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

Ali, Raed; England, Andrew; Tootell, Andrew; Hogg, Peter

doi:10.1016/j.jmir.2020.08.018

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to the study by O'Connell et al 11 reported a non‐significantly improvement in glandular dose for DBT versus CBBCT with 6.5 ± 2.9 and 8.2 ± 1.4 mGy for CBBCT with 21% dose reduction for DBT. M.Ali et al 48 also reported a dose of 3.6 mGy for DBT versus 2.8 mGy for DM, indicating a 22% dose increment over DM. It can be deduced that CBBCT tends to have a higher glandular dose compared to DBT, making DBT a more radiation‐efficient imaging modality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Comparative analysis of cone‐beam breast computed tomography and digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis: A comprehensive study on reconstruction algorithms

Komolafe,

Tian,

Awoniya

et al. 2024

Int J Imaging Syst Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breast cancer (BC) is the most commonly diagnosed non‐skin cancer in women. To achieve early and accurate diagnosis, three‐dimensional (3D) cone‐beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) modalities are used. Importantly, the comparison of reconstruction accuracy of both CBBCT and DBT has rarely been investigated, thus constituting a research gap. This study systematically investigated the performances of the CBBCT and DBT for different reconstruction algorithms using both BR3D breast phantom and breast images. We acquired clinical breast images and scanned the BR3D phantom for additional breast images. These acquired images were used to simulate projection data using predefined CBBCT and DBT geometries. The simulated projections were reconstructed using five different reconstruction algorithms. To evaluate the reconstruction accuracy, we calculated average image quality assessment (IQA) indices, including peak signal‐to‐noise ratio (PSNR), structural similarity index (SSIM), root mean square error (RMSE), and others, across different algorithms and modalities. The pooled PSNR, SSIM, and RMSE for DBT and CBBCT images are (31.6265 ± 0.8725), (0.9353 ± 0.0077), and (0.0270 ± 0.0025) and (29.7007 ± 0.9249), (0.9136 ± 0.0130), and (0.0342 ± 0.0040), which implies that the overall IQA indices of DBT are superior to CBBCT; therefore, DBT tends to reveal more BC detectability as the diagnosis outcome would largely depend on good quality images. The results show that DBT gives an improved result for all algorithms compared to CBBCT, although further experimental trials may be needed to establish the findings fully. The findings suggest that using DBT may enhance the accuracy of BC diagnosis compared to CBBCT due to its superior image quality in clinical practice, emphasizing the importance of selecting optimal reconstruction algorithms for improved diagnostic outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Comparative analysis of cone‐beam breast computed tomography and digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis: A comprehensive study on reconstruction algorithms

Komolafe,

Tian,

Awoniya

et al. 2024

Int J Imaging Syst Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has high sensitivity and specificity. The average effective dose from one lung cancer screening CT is less than 1.0 mSv [19] compared to a standard four-view digital mammography with an average effective dose of 0.68 mSv [20]. Many patients have additional magnification and/or spot compression images or tomosynthesis for the workup of an abnormality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chest CT for Breast Cancer Diagnosis

Desperito

Schwartz

Capaccione

et al. 2022

Life

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We report the results of our retrospective analysis of the ability of standard chest CT scans to correctly diagnose cancer in the breast. Methods: Four hundred and fifty-three consecutive women with chest CT scans (contrast and non-contrast) preceding mammograms within one year comprise the study population. All chest CT images were reviewed by an experienced fellowship-trained chest radiologist and mammograms by an experienced fellowship-trained mammographer without the benefit of prior or ancillary studies; only four mammographic views were included for analysis. The size, location, and shape of breast masses were documented; on CT, the average Hounsfield units were measured. On both imaging modalities, the presence of lymphadenopathy, architectural distortion, skin thickening, and microcalcifications were recorded. Ultimately, the interpreting radiologist was asked to decide if a biopsy was indicated, and these recommendations were correlated with the patient’s outcome. Findings: Nineteen of four hundred and fifty-three patients had breast cancer at the time of the mammography. Breast masses were the most common finding on chest CT, leading to the recommendation for biopsy. Hounsfield units were the most important feature for discerning benign from malignant masses. CT sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CT for breast cancer detection was 84.21%, 99.3%, and 98.68% compared to 78.95%, 93.78%, and 93.16% for four-view mammography. Chest CT scans with or without contrast had similar outcomes for specificity and accuracy, but sensitivity was slightly less without contrast. Chest CT alone, without the benefit of prior exams and patient recall, correctly diagnosed cancer with a p-value of <0.0001 compared to mammography with the same limitations. Conclusion: Chest CT accurately diagnosed breast cancer with few false positives and negatives and did so without the need for patient recall for additional imaging.

show abstract

“…• The MGD has been used as an indicator of radiation risk in DBT or DM, and MGD is fundamentally related to the target/filter combination, kV, breast density (glandularity) and breast size (compressed breast thickness) [28,29]. Therefore, the choice of 2.0 mGy as MGD was taken as a parameter for a certain breast thickness and target/filter combination.…”

Section: Justifying the Estimated Risk Of Radiation-induced Cancer In...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimated risk of radiation-induced cancer following breast screening employing tomosynthesis and digital mammography

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to estimate the risk of radiation-induced injury to the organs due to ionizing radiation following breast screening recommendations employing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM). Using the Monte Carlo method, absorbed doses in the tissues and organs were calculated on an adult female phantom, considering two-view craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) projections for each breast. The results showed differences in the total effective risk due to DM (CC + MLO) and DBT (CC + MLO) examinations in Brazil, ranging from 20.73 cases 10−5 (DM) to 27.19 cases 10−5 (DBT). Significant differences were also observed in the total effective risk of cancer incidence in the lungs due to DM (CC + MLO) and DBT (CC + MLO), ranging from 1.75×10−01 cases 10−5 (DM) to 1.76×10−01 cases 10−5 (DBT). The results indicate that the total effective risk of incidence should be considered as an additional parameter for the evaluation of DBT or DBT + DM program performance.

show abstract

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

Cited by 9 publications

References 18 publications

Comparative analysis of cone‐beam breast computed tomography and digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis: A comprehensive study on reconstruction algorithms

Comparative analysis of cone‐beam breast computed tomography and digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis: A comprehensive study on reconstruction algorithms

Chest CT for Breast Cancer Diagnosis

Estimated risk of radiation-induced cancer following breast screening employing tomosynthesis and digital mammography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About