Patient dose in digital mammography.

In the present investigation, we analyze the dose of 5034 patients (20,137 images) who underwent mammographic examinations with a full-field digital mammography system. Also, we evaluate the system calibration by analyzing the exposure factors as a function of breast thickness. The information relevant to this study has been extracted from the image DICOM header and stored in a database during a 3-year period (March 2001-October 2003). Patient data included age, breast thickness, kVp, mAs, target/filter combination, and nominal dose values. Entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) without backscatter was calculated from the tube output as measured for each voltage used under clinical conditions and from the tube loading (mAs) included in the DICOM header. Mean values for the patient age and compressed breast thickness were 56 years (SD: 11) and 52 mm (SD: 13), respectively. The majority of the images was acquired using the STD (for standard) automatic mode (98%). The most frequent target/filter combination automatically selected for breast smaller than 35 mm was Mo/Mo (75%); for intermediate thicknesses between 35 and 65 mm, the combinations were Mo/Rh (54%) and Rh/Rh (38.5%); Rh/Rh was the combination selected for 91% of the cases for breasts thicker than 65 mm. A wide kVp range was observed for each target/filter combination. The most frequent values were 28 kVp for Mo/Mo, 29 kVp for Mo/Rh, and 29 and 30 kV for Rh/Rh. Exposure times ranged from 0.2 to 4.2 s with a mean value of 1.1 s. Average glandular doses (AGD) per exposure were calculated by multiplying the ESAK values by the conversion factors tabulated by Dance for women in the age groups 50 to 64 and 40 to 49. This approach is based on the dependence of breast glandularity on breast thickness and age. The total mean average glandular dose (AGD(T)) was calculated by summing the values associated with the pre-exposure and with the main exposure. Mean AGD(T) per exposure was 1.88 mGy (CI 0.01) and the mean AGD(T) per examination was 3.8 mGy, with 4 images per examination on average. The mean dose for cranio-caudal view (CC) images was 1.8 mGy, which is lower than that for medio-lateral oblique (MLO) view because the thickness for CC images was on average 10% lower than that for MLO images. Mean AGD(T) for the oldest group of women (1.90) was 3% higher than the AGD(T) for the younger group (1.85) due to the larger compressed breast thickness of women in the older group (10% on average). Differences between the corresponding AGD(T) values of each age group were lowest for breast thicknesses in the range 40-60 mm, being slightly higher for the women in the older group.

[1]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type. , 2003, Radiology.

[2]  Etta D Pisano,et al.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to diagnostic accuracy of lesion characterization in breast tissue biopsy specimens. , 2002, Academic radiology.

[3]  Borut Marincek,et al.  Electrocardiographically gated multi-detector row CT for assessment of valvular morphology and calcification in aortic stenosis. , 2002, Radiology.

[4]  Walter Huda,et al.  How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography? , 2002, Academic radiology.

[5]  K. Marten,et al.  Average glandular dose with amorphous silicon full-field digital mammography - Clinical results , 2002, RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin.

[6]  R. Hendrick,et al.  Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice. , 2002, Medical physics.

[7]  Radiation doses in the UK trial of breast screening in women aged 40-48 years. , 2002, The British journal of radiology.

[8]  E. Grabbe,et al.  Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions , 2002, European Radiology.

[9]  R. Rosenberg,et al.  Computer-based collection of mammographic exposure data for quality assurance and dosimetry. , 2001, Medical physics.

[10]  B. Schueler,et al.  A survey of clinical factors and patient dose in mammography. , 2001, Medical physics.

[11]  J M Lewin,et al.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. , 2001, Radiology.

[12]  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.

[13]  E. Vañó,et al.  Breast Doses from Patients and from Standard Phantom: Analysis of Differences , 2000 .

[14]  K C Young,et al.  Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 1997 and 1998. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[15]  S Suryanarayanan,et al.  Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. , 2000, Medical physics.

[16]  C. J. Kotre,et al.  Dosimetric implications of age related glandular changes in screening mammography. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[17]  K. Young,et al.  Review of Dosimetric Methods for Mammography in the UK Breast Screening Programme , 1998 .

[18]  M Säbel,et al.  Determination of average glandular dose with modern mammography units for two large groups of patients. , 1997, Physics in medicine and biology.