Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: Dosimetric characterization

Radiology

Volumn 263, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 35-42

  Feng, Steve Si Jia ^a   Sechopoulos, Ioannis ^b  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AIR KERMA; ARTICLE; AUTOMATIC EXPOSURE CONTROL; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DOSIMETRY; FILM DOSIMETER; FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; IMAGING AND DISPLAY; MEAN GLANDULAR DOSE; MEDICAL DEVICE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; TWO DIMENSIONAL THREE DIMENSIONAL FUSION IMAGING; X RAY TUBE; BREAST TUMOR; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOMETRY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAMMOGRAPHY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOMETRY;

EID: 84861302992     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11111789     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 1997;205(2):399-406. (Pubitemid 27467317)
2. Wu T, Zhang J, Moore R, et al. Digital tomosynthesis mammography using a parallel maximum-likelihood reconstruction method. Proc SPIE 2004;5368:1-11.
3. Sechopoulos I, Suryanarayanan S, Vedantham S, D'Orsi C, Karellas A. Computation of the glandular radiation dose in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. Med Phys 2007;34(1):221-232. (Pubitemid 46035245)
4. Moore RH, Kopans DB, Rafferty EA, Georgian-Smith D, Hitt RA, Yeh ED. Initial callback rates for conventional and digital breast tomosynthesis mammography comparison in the screening setting [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2007; 381.
5. Helvie MA, Roubidoux MA, Hadjiiski LM, Zhang Y, Carson PL, Chan HP. Tomosynthesis mammography versus conventional mammography: comparison of breast masses detection and characterization [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2007;381.
6. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189(3):616-623. (Pubitemid 47328544)
7. Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 2008;18(12):2817-2825.
8. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(2):586-591.
9. Sechopoulos I, D'Orsi CJ. Glandular radiation dose in tomosynthesis of the breast using tungsten targets. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2008;9(4):2887.
10. Ma AKW, Darambara DG, Stewart A, Gunn S, Bullard E. Mean glandular dose estimation using MCNPX for a digital breast tomosynthesis system with tungsten/aluminum and tungsten/aluminum+silver x-ray anodefilter combinations. Med Phys 2008;35(12):5278-5289.
11. Dance DR, Young KC, van Engen RE. Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol 2011;56(2):453-471.
12. Ren B, Ruth C, Wu T, et al. A new generation FFDM/tomosynthesis fusion system with selenium detector. Proc SPIE 2010;7622:76220B-76211.
13. Saito M. Dual-energy approach to contrast-enhanced mammography using the balanced filter method: spectral optimization and preliminary phantom measurement. Med Phys 2007;34(11):4236-4246. (Pubitemid 350029645)
14. Sechopoulos I, Feng SSJ, D'Orsi CJ. Dosimetric characterization of a dedicated breast computed tomography clinical prototype. Med Phys 2010;37(8):4110-4120.
15. Yaffe MJ, Boone JM, Packard N, et al. The myth of the 50-50 breast. Med Phys 2009;36(12):5437-5443.
16. Boone JM, Fewell TR, Jennings RJ. Molybdenum, rhodium, and tungsten anode spectral models using interpolating polynomials with application to mammography. Med Phys 1997;24(12):1863-1874. (Pubitemid 28013501)
17. Agostinelli S, Allison J, Amako K, et al. Geant4: a simulation toolkit. Nucl Instrum Meth A 2003;506(3):250-303.
18. Allison J, Amako K, Apostolakis J, et al. Geant4 developments and applications. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2006;53(1):270-278.
19. SechopoulosI, SuryanarayananS, Vedantham S, D'Orsi CJ, Karellas A. Scatter radiation in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. Med Phys 2007;34(2):564-576. (Pubitemid 46185136)
20. Boone JM. Glandular breast dose for monoenergetic and high-energy X-ray beams: Monte Carlo assessment. Radiology 1999;213(1):23-37. (Pubitemid 29470402)
21. Wilkinson L, Heggie JCP. Glandular Breast Dose: Potential Errors [eletter]. http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/eletters/213/1/23. Accessed November 21, 2005.
22. Boone JM. Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for arbitrary X-ray spectra in mammography: computer-fit values of Monte Carlo derived data. Med Phys 2002;29(5):869-875. (Pubitemid 34525916)
23. Hammerstein GR, Miller DW, White DR, Masterson ME, Woodard HQ, Laughlin JS. Absorbed radiation dose in mammography. Radiology 1979;130(2):485-491. (Pubitemid 9070569)
24. Boone JM, Lindfors KK, Cooper VN 3rd, Seibert JA. Scatter/primary in mammography: comprehensive results. Med Phys 2000;27(10):2408-2416.
25. Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A, et al. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194(2):362-369.
26. Michell MJ, Wasan RK, Iqbal A, Peacock C, Evans DR, Morel JC. Two-view 2D digital mammography versus one-view digital breast tomosynthesis. In: Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group Annual Scientific Meeting 2010. Brighton, England: BioMed Central, 2010; 3.
27. Rafferty EA. Digital mammography: novel applications. Radiol Clin North Am 2007;45(5):831-843, vii. (Pubitemid 47411641)
28. Jamal N, Ng KH, McLean D. A study of mean glandular dose during diagnostic mammography in Malaysia and some of the factors affecting it. Br J Radiol 2003;76(904):238-245. (Pubitemid 36582068)
29. Young KC, Burch A. Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 1997 and 1998. Br J Radiol 2000;73(867):278-287. (Pubitemid 30192800)