Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis

RoFo Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Rontgenstrahlen und der Bildgebenden Verfahren

Volumn 184, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 911-918

  Olgar, T ^a,b   Kahn, T ^b   Gosch, D ^b  

^a ANKARA UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

Author keywords

average glandular dose; breast tomosynthesis; compressed breast thickness; digital mammography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; AVERAGE GLANDULAR DOSE; BREAST; BREAST CANCER; BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGING AND DISPLAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOMETRY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84866737132     PISSN: 14389029     EISSN: 14389010     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1312877     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Nyström L., Rutqvist L. E., Wall S. et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomized trials. Lancet: 1993; 341 973 978 (Pubitemid 23109165)
2. Law J., Faulkner K., Young K. C. Risk factors for induction of breast cancer by X-rays and their implications for breast screening. Br J Radiol: 2007; 80 261 266 (Pubitemid 47022817)
3. Klein R., Aichinger H., Dierker J. et al. Determination of average glandular dose with modern mammography units for two large groups of patients. Phys Med Biol: 1997; 42 651 671 (Pubitemid 27195899)
4. Wu X., Gingold E. L., Barns G. et al. Normalized average glandular dose in molybdenum target-rhodium filter and rhodium target-rhodium filter mammography. Radiology: 1994; 193 83 89 (Pubitemid 24298004)
5. Boone J. M. Glandular Breast Dose for Monoenergetic and High-Energy X-ray Beams: Monte Carlo Assessment. Radiology: 1999; 213 23 37 (Pubitemid 29470402)
6. Dance D. R. Monte-Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose. Phys Med Biol: 1990; 35 1211 1219 (Pubitemid 20264595)
7. Pisano E. D., Yaffe M. J. Digital mammography. Radiology: 2005; 234 353 362 (Pubitemid 40139903)
8. Lewin J. M., Hendrich R. E., DOrsi C. J. et al. Comparison of full field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology: 2001; 218 873 880 (Pubitemid 32172576)
9. Skaane P., Young K., Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft copy reading Oslo I study. Radiology: 2003; 229 877 884 (Pubitemid 37467596)
10. Skaane P., Skjennald A. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program The Oslo II study. Radiology: 2004; 232 197 204 (Pubitemid 38787838)
11. Pisano E. D., Gatsonis C., Hendrick E. et al. Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med: 2005; 353 1773 1783
12. Weigel S., Girnus R., Czwoydzinski J. et al. Digital mammography screening: Average glandular dose and first performance parameters. Fortschr Röntgenstr: 2007; 179 892 895 (Pubitemid 47596412)
13. Heddson B., Rönnow K., Olsson M. et al. Digital versus screen-film mammography: A retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. Eur J Radiol: 2007; 64 419 425 (Pubitemid 350116481)
14. Gennaro G., di Maggio C. Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography. Eur Radiol: 2006; 16 2559 2566 (Pubitemid 44649706)
15. Hendrich R. E., Pisano E. D., 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. Am J Roentgenol: 2010; 194 362 369
16. Park J. M., Franken E. A. Jr, Garg M. et al. Breast Tomosynthesis: Present considerations and future applications. RadioGraphics: 2007; 27 231 240
17. Semturs F., Sturm E., Gruber R. et al. Physical aspects of different tomosynthesis systems. Radiologe: 2010; 50 982 990
18. Teertstra H. J., Loo C. E., van den Bosch M. A. et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol: 2010; 20 16 24
19. Poplack S. P., Tosteson T. D., Kogel C. H. et al. Digital Breast tomosynthesis: Initial Experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mamography. Am J Roentgenol: 2007; 189 616 623 (Pubitemid 47328544)
20. Michell M., Wasan R., Whelehan P. et al. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A comparison of the accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis, two-dimensional digital mamography and two-dimensional screening mamography (film-screen). Breast Cancer Research: 2009; 11 01
21. Andersson I., Ikeda D. M., Zackrisson S. et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mamography: A comparison of breast cancer visibility and BI-RADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mamographic findings. Eur Radiology: 2008; 18 2817 2825
22. Gennaro G., Toledano A., di Maggio C. et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol: 2010; 20 1545 1553
23. European Commission European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening. In: European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. EUREF (Luxembourg: European Commission): 2006; 4th edn
24. Boone J. M. Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for arbitrary x-ray spectra in mammography: Computer-fit values of Monte Carlo derived data. Med Phys: 2002; 29 869 875 (Pubitemid 34525916)
25. Boone J. M., Feweel T. R., Jennings R. J. Molybdenum, rhodium, and tungsten anode spectral models using interpolating polynomials with application to mammography. Med Phys: 1997; 24 1863 1874 (Pubitemid 28013501)
26. Hartman K., Highnam R., Warren R. et al. Volumetric assessment of breast tissue composition from FFDM images. Springer-Verlag IWDM 2008; LNCS 5116: 33 39
27. Young K. C., Ramsdale M. L., Bignell F. Review of dosimetric methods for mammography in the UK breast screening programme. Radiat Prot Dosim: 1998; 80 183 186 (Pubitemid 29015519)
28. Kruger R. L., Schueler B. A. A survey of clinical factors and patient dose in mammography. Med Phys: 2001; 28 1449 1454 (Pubitemid 32667286)
29. Gosch D., Jendrass S., Scholz M. et al. Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a selenium flat-panel detector. Fortschr Röntgenstr: 2006; 178 693 697 (Pubitemid 44195157)
30. Hermann K. P., Obenauer S., Marten K. et al. Average glandular dose with amorphous silicon full-field digital mammography Clinical results. Fortschr Röntgenstr: 2002; 174 696 699 (Pubitemid 34664163)
31. Riabi H. A., Mehnati P., Meshabi A. Evaluation of mean glandular dose in a full-field digital mammography unit in Tabriz, Iran. Radiat Prot Dosimetry: 2010; 142 222 227
32. Thilander-Klang A., Ackerholm P., Berlin I. et al. Influence of anode-filter combinations on image quality and radiation dose in 965 women undergoing mammography. Radiology: 1997; 203 348 354 (Pubitemid 27176204)
33. Uhlenbrock D. F., Mertelmeier T. Comparison of anode/fitler combinations in digital mammography with respect to the average glandular dose. Fortschr Röntgenstr: 2009; 181 249 254
34. Toroi P., Federica Z., Young K. C. et al. Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/fitler combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system. Eur Radiol: 2007; 17 2368 2375 (Pubitemid 47288275)
35. Chevalier M., Moran P., Ten J. I. et al. Patient dose in digital mammography. Med Phys: 2004; 31 2471 2479 (Pubitemid 39287861)
36. Dance D. R., Skinner C. L., Young K. C. et al. Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol: 2000; 45 3225 3240
37. Beckett J. R., Kotre C. J. Dosimetric implications of age related glandular changes in screening mammography. Phys Med Biol: 2000; 45 801 813 (Pubitemid 30163665)
38. Hendrick R. E., Bassett L., Botsco M. A. et al. American College of Radiology Committee on Quality Assurance in Mammography. Mammography quality control manual: medical physicists section. Reston, VA ACR: 1999
39. Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz Bekanntmachung der aktualisierten diagnostischen Referenzwerte für diagnostische und interventionelle Röntgenuntersuchungen. BAnz Nr. 111: 28 07 2011; 2594
40. Dance D. R., Young K. C., van Engen R. E. Further factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol: 2009; 54 4361 4372
41. Dance D. R., Young K. C., van Engen R. E. Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol: 2011; 56 453 471