Cargando…

Comparison between Recorded and Measured Radiation Doses in Diagnostic Full-field Digital Mammography: A Phantom Study

OBJECTIVES: There are concerns regarding the difference between directly recorded and measured entrance skin dose (ESD) and average glandular dose (AGD) in full-field digital mammography (FFDM). The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of different exposure parameters on ESD and AGD rec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Asbeutah, Akram Mahmoud, Brindhaban, Ajit
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Scientific Scholar 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7708958/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33274117
http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/JCIS_188_2020
_version_ 1783617649307025408
author Asbeutah, Akram Mahmoud
Brindhaban, Ajit
author_facet Asbeutah, Akram Mahmoud
Brindhaban, Ajit
author_sort Asbeutah, Akram Mahmoud
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: There are concerns regarding the difference between directly recorded and measured entrance skin dose (ESD) and average glandular dose (AGD) in full-field digital mammography (FFDM). The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of different exposure parameters on ESD and AGD recorded directly and measured from an FFDM unit using a phantom. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The ESD and AGD of 27 FFDM (craniocaudal [CC] projection) images of tissue-equivalent phantoms were acquired using a general electric (GE Senographe Essential) FFDM unit. The phantoms were used to simulate three different breast thicknesses and compositions. Tube potential, tube load, and target/ filter combinations also were recorded directly from the FFDM unit. RESULTS: The mean differences between the directly recorded and measured ESD and AGD were 0.23 and 0.080, respectively. The 95% confidence intervals for ESD and AGD were 0.1–0.36 and 0.04–0.10, respectively. Results of paired t-test showed statistically significant difference between the directly recorded and measured ESD (P = .001) and AGD (P < .001). A positive and significant correlation was noted between the directly recorded and measured ESD (r = 0.85, P < .001) and AGD (r = 0.91, P < .001). CONCLUSION: This observation confirms that we can use the directly recorded doses obtained from an FFDM for quality control program.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7708958
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Scientific Scholar
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77089582020-12-02 Comparison between Recorded and Measured Radiation Doses in Diagnostic Full-field Digital Mammography: A Phantom Study Asbeutah, Akram Mahmoud Brindhaban, Ajit J Clin Imaging Sci Original Research OBJECTIVES: There are concerns regarding the difference between directly recorded and measured entrance skin dose (ESD) and average glandular dose (AGD) in full-field digital mammography (FFDM). The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of different exposure parameters on ESD and AGD recorded directly and measured from an FFDM unit using a phantom. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The ESD and AGD of 27 FFDM (craniocaudal [CC] projection) images of tissue-equivalent phantoms were acquired using a general electric (GE Senographe Essential) FFDM unit. The phantoms were used to simulate three different breast thicknesses and compositions. Tube potential, tube load, and target/ filter combinations also were recorded directly from the FFDM unit. RESULTS: The mean differences between the directly recorded and measured ESD and AGD were 0.23 and 0.080, respectively. The 95% confidence intervals for ESD and AGD were 0.1–0.36 and 0.04–0.10, respectively. Results of paired t-test showed statistically significant difference between the directly recorded and measured ESD (P = .001) and AGD (P < .001). A positive and significant correlation was noted between the directly recorded and measured ESD (r = 0.85, P < .001) and AGD (r = 0.91, P < .001). CONCLUSION: This observation confirms that we can use the directly recorded doses obtained from an FFDM for quality control program. Scientific Scholar 2020-11-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7708958/ /pubmed/33274117 http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/JCIS_188_2020 Text en © 2020 Published by Scientific Scholar on behalf of Journal of Clinical Imaging Science https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Research
Asbeutah, Akram Mahmoud
Brindhaban, Ajit
Comparison between Recorded and Measured Radiation Doses in Diagnostic Full-field Digital Mammography: A Phantom Study
title Comparison between Recorded and Measured Radiation Doses in Diagnostic Full-field Digital Mammography: A Phantom Study
title_full Comparison between Recorded and Measured Radiation Doses in Diagnostic Full-field Digital Mammography: A Phantom Study
title_fullStr Comparison between Recorded and Measured Radiation Doses in Diagnostic Full-field Digital Mammography: A Phantom Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between Recorded and Measured Radiation Doses in Diagnostic Full-field Digital Mammography: A Phantom Study
title_short Comparison between Recorded and Measured Radiation Doses in Diagnostic Full-field Digital Mammography: A Phantom Study
title_sort comparison between recorded and measured radiation doses in diagnostic full-field digital mammography: a phantom study
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7708958/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33274117
http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/JCIS_188_2020
work_keys_str_mv AT asbeutahakrammahmoud comparisonbetweenrecordedandmeasuredradiationdosesindiagnosticfullfielddigitalmammographyaphantomstudy
AT brindhabanajit comparisonbetweenrecordedandmeasuredradiationdosesindiagnosticfullfielddigitalmammographyaphantomstudy