Dosimetric characterization and organ dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: Measurements and Monte Carlo simulations using voxel phantoms

Baptista, M.; Maria, Salvatore Di; Barros, S.; Figueira, Catarina; Sarmento, Marta; Orvalho, Lurdes; Vaz, P.

doi:10.1118/1.4921362

Cited by 20 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(63 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The caveat associated with acquiring both sets of images is that the patient sees a twofold increase in the dose, since acquisition of a single DBT view can impart a mean glandular dose of up to 2.28 mGy. 161 However, one study which assessed radiologist reporting of 2D mammograms synthesized from DBT data compared with digital mammograms acquired by conventional means found that the use of either mammogram resulted in similar rates of truepositive and FP reporting. 162 The comparable magnitudes of detection sensitivity and FP reporting among digital mammograms and DBT-synthesized mammograms thus show promise for the employment of DBT-synthesized mammograms as an alternative to the acquisition of a conventional digital mammogram.…”

Section: Breast Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

Le¹,

Mothersill²,

Seymour³

et al. 2016

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The practice of investigating pathological abnormalities in the breasts of females who are asymptomatic is primarily employed using X-ray mammography. The importance of breast screening is reflected in the mortality-based benefits observed among females who are found to possess invasive breast carcinoma prior to the manifestation of clinical symptoms. It is estimated that population-based screening constitutes a 17% reduction in the breast cancer mortality rate among females affected by invasive breast carcinoma. In spite of the significant utility that screening confers in those affected by invasive cancer, limitations associated with screening manifest as potential harms affecting individuals who are free of invasive disease. Disease-free and benign tumour-bearing individuals who are subjected to diagnostic work-up following a screening examination constitute a population of cases referred to as false positives (FPs). This article discusses factors contributing to the FP rate in mammography and extends the discussion to an assessment of the consequences associated with FP reporting. We conclude that the mammography FP rate in North America is in excess based upon the observation of overtreatment of in situ lesions and the disproportionate distribution of detriment and benefit among the population of individuals recalled for diagnostic work-up subsequent to screening. To address the excessive incidence of FPs in mammography, we investigate solutions that may be employed to remediate the current status of the FP rate. Subsequently, it can be suggested that improvements in the breast-screening protocol, medical litigation risk, image interpretation software and the implementation of image acquisition modalities that overcome superimposition effects are promising solutions.

show abstract

Section: Breast Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

Le¹,

Mothersill²,

Seymour³

et al. 2016

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is in agreement with the phantom study reported by Ali et al (9.5 μGy measured by thermoluminescence dosimeter in an ATOM phantom) [ 22 ]. Baptista et al [ 10 ], using MCS, found a thyroid dose of 0.273 mGy for the CC view with a corresponding breast MGD of 2 mGy. Compared to our MCS and those reported in the literature, this result is surprisingly high for the organ dose value.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the study by Whelan et al [ 7 ], the radiation dose to the skin overlying the thyroid for 91 women undergoing routine screening mammography was measured while the study by Chetlen et al [ 8 ] included 207 women. Baptista et al [ 10 ] compared exposition of organs caused by digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis by measurements and Monte Carlo simulation (MCS). For a bilateral digital mammography in craniocaudal (CC) view, a thyroid dose of 0.273 mGy was found by these authors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of thyroid shielding during mammography: measurements on phantom and patient as well as estimation with Monte Carlo simulation

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDuring mammography, the thyroid is exposed to scattered radiation from breast tissue and the device. This may increase the risk of radiation induced thyroid cancer.MethodsWe investigated the scatter radiation exposition of the thyroid and the effect of a tailored thyroid protection in phantom and patient as well as by using Monte Carlo simulation (MCS). The protective effect of a modified thyroid protection, the relevance of the protective effect and acceptance by patients have been investigated.ResultsPhantom and patient measurements provided higher values for the surface dose at thyroid position than expected from MCS (phantom 0.32 mGy; patients 0.38 mGy; MCS 0.16 mGy). Phantom measurements indicated scatter contributions from both breast tissue and collimator/tube system. The value found in our patient study is within the range of the literature (0.22–0.39 mGy). The thyroid protection significantly reduced the surface dose but the dose (0.016 mGy) was higher than that expected from the lead equivalent value. However, the impact of the collar to the effective dose was small (< 4%). The collar was not visible on mammograms.ConclusionsScatter from the collimator/tube system contributed with 50% to the thyroid dose. Due to the relative small fraction of dose deposited in the thyroid when compared to the mean glandular dose to the breast, a collar is not mandatory in general. Not being associated with the risk of obscuring parts of mammograms, such a collar may be used for young women considering their higher radio sensitivity.

show abstract

“…MGD from DBT is currently reported to be one to two times more than that from single view FFDM. 15 Feng and Sechopoulos 4 estimated the MGD resulted from single craniocaudal view acquired by FFDM and DBT. They concluded that DBT resulted in higher MGD than FFDM and this difference increases as the breast thickness increase.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other organs radiation dose, excluding exposed breast tissue, from DBT was assessed by Baptista et al 15 They used Monte Carlo simulation software to estimate the radiation dose received by several radiosensitive organs within the female reference voxel Laura phantom from DBT exposure. In order to simulate different breast thickness, the organ radiation doses were estimated using different tube potentials, 24-34 kVp, and 100 mAs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation dose from digital breast tomosynthesis screening – A comparison with full field digital mammography

Ali

England

Tootell

et al. 2020

Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To compare Mean Glandular Dose (MGD) and effective dose from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening with that from full field digital mammography (FFDM) screening. Method: To simulate compressed breasts, two Perspex-polyethylene breast phantoms were used, one phantom for compressed breast in craniocaudal and the other for compressed breast in mediolateral oblique. An adult ATOM dosimetry phantom was loaded with high sensitivity thermoluminescence dosimeters; the phantom was then positioned on Hologic Selenia Dimensions mammographic machine to imitate DBT and 4-view FFDM screening. Organ radiation doses were measured from 4-view DBT and 4-view FFDM (craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views for each breast). Organ radiation doses were used to calculate effective dose from one screening session. Results: MGD for DBT was 3.6 mGy; MGD for FFDM was 2.8 mGy. For DBT, other organs (e.g. thymus, lungs, salivary glands, thyroid, contralateral breast and bone marrow) radiation dose was also higher than for FFDM. The use of DBT for breast cancer screening increases the effective dose (E) of one screening session by 22%. E for DBT was 0.44 mSv; E for FFDM was 0.34 mSv. Conclusion: The use of DBT for breast cancer screening increases the radiation dose to screening clients.

show abstract

Dosimetric characterization and organ dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: Measurements and Monte Carlo simulations using voxel phantoms

Cited by 20 publications

References 50 publications

Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

Effect of thyroid shielding during mammography: measurements on phantom and patient as well as estimation with Monte Carlo simulation

Radiation dose from digital breast tomosynthesis screening – A comparison with full field digital mammography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About