2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2022.03.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparisons of glandular breast dose between digital mammography, tomosynthesis and breast CT based on anthropomorphic patient-derived breast phantoms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This new understanding of the more typical internal breast tissue distribution led to the realization that the current breast dosimetry models result, on average, to an overestimation of the mean glandular dose during mammography and DBT. [20][21]24 Furthermore, previous efforts for the development of dosimetry models for mammography and DBT mostly considered only the cranio-caudal (CC) projection, thus not accounting for possible differences in absorbed dose due to, for example, the presence of the pectoralis muscle in the medio-lateral-oblique (MLO) field of view. In the few studies where the pectoral muscle was accounted for, 9,25 it was simply modeled based on subjective opinion of a single expert reader.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This new understanding of the more typical internal breast tissue distribution led to the realization that the current breast dosimetry models result, on average, to an overestimation of the mean glandular dose during mammography and DBT. [20][21]24 Furthermore, previous efforts for the development of dosimetry models for mammography and DBT mostly considered only the cranio-caudal (CC) projection, thus not accounting for possible differences in absorbed dose due to, for example, the presence of the pectoralis muscle in the medio-lateral-oblique (MLO) field of view. In the few studies where the pectoral muscle was accounted for, 9,25 it was simply modeled based on subjective opinion of a single expert reader.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This was shown for both uncompressed 19–22 and, recently, for compressed breasts, 23 by simulating the tissue displacement due to the mechanical compression during mammography and DBT. This new understanding of the more typical internal breast tissue distribution led to the realization that the current breast dosimetry models result, on average, to an overestimation of the mean glandular dose during mammography and DBT 20–21,24 . Furthermore, previous efforts for the development of dosimetry models for mammography and DBT mostly considered only the cranio‐caudal (CC) projection, thus not accounting for possible differences in absorbed dose due to, for example, the presence of the pectoralis muscle in the medio‐lateral‐oblique (MLO) field of view.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…12,14 The assumption of homogenous tissue distribution overestimates the DgN and the MGD by approximately 18-30% in mammography and DBT. [15][16][17] Since this article focuses on cone-beam breast CT geometry (CBBCT),the normalized glandular dose coefficient for CT (DgN CT ) is used throughout this study. In current radiation dosimetry protocols for CBBCT, the DgN CT is determined from MC simulations by assuming a semi-ellipsoidal breast with homogeneous tissue distribution and a specified fibroglandular weight fraction.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…24 Studies using heterogeneous phantoms have also showed that the variation in dose distribution is lower with breast CT compared to digital mammography. 15,17 Another study reported on the MGD from non-contrast diagnostic CBBCT scans of individual breasts by computing the fibroglandular weight fraction and using an equivalent semi-ellipsoidal breast in terms of effective diameter at the chest-wall, chest-wall to nipple length, and fibroglandular weight fraction. 25 In all of the aforementioned studies, the DgN CT is reported for full-scan acquisition with a circular x-ray source trajectory spanning 2𝜋.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation