2015
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/18/7179
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mean glandular dose coefficients (DgN) for x-ray spectra used in contemporary breast imaging systems

Abstract: Purpose To develop tables of normalized glandular dose coefficients DgN for a range of anode–filter combinations and tube voltages used in contemporary breast imaging systems. Methods Previously published mono-energetic DgN values were used with various spectra to mathematically compute DgN coefficients. The tungsten anode spectra from TASMICS were used; Molybdenum and Rhodium anode-spectra were generated using MCNPx Monte Carlo code. The spectra were filtered with various thicknesses of Al, Rh, Mo or Cu. An… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
53
0
7

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(61 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
1
53
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…Making these fit equations available for mono-energetic data removed the need to keep generating tables of spectral DgN coefficients as new target/filter combinations or higher tube voltages, up to 50 kVp become available. It should be noted, however, that the fit equation provided by Boone for ϑ(E), the exposure per photon/mm 2 in Appendix D of his work, is incorrect and should not be used (Dance and Young, 2014, Nosratieh et al , 2015). …”
Section: Conversion Factors For Projection Mammography Using Simplementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Making these fit equations available for mono-energetic data removed the need to keep generating tables of spectral DgN coefficients as new target/filter combinations or higher tube voltages, up to 50 kVp become available. It should be noted, however, that the fit equation provided by Boone for ϑ(E), the exposure per photon/mm 2 in Appendix D of his work, is incorrect and should not be used (Dance and Young, 2014, Nosratieh et al , 2015). …”
Section: Conversion Factors For Projection Mammography Using Simplementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In their 2015 paper (Nosratieh et al , 2015), Boone’s group present the calculation of DgN values for a very wide range of X-ray spectra, for breast thicknesses in the range 30–80 mm and for five different glandularities. Thus there appears to be no data published using this model for small or very large breasts.…”
Section: Conversion Factors For Projection Mammography Using Simplementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several authors have performed Monte Carlo (MC) simulations to compute the normalized glandular dose conversion coefficients (DgN) which are used to estimate mean dose to the glandular component of the breast tissue (mean glandular dose-MGD) during full field mammography from measurements of the incident air kerma or exposure. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] In these studies, the breast has been modeled as a homogeneous mixture of adipose and glandular tissue surrounded by a shielding layer which simulates either a 0.4 cm thick layer of skin or a 0.5 cm thick layer of adipose tissue. It is fully irradiated, and the MGD is assumed independent of the source-to-breast distance and of the breast diameter.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For verifying the Monte Carlo modelling, THOPs with 25%, 50%, and 75% MGF were employed to attain the DgN coefficients at the W/Ag target-filter combination for breast thicknesses of 3, 5, and 7 cm and tube voltages of 26, 28, 30, 32, and 34 kVp. The results were compared with those obtained by Nosratieh et al 23 . Subsequently, THEPs were used to obtain the heterogeneous DgN coefficients for concentrated, inferior, and superior glandular distributions.…”
Section: Mammography Modellingmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…Compared with the result of TG-195, the error is less than 0.2%, indicating the credibility of the Monte Carlo code. Figure 2 compares the DgN coefficients of THOPs and those obtained by Nosratieh et al 23 . The linear regression result revealed a favorable linearity (y = 0.9812x − 0.0013, R 2 = 0.9866) with no significant differences between the two sets of DgN values (p = 0.727).…”
mentioning
confidence: 81%