Personalized estimates of radiation dose from dedicated breast CT in a diagnostic population and comparison with diagnostic mammography

This study retrospectively analyzed the mean glandular dose (MGD) to 133 breasts from 132 subjects, all women, who participated in a clinical trial evaluating dedicated breast CT in a diagnostic population. The clinical trial was conducted in adherence to a protocol approved by institutional review boards and the study participants provided written informed consent. Individual estimates of MGD to each breast from dedicated breast CT was obtained by combining x-ray beam characteristics with estimates of breast dimensions and fibroglandular fraction from volumetric breast CT images, and using normalized glandular dose coefficients. For each study participant and for the breast corresponding to that imaged with breast CT, an estimate of the MGD from diagnostic mammography (including supplemental views) was obtained from the DICOM image headers for comparison. This estimate uses normalized glandular dose coefficients corresponding to a breast with 50% fibroglandular weight fraction. The median fibroglandular weight fraction for the study cohort determined from volumetric breast CT images was 15%. Hence, the MGD from diagnostic mammography was corrected to be representative of the study cohort. Individualized estimates of MGD from breast CT ranged from 5.7 to 27.8 mGy. Corresponding to the breasts imaged with breast CT, the MGD from diagnostic mammography ranged from 2.6 to 31.6 mGy. The mean (± inter-breast SD) and the median MGD (mGy) from dedicated breast CT exam were 13.9 ± 4.6 and 12.6, respectively. For the corresponding breasts, the mean (± inter-breast SD) and the median MGD (mGy) from diagnostic mammography were 12.4 ± 6.3 and 11.1, respectively. Statistical analysis indicated that at the 0.05 level, the distributions of MGD from dedicated breast CT and diagnostic mammography were significantly different (Wilcoxon signed ranks test, p = 0.007). While the interquartile range and the range (maximum-minimum) of MGD from dedicated breast CT was lower than diagnostic mammography, the median MGD from dedicated breast CT was approximately 13.5% higher than that from diagnostic mammography. The MGD for breast CT is based on a 1.45 mm skin layer and that for diagnostic mammography is based on a 4 mm skin layer; thus, favoring a lower estimate for MGD from diagnostic mammography. The median MGD from dedicated breast CT corresponds to the median MGD from four to five diagnostic mammography views. In comparison, for the same 133 breasts, the mean and the median number of views per breast during diagnostic mammography were 4.53 and 4, respectively. Paired analysis showed that there was approximately equal likelihood of receiving lower MGD from either breast CT or diagnostic mammography. Future work will investigate methods to reduce and optimize radiation dose from dedicated breast CT.

[1]  Eugenio Paci,et al.  A pooled analysis of interval cancer rates in six European countries , 2010, European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation.

[2]  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.

[3]  K Faulkner,et al.  Radiation benefit and risk at the assessment stage of the UK Breast Screening Programme. , 2006, The British journal of radiology.

[4]  E. Sidky,et al.  Image reconstruction in circular cone-beam computed tomography by constrained, total-variation minimization , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[5]  J. Boone,et al.  The effect of skin thickness determined using breast CT on mammographic dosimetry. , 2008, Medical physics.

[6]  John M Boone,et al.  Characterizing anatomical variability in breast CT images. , 2008, Medical physics.

[7]  W. Barlow,et al.  Time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography from the community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004. , 2010, Radiology.

[8]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2006 .

[9]  T R Nelson,et al.  A comprehensive analysis of DgN(CT) coefficients for pendant-geometry cone-beam breast computed tomography. , 2004, Medical physics.

[10]  Ruola Ning,et al.  Cone-beam CT for breast imaging: Radiation dose, breast coverage, and image quality. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  Michaela C. C. Weigel,et al.  High-resolution spiral CT of the breast at very low dose: concept and feasibility considerations , 2011, European Radiology.

[12]  J. Boone,et al.  Association between power law coefficients of the anatomical noise power spectrum and lesion detectability in breast imaging modalities. , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  I. Sechopoulos,et al.  Cupping artifact correction and automated classification for high-resolution dedicated breast CT images. , 2012, Medical physics.

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

[15]  H. Chan,et al.  Normalized average glandular dose in magnification mammography. , 1995, Radiology.

[16]  N. Lanconelli,et al.  Cone-beam breast computed tomography with a displaced flat panel detector array. , 2012, Medical physics.

[17]  T. M. Kolb,et al.  Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. , 2002, Radiology.

