We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Radiation dose with digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography: per-view analysis.
European Radiology 2018 Februrary
OBJECTIVES: To compare radiation dose delivered by digital mammography (FFDM) and breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for a single view.
METHODS: 4,780 FFDM and 4,798 DBT images from 1,208 women enrolled in a screening trial were used to ground dose comparison. Raw images were processed by an automatic software to determine volumetric breast density (VBD) and were used together with exposure data to compute the mean glandular dose (MGD) according to Dance's model. DBT and FFDM were compared in terms of operation of the automatic exposure control (AEC) and MGD level.
RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between FFDM and DBT MGDs for all views (CC: MGDFFDM =1.366 mGy, MGDDBT =1.858 mGy; p<0.0001; MLO: MGDFFDM =1.374 mGy, MGDDBT =1.877 mGy; p<0.0001). Considering the 4,768 paired views, Bland-Altman analysis showed that the average increase of DBT dose compared to FFDM is 38 %, and a range between 0 % and 75 %.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show a modest increase of radiation dose to the breast by tomosynthesis compared to FFDM. Given the emerging role of DBT, its use in conjunction with synthetic 2D images should not be deterred by concerns regarding radiation burden, and should draw on evidence of potential clinical benefit.
KEY POINTS: • Most studies compared tomosynthesis in combination with mammography vs. mammography alone. • There is some concern about the dose increase with tomosynthesis. • Clinical data show a small increase in radiation dose with tomosynthesis. • Synthetic 2D images from tomosynthesis at zero dose reduce potential harm. • The small dose increase should not be a barrier to use of tomosynthesis.
METHODS: 4,780 FFDM and 4,798 DBT images from 1,208 women enrolled in a screening trial were used to ground dose comparison. Raw images were processed by an automatic software to determine volumetric breast density (VBD) and were used together with exposure data to compute the mean glandular dose (MGD) according to Dance's model. DBT and FFDM were compared in terms of operation of the automatic exposure control (AEC) and MGD level.
RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between FFDM and DBT MGDs for all views (CC: MGDFFDM =1.366 mGy, MGDDBT =1.858 mGy; p<0.0001; MLO: MGDFFDM =1.374 mGy, MGDDBT =1.877 mGy; p<0.0001). Considering the 4,768 paired views, Bland-Altman analysis showed that the average increase of DBT dose compared to FFDM is 38 %, and a range between 0 % and 75 %.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show a modest increase of radiation dose to the breast by tomosynthesis compared to FFDM. Given the emerging role of DBT, its use in conjunction with synthetic 2D images should not be deterred by concerns regarding radiation burden, and should draw on evidence of potential clinical benefit.
KEY POINTS: • Most studies compared tomosynthesis in combination with mammography vs. mammography alone. • There is some concern about the dose increase with tomosynthesis. • Clinical data show a small increase in radiation dose with tomosynthesis. • Synthetic 2D images from tomosynthesis at zero dose reduce potential harm. • The small dose increase should not be a barrier to use of tomosynthesis.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app