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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Salomon, Elisabeth, Homolka, Peter, Semturs, Friedrich, Figl, Michael, Gruber, Michael, Hummel, Johann
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