[18]  Spencer L Bowen,et al.  PET characteristics of a dedicated breast PET/CT scanner prototype , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[19]  J. Boone,et al.  Dedicated breast CT: radiation dose and image quality evaluation. , 2001, Radiology.

[20]  Srinivasan Vedantham,et al.  Dedicated breast CT: geometric design considerations to maximize posterior breast coverage , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[21]  Jean B. Cormack,et al.  Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. , 2008, JAMA.

[22]  D. Kopans.  Beyond randomized controlled trials , 2002, Cancer.

[23]  Luigi Rigon,et al.  Breast tomography with synchrotron radiation: preliminary results , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[24]  Srinivasan Vedantham,et al.  Technical note: Skin thickness measurements using high-resolution flat-panel cone-beam dedicated breast CT. , 2013, Medical physics.

[25]  Günter Lauritsch,et al.  A factorization approach for cone-beam reconstruction on a circular short-scan , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[26]  Srinivasan Vedantham,et al.  Dedicated breast CT: fibroglandular volume measurements in a diagnostic population. , 2012, Medical physics.

[27]  Ruola Ning,et al.  NPS characterization and evaluation of a cone beam CT breast imaging system. , 2009, Journal of X-ray science and technology.

[28]  Srinivasan Vedantham,et al.  Dedicated breast CT: radiation dose for circle-plus-line trajectory. , 2012, Medical physics.

[29]  A. Burgess,et al.  Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. , 2001, Medical physics.

[30]  Giovanni Mettivier,et al.  Dedicated scanner for laboratory investigations on cone-beam CT/SPECT imaging of the breast , 2011 .

[31]  John M Boone,et al.  Contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. , 2010, Radiology.

[32]  Ioannis Sechopoulos,et al.  X-ray scatter correction method for dedicated breast computed tomography. , 2012, Medical physics.

[33]  Ioannis Sechopoulos,et al.  Dosimetric characterization of a dedicated breast computed tomography clinical prototype. , 2010, Medical physics.

[34]  J. Law,et al.  Breast dose from magnification films in mammography. , 2005, The British journal of radiology.

[35]  Martin J Yaffe,et al.  The relationship between anatomic noise and volumetric breast density for digital mammography. , 2012, Medical physics.

[36]  J. S. Laughlin,et al.  Absorbed radiation dose in mammography. , 1979, Radiology.

[37]  M. Tornai,et al.  Evaluation of tilted cone-beam CT orbits in the development of a dedicated hybrid mammotomograph , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[38]  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.

[39]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Monte Carlo and phantom study of the radiation dose to the body from dedicated CT of the breast. , 2008, Radiology.

[40]  Anita Nosratieh,et al.  Anatomical complexity in breast parenchyma and its implications for optimal breast imaging strategies. , 2012, Medical physics.

[41]  J. Kaufhold,et al.  A calibration approach to glandular tissue composition estimation in digital mammography. , 2002, Medical physics.

[42]  H. Barnhart,et al.  Observer detection limits for a dedicated SPECT breast imaging system , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[43]  M J Yaffe,et al.  The myth of the 50-50 breast. , 2009, Medical physics.

[44]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[45]  D. Darambara,et al.  Normalized mean glandular dose computation from mammography using GATE: a validation study , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[46]  P Baldelli,et al.  Clinical dose performance of full field digital mammography in a breast screening programme. , 2011, The British journal of radiology.

[47]  John M. Boone,et al.  Development and spatial resolution characterization of a dedicated pulsed x-ray, cone-beam breast CT system , 2013, Medical Imaging.

[48]  P. Shikhaliev,et al.  Photon counting spectral CT versus conventional CT: comparative evaluation for breast imaging application , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[49]  Uncertainties involved in the estimation of mean glandular dose for women in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP). , 2013, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[50]  Michael J Schell,et al.  Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography. , 2007, Radiology.

[51]  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.

[52]  B. McParland.  Image quality and dose in film-screen magnification mammography. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[53]  J. Boone,et al.  Dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. , 2008, Radiology.

[54]  X Liu,et al.  A post-reconstruction method to correct cupping artifacts in cone beam breast computed tomography. , 2007, Medical physics.

[55]  Sharon Bond,et al.  Screening With Ultrasound at Time of Mammography Improves Disease Detection in Women at Higher Risk for Breast Cancer, but False Positives Increase , 2008 .

[56]  Samta Thacker,et al.  Evaluating the impact of X-ray spectral shape on image quality in flat-panel CT breast imaging. , 2007, Medical physics.

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

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