Download PDF
Rofo 2012; 184(10): 911-918
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1312877
Technik und Medizinphysik
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Average Glandular Dose in Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis

Mittlere Parenchymdosis bei der digitalen Mammografie und der Brusttomosynthese
T. Olgar
1   Faculty of Engineering, Department of Engineering Physics, Ankara University
2   Klinik und Poliklinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig AöR
,
T. Kahn
2   Klinik und Poliklinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig AöR
,
D. Gosch
2   Klinik und Poliklinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig AöR
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

23 January 2012

25 April 2012

Publication Date:
18 June 2012 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the average glandular dose (AGD) in digital full-field mammography (2 D imaging mode) and in breast tomosynthesis (3 D imaging mode).

Materials and Methods: Using the method described by Boone, the AGD was calculated from the exposure parameters of 2247 conventional 2 D mammograms and 984 mammograms in 3 D imaging mode of 641 patients examined with the digital mammographic system Hologic Selenia Dimensions. The breast glandular tissue content was estimated by the Hologic R2 Quantra automated volumetric breast density measurement tool for each patient from right craniocaudal (RCC) and left craniocaudal (LCC) images in 2 D imaging mode.

Results: The mean compressed breast thickness (CBT) was 52.7 mm for craniocaudal (CC) and 56.0 mm for mediolateral oblique (MLO) views. The mean percentage of breast glandular tissue content was 18.0 % and 17.4 % for RCC and LCC projections, respectively. The mean AGD values in 2 D imaging mode per exposure for the standard breast were 1.57 mGy and 1.66 mGy, while the mean AGD values after correction for real breast composition were 1.82 mGy and 1.94 mGy for CC and MLO views, respectively. The mean AGD values in 3 D imaging mode per exposure for the standard breast were 2.19 mGy and 2.29 mGy, while the mean AGD values after correction for the real breast composition were 2.53 mGy and 2.63 mGy for CC and MLO views, respectively. No significant relationship was found between the AGD and CBT in 2 D imaging mode and a good correlation coefficient of 0.98 in 3 D imaging mode.

Conclusion: In this study the mean calculated AGD per exposure in 3 D imaging mode was on average 34 % higher than for 2 D imaging mode for patients examined with the same CBT.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Bestimmung der mittleren Parenchymdosis bei der digitalen Vollfeldmammografie (2D-Modus) und bei der Brusttomosynthese (3D-Modus).

Material und Methoden: Die mittlere Parenchymdosis wurde nach der Methode von Boone aus den Expositionsparametern von 2247 konventionellen 2D-Mammografieaufnahmen und von 984 Aufnahmen im 3D-Modus von 641 Patienten berechnet, die mit einem digitalen Mammografiegerät Hologic Selenia Dimensions angefertigt wurden. Der Anteil des fibroglandulären Gewebes wurde für jede Patientin aus den rechten kranio-kaudalen (RCC) und linken kranio-kaudalen (LCC) 2D-Aufnahmen mittels des Hologic-R2-Quantra-Softwareprogramms zur volumetrischen Auswertung der Brust ermittelt. Die mittlere Parenchymdosis wurde für eine Standardzusammensetzung des Brustgewebes (jeweils 50 % Anteil von fibroglandulären und von Fettgewebe) und die tatsächliche Gewebezusammensetzung berechnet.

Ergebnisse: Die mittlere Kompressionsschichtdicke betrug 52,7 mm für kranio-kaudale (CC) und 56,0 mm für mediolateral-oblique (MLO) Projektionen. Der mittlere Anteil des fibroglandulären Gewebes lag bei 18,0 % für RCC und 17,4 % für LCC-Aufnahmen. Die mittlere Parenchymdosis pro Aufnahme im 2D-Modus für eine Standardbrustzusammensetzung betrug 1,57 mGy für CC und 1,66 mGy für MLO-Projektionen bzw. 1,82 mGy und 1,94 mGy für die tatsächliche Brustzusammensetzung. Die mittlere Parenchymdosis pro Aufnahme im 3D-Modus für eine Standardbrustzusammensetzung betrug 2,19 mGy für CC und 2,29 mGy für MLO-Projektionen bzw. 2,53 mGy und 2,63 mGy für die tatsächliche Brustzusammensetzung.

Schlussfolgerung: In dieser Studie war für Patienten mit gleicher Kompressionsschichtdicke die mittlere Parenchymdosis im 3D-Modus im Mittel 34 % höher als im 2D-Modus.

