Literature DB >> 9127443

Determination of average glandular dose with modern mammography units for two large groups of patients.

R Klein1, H Aichinger, J Dierker, J T Jansen, S Joite-Barfuss, M Säbel, R Schulz-Wendtland, J Zoetelief.   

Abstract

Until recently, for mammography Mo anode-Mo filter x-ray tube assemblies were almost exclusively used. Modern mammography units provide the possibility to employ a variety of anode-filter combinations with the aim of adapting the x-ray spectrum to compressed breast thickness and composition. The present contribution provides information on the radiation exposure of two large groups of patients (one of 1678 and one of 945 women) who were mammographed with modern x-ray equipment, and on the dosimetry necessary for the evaluation. For dosimetric purposes spectral information is essential. X-ray spectra have been determined for various anode-filter combinations from measurements with a Ge detector. Based on these spectra, conversion factors from air kerma free in air to average glandular dose (g factors) have been calculated for different anode-filter combinations, compressed breast thickness ranging from 2 to 9 cm and breast compositions varying from 0 to 100% glandular tissue. Determinations of various quantities, including entrance surface air kerma (ESAK), tube output, tube loading (TL), fraction of glandular tissue (FGL) and compressed breast thickness, were made during actual mammography. Average glandular dose (AGD) was determined using g factors corrected for tissue composition as well as g values for standard breast composition, i.e. 50% adipose tissue and 50% glandular tissue by mass. It is shown that, on average, the influence of the actual breast composition causes variations of the order of about 15%. For group 1 and group 2, the mean values of average glandular dose (using g factors corrected for tissue composition) were 1.59 and 2.07 mGy respectively. The number of exposures per woman was on average 3.4 and 3.6 respectively. The mean value of compressed breast thickness was 55.9 and 50.8 mm respectively. The mean age of group 1 was 53.6 years (for group 2 the age was not recorded). The fraction by mass of glandular tissue FGL decrease with increasing compressed breast thickness and age of patient (from 75% at 25 mm to 20% at 80 mm, and from 65% at 20 years to 30% at 75 years). For a medium-sized breast, i.e. a compressed breast thickness of 55 mm, FGL is about 35%, indicating that the standard mix (FGL = 50%) might need some modification, particularly because of additional evidence from another investigation with similar results on FGL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9127443     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/42/4/004

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


  10 in total

1.  Efficacy of breast shielding during CT of the head.

Authors:  Z Brnić; B Vekić; A Hebrang; P Anić
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-06-25       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Development of an imaging-planning program for screen/film and computed radiography mammography for breasts with short chest wall to nipple distance.

Authors:  S L Dong; J L Su; Y H Yeh; T C Chu; Y C Lin; K S Chuang
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  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

4.  DNA double strand breaks induced by low dose mammography X-rays in breast tissue: A pilot study.

Authors:  Julie Depuydt; Tanguy Viaene; Phillip Blondeel; Nathalie Roche; Rudy Van den Broecke; Hubert Thierens; Anne Vral
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 2.967

5.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced breast tomosynthesis: optimization of beam quality for dose and image quality.

Authors:  Ehsan Samei; Robert S Saunders
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-09-09       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: an Italian survey.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Paola Baldelli; Angelo Taibi; Cosimo Di Maggio; Mauro Gambaccini
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-08-12       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Personalized estimates of radiation dose from dedicated breast CT in a diagnostic population and comparison with diagnostic mammography.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Linxi Shi; Andrew Karellas; Avice M O'Connell; David L Conover
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 8.  Reconstruction of absorbed doses to fibroglandular tissue of the breast of women undergoing mammography (1960 to the present).

Authors:  Isabelle Thierry-Chef; Steven L Simon; Robert M Weinstock; Deukwoo Kwon; Martha S Linet
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2011-10-12       Impact factor: 2.841

9.  Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Cosimo di Maggio
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-05-30       Impact factor: 7.034

10.  Human observer performance on in-plane digital breast tomosynthesis images: Effects of reconstruction filters and data acquisition angles on signal detection.

Authors:  Changwoo Lee; Minah Han; Jongduk Baek
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-03-12       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.