Cargando…
Comparison of a personalized breast dosimetry method with standard dosimetry protocols
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, ac...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6458177/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30971741 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42144-7 |
_version_ | 1783409961325297664 |
---|---|
author | Salomon, Elisabeth Homolka, Peter Semturs, Friedrich Figl, Michael Gruber, Michael Hummel, Johann |
author_facet | Salomon, Elisabeth Homolka, Peter Semturs, Friedrich Figl, Michael Gruber, Michael Hummel, Johann |
author_sort | Salomon, Elisabeth |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6458177 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64581772019-04-15 Comparison of a personalized breast dosimetry method with standard dosimetry protocols Salomon, Elisabeth Homolka, Peter Semturs, Friedrich Figl, Michael Gruber, Michael Hummel, Johann Sci Rep Article 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. Nature Publishing Group UK 2019-04-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6458177/ /pubmed/30971741 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42144-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Salomon, Elisabeth Homolka, Peter Semturs, Friedrich Figl, Michael Gruber, Michael Hummel, Johann Comparison of a personalized breast dosimetry method with standard dosimetry protocols |
title | Comparison of a personalized breast dosimetry method with standard dosimetry protocols |
title_full | Comparison of a personalized breast dosimetry method with standard dosimetry protocols |
title_fullStr | Comparison of a personalized breast dosimetry method with standard dosimetry protocols |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of a personalized breast dosimetry method with standard dosimetry protocols |
title_short | Comparison of a personalized breast dosimetry method with standard dosimetry protocols |
title_sort | comparison of a personalized breast dosimetry method with standard dosimetry protocols |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6458177/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30971741 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42144-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT salomonelisabeth comparisonofapersonalizedbreastdosimetrymethodwithstandarddosimetryprotocols AT homolkapeter comparisonofapersonalizedbreastdosimetrymethodwithstandarddosimetryprotocols AT semtursfriedrich comparisonofapersonalizedbreastdosimetrymethodwithstandarddosimetryprotocols AT figlmichael comparisonofapersonalizedbreastdosimetrymethodwithstandarddosimetryprotocols AT grubermichael comparisonofapersonalizedbreastdosimetrymethodwithstandarddosimetryprotocols AT hummeljohann comparisonofapersonalizedbreastdosimetrymethodwithstandarddosimetryprotocols |