Key words

breast tomosynthesis - average glandular dose - compressed breast thickness - digital mammography
 

  • References

  • 1 Nyström L, Rutqvist LE, Wall S et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomized trials. Lancet 1993; 341: 973-978
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Law J, Faulkner K, Young KC. Risk factors for induction of breast cancer by X-rays and their implications for breast screening. Br J Radiol 2007; 80: 261-266
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Klein R, Aichinger H, Dierker J et al. Determination of average glandular dose with modern mammography units for two large groups of patients. Phys Med Biol 1997; 42: 651-671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wu X, Gingold EL, Barns G et al. Normalized average glandular dose in molybdenum target-rhodium filter and rhodium target-rhodium filter mammography. Radiology 1994; 193: 83-89
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Boone JM. Glandular Breast Dose for Monoenergetic and High-Energy X-ray Beams: Monte Carlo Assessment. Radiology 1999; 213: 23-37
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dance DR. Monte-Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose. Phys Med Biol 1990; 35: 1211-1219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. Radiology 2005; 234: 353-362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lewin JM, Hendrich RE, D’Orsi CJ et al. Comparison of full field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001; 218: 873-880
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft copy reading – Oslo I study. Radiology 2003; 229: 877-884
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Skaane P, Skjennald A. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program – The Oslo II study. Radiology 2004; 232: 197-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al. Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1773-1783
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Weigel S, Girnus R, Czwoydzinski J et al. Digital mammography screening: Average glandular dose and first performance parameters. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2007; 179: 892-895
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Heddson B, Rönnow K, Olsson M et al. Digital versus screen-film mammography: A retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. Eur J Radiol 2007; 64: 419-425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Gennaro G, di Maggio C. Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 2559-2566
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hendrich RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A et al. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial. Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 362-369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Park JM, Franken Jr EA, Garg M et al. Breast Tomosynthesis: Present considerations and future applications. RadioGraphics 2007; 27: 231-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Semturs F, Sturm E, Gruber R et al. Physical aspects of different tomosynthesis systems. Radiologe 2010; 50: 982-990
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 16-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CH et al. Digital Breast tomosynthesis: Initial Experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mamography. Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 616-623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Michell M, Wasan R, Whelehan P et al. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A comparison of the accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis, two-dimensional digital mamography and two-dimensional screening mamography (film-screen). Breast Cancer Research 2009; 11: 01
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mamography: A comparison of breast cancer visibility and BI-RADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mamographic findings. Eur Radiology 2008; 18: 2817-2825
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 1545-1553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 European Commission. European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening. In: European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. EUREF (Luxembourg: European Commission); 2006 4th edn.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Boone JM. Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for arbitrary x-ray spectra in mammography: Computer-fit values of Monte Carlo derived data. Med Phys 2002; 29: 869-875
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Boone JM, Feweel TR, Jennings RJ. Molybdenum, rhodium, and tungsten anode spectral models using interpolating polynomials with application to mammography. Med Phys 1997; 24: 1863-1874
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hartman K, Highnam R, Warren R et al. Volumetric assessment of breast tissue composition from FFDM images. Springer-Verlag; IWDM 2008; LNCS 5116: 33-39
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Young KC, Ramsdale ML, Bignell F. Review of dosimetric methods for mammography in the UK breast screening programme. Radiat Prot Dosim 1998; 80: 183-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kruger RL, Schueler BA. A survey of clinical factors and patient dose in mammography. Med Phys 2001; 28: 1449-1454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Gosch D, Jendrass S, Scholz M et al. Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a selenium flat-panel detector. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2006; 178: 693-697
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Marten K et al. Average glandular dose with amorphous silicon full-field digital mammography – Clinical results. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2002; 174: 696-699
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Riabi HA, Mehnati P, Meshabi A. Evaluation of mean glandular dose in a full-field digital mammography unit in Tabriz, Iran. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010; 142: 222-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Thilander-Klang A, Ackerholm P, Berlin I et al. Influence of anode-filter combinations on image quality and radiation dose in 965 women undergoing mammography. Radiology 1997; 203: 348-354
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Uhlenbrock DF, Mertelmeier T. Comparison of anode/fitler combinations in digital mammography with respect to the average glandular dose. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2009; 181: 249-254
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Toroi P, Federica Z, Young KC et al. Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/fitler combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 2368-2375
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Chevalier M, Moran P, Ten JI et al. Patient dose in digital mammography. Med Phys 2004; 31: 2471-2479
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC et al. Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 2000; 45: 3225-3240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Beckett JR, Kotre CJ. Dosimetric implications of age related glandular changes in screening mammography. Phys Med Biol 2000; 45: 801-813
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Hendrick RE, Bassett L, Botsco MA et al. American College of Radiology Committee on Quality Assurance in Mammography. Mammography quality control manual: medical physicist’s section. Reston, VA: ACR; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz. Bekanntmachung der aktualisierten diagnostischen Referenzwerte für diagnostische und interventionelle Röntgenuntersuchungen. BAnz Nr. 111; 28.07.2011: 2594
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Dance DR, Young KC, van Engen RE. Further factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol 2009; 54: 4361-4372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Dance DR, Young KC, van Engen RE. Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol 2011; 56: 453-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar