Patient Specific Dose Calculation Using Volumetric Breast Density for Mammography and Tomosynthesis

Minimising the mean glandular dose (MGD) received by the patient whilst maximising image contrast during mammographic imaging is of paramount importance due to the widespread use of the modality for screening, where subjects are for the most part healthy. The advent of digital mammography brought about a general reduction in MGD, however the introduction of tomosynthesis, particularly when used in combination with conventional projection mammography has the potential for unwanted and often unnecessary MGD increases. We describe a method to calculate the patient-specific MGD using a representation of the patient’s volumetric breast density to derive the breast glandularity. This personalises the MGD to the individual woman, rather than assuming a constant value, or one that depends solely on compressed breast thickness. The calculated patient specific MGDs are compared to those reported by the manufacturer for a database of 2D mammograms. Though agreement is generally good for dense breasts, we have found that the MGD is underestimated in fatty breasts. A separate database of 2D mammogram and 3D tomosynthesis acquisitions acquired in “combo” is also analysed. In general, the MGDs are approximately equal for dense (VDG 3 and 4) breasts, but fatty (VDG 1 and 2) breasts exhibited significant differences with tomosynthesis MGDs being higher than mammogram MGDs for these cases.

[1]  G. Barnes,et al.  Normalized average glandular dose in molybdenum target-rhodium filter and rhodium target-rhodium filter mammography. , 1994, Radiology.

[2]  G. Barnes,et al.  Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography. , 1991, Radiology.

[3]  D. Dance Monte Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose. , 1990, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  Ioannis Sechopoulos,et al.  Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization. , 2012, Radiology.

[5]  D. Dance,et al.  Further factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  R. Sievert,et al.  Book Reviews : Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (as amended 1959 and revised 1962). I.C.R.P. Publication 6. 70 pp. PERGAMON PRESS. Oxford, London and New York, 1964. £1 5s. 0d. [TB/54] , 1964 .

[7]  D. Dance,et al.  Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  Jack Valentin,et al.  The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. , 2007, Annals of the ICRP.

[9]  Constantine Gatsonis,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. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  C. J. Kotre,et al.  Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  W. Sobol,et al.  Parametrization of mammography normalized average glandular dose tables. , 1997, Medical physics.

[12]  J. Boone,et al.  Glandular breast dose for monoenergetic and high-energy X-ray beams: Monte Carlo assessment. , 1999, Radiology.

[13]  D R Dance,et al.  Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.