIBRA (Laboratory for Individualized Breast Radiodensity Assessment) software package (University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA) was used to estimate MBDs for each mammogram included in the data set. MGD was estimated using Dance et al method, while AGD was calculated by replacing Dance et al standard glandularities with LIBRA estimated MBDs. A linear regression analysis was used to assess the association between MGD and AGD, and a Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess their mean difference.
RESULTS: The final data set included 31,097 mammograms from 7728 females. MGD, AGD, and MBD medians were 1.53 , 1.62 mGy and 8% respectively. When stratified per breast thickness ranges, median MBDs were lower than Dance's standard glandularities. There was a strong positive correlation (R2 = 0.987, p < 0.0001) between MGD and AGD although the Bland-Altman analysis revealed a small statistically significant bias of 0.087 mGy between MGD and AGD (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: AGD estimated from MBD is highly correlated to MGD from Dance method, albeit the Dance method underestimates dose at smaller CBTs. Advances in knowledge: Our work should provide a stepping-stone towards an individualised dose estimation using automated clinical measures of MBD.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29400552      PMCID: PMC6190790          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20180032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  36 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.  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

3.  Using the Bland-Altman method to measure agreement with repeated measures.

Authors:  P S Myles; J Cui
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 9.166

4.  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

5.  Parametrization of mammography normalized average glandular dose tables.

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

6.  Mathematical modelling of radiation-induced cancer risk from breast screening by mammography.

Authors:  Raed M K M Ali; Andrew England; Claire Mercer; Andrew Tootell; Lucy Walton; Wouter Schaake; Peter Hogg
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 3.528

Review 7.  Mammography-oncogenecity at low doses.

Authors:  G J Heyes; A J Mill; M W Charles
Journal:  J Radiol Prot       Date:  2009-05-19       Impact factor: 1.394

8.  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

Review 9.  Mammary epithelial cell transformation: insights from cell culture and mouse models.

Authors:  Goberdhan Dimri; Hamid Band; Vimla Band
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2005-06-03       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians.

Authors:  John D Mathews; Anna V Forsythe; Zoe Brady; Martin W Butler; Stacy K Goergen; Graham B Byrnes; Graham G Giles; Anthony B Wallace; Philip R Anderson; Tenniel A Guiver; Paul McGale; Timothy M Cain; James G Dowty; Adrian C Bickerstaffe; Sarah C Darby
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-05-21
View more
  1 in total

1.  Breast-iRRISC: a novel model for predicting the individualised lifetime risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from a single screening event.

Authors:  Sahand Hooshmand; Warren M Reed; Mo'ayyad E Suleiman; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 3.039

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.