Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences · 2020
Radiation dose from digital breast tomosynthesis screening - A comparison with full field digital mammography.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
M Ali Raed M K, England Andrew, Tootell Andrew K, Hogg Peter
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare Mean Glandular Dose (MGD) and effective dose from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening with that from full field digital mammography (FFDM) screening.
METHOD: To simulate compressed breasts, two Perspex-polyethylene breast phantoms were used, one phantom for compressed breast in craniocaudal and the other for compressed breast in mediolateral oblique. An adult ATOM dosimetry phantom was loaded with high sensitivity thermoluminescence dosimeters; the phantom was then positioned on Hologic Selenia Dimensions mammographic machine to imitate DBT and 4-view FFDM screening. Organ radiation doses were measured from 4-view DBT and 4-view FFDM (craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views for each breast). Organ radiation doses were used to calculate effective dose from one screening session.
RESULTS: MGD for DBT was 3.6 mGy; MGD for FFDM was 2.8 mGy. For DBT, other organs (e.g. thymus, lungs, salivary glands, thyroid, contralateral breast and bone marrow) radiation dose was also higher than for FFDM. The use of DBT for breast cancer screening increases the effective dose (E) of one screening session by 22%. E for DBT was 0.44 mSv; E for FFDM was 0.34 mSv.
CONCLUSION: The use of DBT for breast cancer screening increases the radiation dose to screening clients.
METHOD: To simulate compressed breasts, two Perspex-polyethylene breast phantoms were used, one phantom for compressed breast in craniocaudal and the other for compressed breast in mediolateral oblique. An adult ATOM dosimetry phantom was loaded with high sensitivity thermoluminescence dosimeters; the phantom was then positioned on Hologic Selenia Dimensions mammographic machine to imitate DBT and 4-view FFDM screening. Organ radiation doses were measured from 4-view DBT and 4-view FFDM (craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views for each breast). Organ radiation doses were used to calculate effective dose from one screening session.
RESULTS: MGD for DBT was 3.6 mGy; MGD for FFDM was 2.8 mGy. For DBT, other organs (e.g. thymus, lungs, salivary glands, thyroid, contralateral breast and bone marrow) radiation dose was also higher than for FFDM. The use of DBT for breast cancer screening increases the effective dose (E) of one screening session by 22%. E for DBT was 0.44 mSv; E for FFDM was 0.34 mSv.
CONCLUSION: The use of DBT for breast cancer screening increases the radiation dose to screening clients.