The effect of different exposure parameters on radiation dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: A phantom study |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Radiologic Sciences, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Kuwait University, P.O.Box 31470, Sulaibikhat, 90805, Kuwait;2. Department of Community Medicine & Behavioral Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, P.O. Box 24923, Safat, 13110, Kuwait;3. Health Sciences Center, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, P.O.Box 24923, Safat, 13110, Kuwait;1. Inholland University of Applied Sciences, Haarlem, the Netherlands;2. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands;3. Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, the Netherlands;4. Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen, the Netherlands;1. Valais Hospital, Sion, Switzerland;2. Konstantopouleio Geniko Nosokomeio Neas Ionias-Agia Olga, Athens, Greece;3. Valais Hospital, Brig, Switzerland;1. National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, Surrey, UK;2. Medical School, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus;3. Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK;4. Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK;1. Department of Radiology, Daido Hospital, Japan;2. Department of Radiological Technology, Kawasaki University of Medical Welfare, Kawasaki, Japan;3. Nagase Landauer, Inc., Japan;4. Department of Radiological Technology, Faculty of Medical Technology, Mahidol University, Siriraj Hospital, Thailand;5. Showa University Graduate School of Health Sciences, Japan;1. HUS Medical Imaging Center, Radiology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Finland;2. Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Finland;3. Päijät-Hämeen Sosiaali- ja Terveysyhtymä, Central Hospital, Radiology, Finland;4. Medical Imaging Centre of Southwest Finland, Turku University Hospital, Finland;1. Dipartimento di Fisica “Ettore Pancini”, Università di Napoli Federico II, Napoli, Italy;2. INFN Sezione di Napoli, Napoli, Italy;3. Laboratory of Computer Simulations in Medicine, Technical University of Varna, Varna, Bulgaria;4. Department of Radiology, University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, United States;5. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands;6. Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Nijmegen, Netherlands |
| |
| Abstract: | IntroductionThere are concerns regarding the increase in radiation dose among women undergoing both digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different exposure parameters on entrance skin dose (ESD) and average glandular dose (AGD) for DM and DBT using a phantom.MethodsThe ESD and AGD of 30 DM and DBT (cranio-caudal projection) examinations using a tissue equivalent phantom where acquired using a GE Senographe Essential DM unit. Commercial phantoms were used to simulate three different breast thicknesses and compositions. Tube potential, tube load, and target/filter combinations were also varied with ESD and AGD recorded directly from the DM unit. Comparisons were made using the non-parametric Kruskal Wallis, Mann–Whitney, and Wilcoxon signed rank tests.ResultsThe individual ESD values for 4 cm, 5 cm, and 6 cm thick phantoms for DM and DBT at Rh/Rh target/filter combination and 30–32 kV/56 mAs levels were 5.06 and 4.18 mGy; 5.82 and 5.08 mGy; and 7.26 and 11.4 mGy, respectively; while AGDs were 1.57 and 1.30 mGy, 1.33 and 1.39 mGy; and 1.29 and 3.60 mGy, respectively. The Kruskal–Wallis test showed a statistically significant difference in AGD for DM (P = .029) but not for DBT (P = 0.368). The Mann–Whitney and Wilcoxon signed rank tests showed no statistically significant difference for ESD or AGD between both DM and DBT techniques (P = .827 and .513). The percentage differences in ESD for phantom thicknesses of 4 cm, 5 cm, and 6 cm between DBT and DM ranged between −21% and 36%; while for AGD between −21% and 64.2%.ConclusionsThe ESD and AGD for single view projection in DM and DBT showed differences at 4 and 6 cm breast thicknesses and compositions but not at 5 cm thickness with 30–32 kV and a Rh/Rh target/filter combination.Implications for practiceA fibro-fatty breast results in less radiation dose variations in terms of ESD and AGD between DM and DBT techniques. |
| |
| Keywords: | Breast imaging Dosimetry Digital breast tomosynthesis Digital mammography Average glandular dose Entrance skin dose |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
