European journal of radiology · 2026
Impact of AAPM TG282 breast dosimetry model on population AGD for digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced mammography: a multicentre study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Radici Lorenzo, Franzino Jacopo, Borca Valeria Casanova, Petrucci Edoardo, Garello Alessandro, Berrino Giulia, Peretto Claudia Bussolino, Lucarelli Daniela Maria, Prando Elis, Bagnera Silvia, Bisanti Francesca, Depaoli Alessandro, Gisolo Francesca, Annibale Valentina, Belletti Marco, Brucculeri Francesca, Cava Mariangela, Da Silva Rosibeth, Montesi Alessandra, Oppezzo Emanuele, Pastorino Francesca, Sciaccaluga Chiara, Minetti Giuseppe, Pastorino Roberto, Pasquino Massimo, Sacchi Roberto, Vignati Anna
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A novel breast dosimetry model, developed by AAPM TG282 and EFOMP, is evaluated against the widely adopted Dance method for estimating Average Glandular Dose (AGD) in Digital Mammography (DM), Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) and Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM). This study aims to evaluate the difference in AGD estimates between the two models and assess the TG282 model impact in defining Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs).
METHODS: Data were collected from 15 different mammography systems. Differences in AGD were explored as a function of compressed breast thickness, patient age, and anode-filter combination for all three modalities in cranio-caudal and medio-lateral oblique views. The median AGD and the 75th percentile values, estimated using the TG282 model from the entire dataset, were reported.
RESULTS: The study highlights a reduction in median AGD across all modalities when using the new model. The largest absolute differences were observed with large breast thickness and were found to depend on the properties of the imaged population and the X-ray equipment used. The median AGD values estimated by the TG282 model fell below the limiting values defined in the European guidelines. The AGD 75th percentile provides useful data for defining Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) based on patient-derived clinical data for all modalities.
CONCLUSIONS: On average, the TG282 dosimetry model resulted in lower AGD estimates. The AGD spread across the entire patient population provides useful data for defining DRLs for DM, DBT, and CEM modalities.
METHODS: Data were collected from 15 different mammography systems. Differences in AGD were explored as a function of compressed breast thickness, patient age, and anode-filter combination for all three modalities in cranio-caudal and medio-lateral oblique views. The median AGD and the 75th percentile values, estimated using the TG282 model from the entire dataset, were reported.
RESULTS: The study highlights a reduction in median AGD across all modalities when using the new model. The largest absolute differences were observed with large breast thickness and were found to depend on the properties of the imaged population and the X-ray equipment used. The median AGD values estimated by the TG282 model fell below the limiting values defined in the European guidelines. The AGD 75th percentile provides useful data for defining Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) based on patient-derived clinical data for all modalities.
CONCLUSIONS: On average, the TG282 dosimetry model resulted in lower AGD estimates. The AGD spread across the entire patient population provides useful data for defining DRLs for DM, DBT, and CEM modalities.