1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
oa
Computation of the glandular radiation dose in digital tomosynthesis of the breast
Rent:
Rent this article for
Access full text Article
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/34/1/10.1118/1.2400836
1.
1.Z. Kolitsi, G. Panayiotakis, V. Anastassopoulos, A. Scodras, and N. Pallikarakis, “A multiple projection method for digital tomosynthesis,” Med. Phys. 19, 1045 (1992).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.596822
2.
2.L. T. Niklason et al., “Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging,” Radiology 205, 399406 (1997).
3.
3.J. T. Dobbins III and D. J. Godfrey, “Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: Current state of the art and clinical potential,” Phys. Med. Biol. 48, R65 (2003).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/48/19/R01
4.
4.J. M. Boone, T. R. Nelson, K. K. Lindfors, and J. A. Seibert, “Dedicated breast CT: Radiation dose and image quality evaluation,” Radiology 221, 657667 (2001).
5.
5.R. Ning, D. L. Conover, B. Chen, L. Schiffhauer, J. Cullinan, Y. Ning, and A. E. Robinson, “Flat-panel-detector-based cone-beam volume CT breast imaging: Phantom and specimen study,” Proc. SPIE 4682, 218227 (2002).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.465562
6.
6.B. Chen and R. Ning, “Cone-beam volume CT breast imaging: Feasibility study,” Med. Phys. 29, 755770 (2002).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1461843
7.
7.X. Gong, S. J. Glick, B. Liu, A. A. Vedula, and S. Thacker, “A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging,” Med. Phys. 33, 10411052 (2006).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2174127
8.
8.L. Tabar, G. Fagerberg, H. H. Chen, S. W. Duffy, C. R. Smart, A. Gad, and R. A. Smith, “Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. New results from the Swedish Two-County Trial,” Cancer 75, 25072517 (1995).
9.
9.R. D. Rosenberg, J. F. Lando, W. C. Hunt, R. R. Darling, M. R. Williamson, M. N. Linver, F. D. Gilliland, and C. R. Key, “The New Mexico Mammography Project. Screening mammography performance in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1991 to 1993,” Cancer 78, 17311739 (1996).
10.
10.S. Suryanarayanan, A. Karellas, S. Vedantham, S. J. Glick, C. J. D’Orsi, S. P. Baker, and R. L. Webber, “Comparison of tomosynthesis methods used with digital mammography,” Acad. Radiol. 7, 10851097 (2000).
11.
11.S. Suryanarayanan, A. Karellas, S. Vedantham, S. P. Baker, S. J. Glick, C. J. D’Orsi, and R. L. Webber, “Evaluation of linear and nonlinear tomosynthetic reconstruction methods in digital mammography,” Acad. Radiol. 8, 219224 (2001).
12.
12.T. Wu et al., “Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images,” Med. Phys. 30, 365380 (2003).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1543934
13.
13.T. Wu, J. Zhang, R. Moore, E. Rafferty, D. Kopans, W. Meleis, and D. Kaeli, “Digital tomosynthesis mammography using a parallel maximum-likelihood reconstruction method,” Proc. SPIE 5368, 111 (2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.534446
14.
14.T. Wu, R. H. Moore, E. A. Rafferty, and D. B. Kopans, “A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis,” Med. Phys. 31, 26362647 (2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1786692
15.
15.G. M. Stevens, R. Fahrig, and N. J. Pelc, “Filtered backprojection for modifying the impulse response of circular tomosynthesis,” Med. Phys. 28, 372380 (2001).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1350588
16.
16.G. M. Stevens, R. L. Birdwell, C. F. Beaulieu, D. M. Ikeda, and N. J. Pelc, “Circular tomosynthesis: Potential in imaging of breast and upper cervical spine—preliminary phantom and in vitro study,” Radiology 228, 569575 (2003).
17.
17.D. R. Dance, “Monte Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose,” Phys. Med. Biol. 35, 12111219 (1990).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/35/9/002
18.
18.X. Wu, G. T. Barnes, and D. M. Tucker, “Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography,” Radiology 179, 143148 (1991).
19.
19.X. Wu, E. L. Gingold, G. T. Barnes, and D. M. Tucker, “Normalized average glandular dose in molybdenum target-rhodium filter and rhodium target-rhodium filter mammography,” Radiology 193, 8389 (1994).
20.
20.J. M. Boone, “Glandular breast dose for monoenergetic and high-energy x-ray beams: Monte Carlo assessment,” Radiology 213, 2337 (1999).
21.
21.J. M. Boone, “Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for arbitrary x-ray spectra in mammography: Computer-fit values of Monte Carlo derived data,” Med. Phys. 29, 869875 (2002).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1472499
22.
22.S. Agostinelli et al., “Geant4—a simulation toolkit,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 506, 250 (2003).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8
23.
23.J. Allison et al., “Geant4 developments and applications,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53, 270278 (2006).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2006.869826
24.
24.L. Wilkinson and J. C. P. Heggie, “Glandular breast dose: Potential errors,” Radiology 213, 1 (2001).
25.
25.J. M. Boone, T. R. Fewell, and R. J. Jennings, “Molybdenum, rhodium, and tungsten anode spectral models using interpolating polynomials with application to mammography,” Med. Phys. 24, 1863 (1997).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.598100
26.
26.S. C. Thacker and S. J. Glick, “Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for flat-panel CT breast imaging,” Phys. Med. Biol. 49, 54335444 (2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/49/24/003
27.
27.R. E. Hendrick et al., Mammography Quality Control Manual (American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, 1999).
28.
28.G. R. Hammerstein, D. W. Miller, D. R. White, M. E. Masterson, H. Q. Woodard, and J. S. Laughlin, “Absorbed radiation dose in mammography,” Radiology 130, 485491 (1979).
29.
29.International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements., Tissue Substitutes in Radiation Dosimetry and Measurement (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda, Md., 1989).
30.
30.M. J. Berger, J. H. Hubbell, S. M. Seltzer, J. Chang, J. S. Coursey, R. Sukumar, and D. S. Zucker, (NIST, 2005), Vol. 2006.
31.
31.K. C. Young and A. Burch, “Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Program in 1997 and 1998,” Br. J. Radiol. 73, 278287 (2000).
32.
32.N. Jamal, K. H. Ng, and D. McLean, “A study of mean glandular dose during diagnostic mammography in Malaysia and some of the factors affecting it,” Br. J. Radiol. 76, 238245 (2003).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr/66428508
33.
33.J. W. Eberhard et al., “High-speed large-angle mammography tomosynthesis system,” Proc. SPIE 6142, 61420C61411 (2006).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.653298
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/34/1/10.1118/1.2400836
Loading
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/34/1/10.1118/1.2400836
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/34/1/10.1118/1.2400836
2006-12-20
2014-10-21

Abstract

Tomosynthesis of the breast is currently a topic of intense interest as a logical next step in the evolution of digital mammography. This study reports on the computation of glandular radiation dose in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. Previously, glandular dose estimations in tomosynthesis have been performed using data from studies of radiation dose in conventional planar mammography. This study evaluates, using Monte Carlo methods, the normalized glandular dose to the breast during a tomosynthesis study, and characterizes its dependence on breast size, tissue composition, and x-ray spectrum. The conditions during digital tomosynthesisimaging of the breast were simulated using a computer program based on the Geant4 toolkit. With the use of simulated breasts of varying size, thickness and tissue composition, the to the breast tissue was computed for varying x-ray spectra and tomosynthesis projection angle. Tomosynthesis projections centered about both the cranio-caudal (CC) and medio-lateral oblique (MLO) views were simulated. For each projection angle, the ratio of the glandular dose for that projection to the glandular dose for the zero degree projection was computed. This ratio was denoted the relative glandular dose (RGD) coefficient, and its variation under different imaging parameters was analyzed. Within mammographic energies, the RGD was found to have a weak dependence on glandular fraction and x-ray spectrum for both views. A substantial dependence on breast size and thickness was found for the MLO view, and to a lesser extent for the CC view. Although RGD values deviate substantially from unity as a function of projection angle, the RGD averaged over all projections in a complete tomosynthesis study varies from 0.91 to 1.01. The RGD results were fit to mathematical functions and the resulting equations are provided.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aapm/journal/medphys/34/1/1.2400836.html;jsessionid=52fcbfvfug37h.x-aip-live-03?itemId=/content/aapm/journal/medphys/34/1/10.1118/1.2400836&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/aapm/journal/medphys
true
true
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Computation of the glandular radiation dose in digital tomosynthesis of the breast
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/34/1/10.1118/1.2400836
10.1118/1.2400836
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM