Yoonmi Choi1, Ok-Hee Woo2, Hye-Sun Shin1, Kyu Ran Cho1, Bo Kyoung Seo1, Ga-Young Choi1. 1. Department of Radiology, Korea University Guro Hospital, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Korea University Guro Hospital, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: wokhee@korea.ac.kr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Currently in diagnostic setting for breast cancer, FFDM and DBT are performed conjunctively. However, performing two imaging modalities may increase radiation exposure by double. Two-dimensional reconstructed images created from DBT with 2DSM, has a potential to replace conventional FFDM in concerning both radiation dosage and image quality. With increasing concerns for individual radiation exposure, studies analyzing radiation dosage in breast imaging modalities are needed. This study compared radiation dosage and image quality between DBT + 2DSM versus FFDM. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 374 patients (mean age 52 years) who underwent both DBT and FFDM were retrospectively reviewed. Radiation dosage data were obtained by radiation dosage scoring and monitoring program Radimetrics (Bayer HealthCare, Whippany, NJ). Entrance dose and mean glandular doses in each breast were obtained for both modalities. To compare image quality of DBT + 2DSM and FFDM, a 5-point scoring system for lesion clarity was assessed. The parameters of radiation dosage (entrance dose, mean glandular dose) and image quality (lesion clarity scoring) were compared. RESULTS: For entrance dose, DBT had lower mean dosage (14.8 mGy) compared with FFDM (21.8 mGy, p-value < 0.0001). Mean glandular doses for both breasts were lower in DBT (Left 1.74, Right 2.1) compared with FFDM (Left 2.85, Right 2.74, p-value < 0.0001). Lesion clarity score was higher in DBT with 2DSM (mean score 4.03) compared with FFDM (3.82, p-value < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: DBT showed lower radiation entrance dose and mean glandular doses to both breasts compared with FFDM. DBT + 2DSM had better image quality than FFDM, suggesting that DBT with 2DSM has potential as an alternative to FFDM.
PURPOSE: Currently in diagnostic setting for breast cancer, FFDM and DBT are performed conjunctively. However, performing two imaging modalities may increase radiation exposure by double. Two-dimensional reconstructed images created from DBT with 2DSM, has a potential to replace conventional FFDM in concerning both radiation dosage and image quality. With increasing concerns for individual radiation exposure, studies analyzing radiation dosage in breast imaging modalities are needed. This study compared radiation dosage and image quality between DBT + 2DSM versus FFDM. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 374 patients (mean age 52 years) who underwent both DBT and FFDM were retrospectively reviewed. Radiation dosage data were obtained by radiation dosage scoring and monitoring program Radimetrics (Bayer HealthCare, Whippany, NJ). Entrance dose and mean glandular doses in each breast were obtained for both modalities. To compare image quality of DBT + 2DSM and FFDM, a 5-point scoring system for lesion clarity was assessed. The parameters of radiation dosage (entrance dose, mean glandular dose) and image quality (lesion clarity scoring) were compared. RESULTS: For entrance dose, DBT had lower mean dosage (14.8 mGy) compared with FFDM (21.8 mGy, p-value < 0.0001). Mean glandular doses for both breasts were lower in DBT (Left 1.74, Right 2.1) compared with FFDM (Left 2.85, Right 2.74, p-value < 0.0001). Lesion clarity score was higher in DBT with 2DSM (mean score 4.03) compared with FFDM (3.82, p-value < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: DBT showed lower radiation entrance dose and mean glandular doses to both breasts compared with FFDM. DBT + 2DSM had better image quality than FFDM, suggesting that DBT with 2DSM has potential as an alternative to FFDM.
Keywords:
2-Dimensional synthetic mammography; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Full-field digital mammography; Image quality; Radiation dose; Radimetrics
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