Comparison of a personalized breast dosimetry method with standard dosimetry protocols.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 04 2019
10 04 2019
Historique:
received:
06
08
2018
accepted:
20
03
2019
entrez:
12
4
2019
pubmed:
12
4
2019
medline:
7
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Average glandular dose (AGD) in digital mammography crucially depends on the estimation of breast glandularity. In this study we compared three different methods of estimating glandularities according to Wu, Dance and Volpara with respect to resulting AGDs. Exposure data from 3050 patient images, acquired with a GE Senographe Essential constituted the study population of this work. We compared AGD (1) according to Dance et al. applying custom g, c, and s factors using HVL, breast thickness, patient age and incident air kerma (IAK) from the DICOM headers; (2) according to Wu et al. as determined by the GE system; and (3) AGD derived with the Dance model with personalized c factors using glandularity determined with the Volpara (Volpara Solutions, Wellington, New Zealand) software (Volpare AGD). The ratios of the resulting AGDs were analysed versus parameters influencing dose. The highest deviation between the resulting AGDs was found in the ratio of GE AGD to Volpara AGD for breast thicknesses between 20 and 40 mm (ratio: 0.80). For thicker breasts this ratio is close to one (1 ± 0.02 for breast thicknesses >60 mm). The Dance to Volpara ratio was between 0.86 (breast thickness 20-40 mm) and 0.99 (>80 mm), and Dance/GE AGD was between 1.07 (breast thickness 20-40 mm) and 0.98 (41-60, and >80 mm). Glandularities by Volpara were generally smaller than the one calculated with the Dance method. This effect is most pronounced for small breast thickness and older ages. Taking the considerable divergences between the AGDs from different methods into account, the selection of the method should by done carefully. As the Volpara method provides an analysis of the individual breast tissue, while the Wu and the Dance methods use look up tables and custom parameter sets, the Volpara method might be more appropriate if individual ADG values are sought. For regulatory purposes and comparison with diagnostic reference values, the method to be used needs to be defined exactly and clearly be stated. However, it should be accepted that dose values calculated with standardized models, like AGD and also effective dose, are afflicted with a considerable uncertainty budgets that need to be accounted for in the interpretation of these values.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30971741
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-42144-7
pii: 10.1038/s41598-019-42144-7
pmc: PMC6458177
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5866Références
Med Phys. 2013 Sep;40(9):092105
pubmed: 24007174
Radiology. 1991 Apr;179(1):143-8
pubmed: 2006265
Med Phys. 2012 Aug;39(8):4903-17
pubmed: 22894417
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 21;9(1):e85952
pubmed: 24465808
Br J Radiol. 2000 Oct;73(874):1056-67
pubmed: 11271898
Phys Med Biol. 2016 Oct 7;61(19):R271-R304
pubmed: 27617767
Radiology. 2011 Jan;258(1):98-105
pubmed: 21081671
Br J Radiol. 2016 Nov;89(1067):20150897
pubmed: 27585843
Phys Med Biol. 2005 Dec 21;50(24):5953-67
pubmed: 16333166
Acad Radiol. 2017 Dec;24(12):1561-1569
pubmed: 28754209
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016 Apr 29;108(10):
pubmed: 27130893
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004 Mar;182(3):713-7
pubmed: 14975974
Med Phys. 2016 Jun;43(6):2870-2876
pubmed: 27277035
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007 Jul;104(1):47-56
pubmed: 17009106
Acta Radiol. 2015 Sep;56(9):1061-8
pubmed: 25338836
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2018 Jan;5(1):013503
pubmed: 29430473
Phys Med Biol. 2009 Jul 21;54(14):4361-72
pubmed: 19550001
Acta Radiol. 2014 Dec;55(10):1174-9
pubmed: 24311702
Radiographics. 2015 Mar-Apr;35(2):316-24
pubmed: 25763719
Radiology. 1999 Oct;213(1):23-37
pubmed: 10540637
Med Phys. 2009 Dec;36(12):5437-43
pubmed: 20095256
CA Cancer J Clin. 2014 Jan-Feb;64(1):52-62
pubmed: 24114568