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.
Computation of the glandular radiation dose in digital tomosynthesis of the breast
1.Z. Kolitsi, G. Panayiotakis, V. Anastassopoulos, A. Scodras, and N. Pallikarakis, “A multiple projection method for digital tomosynthesis,” Med. Phys. 19, 1045 (1992).
2.L. T. Niklason et al., “Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging,” Radiology 205, 399–406 (1997).
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, 657–667 (2001).
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, 218–227 (2002).
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, 1041–1052 (2006).
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, 2507–2517 (1995).
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, 1731–1739 (1996).
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, 1085–1097 (2000).
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, 219–224 (2001).
12.T. Wu et al., “Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images,” Med. Phys. 30, 365–380 (2003).
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, 1–11 (2004).
14.T. Wu, R. H. Moore, E. A. Rafferty, and D. B. Kopans, “A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis,” Med. Phys. 31, 2636–2647 (2004).
15.G. M. Stevens, R. Fahrig, and N. J. Pelc, “Filtered backprojection for modifying the impulse response of circular tomosynthesis,” Med. Phys. 28, 372–380 (2001).
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, 569–575 (2003).
18.X. Wu, G. T. Barnes, and D. M. Tucker, “Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography,” Radiology 179, 143–148 (1991).
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, 83–89 (1994).
20.J. M. Boone, “Glandular breast dose for monoenergetic and high-energy x-ray beams: Monte Carlo assessment,” Radiology 213, 23–37 (1999).
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, 869–875 (2002).
24.L. Wilkinson and J. C. P. Heggie, “Glandular breast dose: Potential errors,” Radiology 213, 1 (2001).
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).
27.R. E. Hendrick et al., Mammography Quality Control Manual (American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, 1999).
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, 485–491 (1979).
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.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.K. C. Young and A. Burch, “Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Program in 1997 and 1998,” Br. J. Radiol. 73, 278–287 (2000).
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, 238–245 (2003).
Article metrics loading...
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.
Full text loading...
Most read this month