Skin models and their impact on mean glandular dose in mammography

被引:14
|
作者
Massera, Rodrigo Trevisan [1 ]
Tomal, Alessandra [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Estadual Campinas, Inst Fis Gleb Wataghin, BR-13083859 Campinas, Brazil
基金
巴西圣保罗研究基金会;
关键词
Monte Carlo; Mammography; Dosimetry; Skin model; X-RAY-SPECTRA; MONTE-CARLO-SIMULATION; BREAST DOSIMETRY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; CONVERSION FACTORS; DGN COEFFICIENTS; PHANTOM; VALUES; CT;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.04.009
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To quantify the influence of different skin models on mammographic breast dosimetry, based on dosimetric protocols and recent breast skin thickness findings. Methods: By using an adapted PENELOPE (v. 2014)+ PenEasy (v. 2015) Monte Carlo (MC) code, simulations were performed in order to obtain the mean glandular dose (MGD), the normalized MGD by incident air Kerma (DgN), and the glandular depth dose (GDD(z)). The geometry was based on a cranio-caudal mammographic examination. Monoenergetic and polyenergetic beams were implemented, for a breast thickness from 2 cm to 9 cm, with different compositions. Seven skin models were used: a 5mm adipose layer; a skin layer ranging from 5mm to 1.45 mm, a 1.45mm skin thickness with a subcutaneous adipose layer of 2mm and 3.55 mm. Results: The differences, for monoenergetic beams, are higher (up to 200%) for lower energies (8 keV), thicker and low glandular content breasts, decreasing to less than 5% at 40 keV. Without a skin layer, the differences reach a maximum of 1240%. The relative difference in DgN values for 1.45mm skin and 5mm adipose layers and polyenergetic beams varies from -14% to 12%. Conclusions: The implemented MC code is suitable for mammography dosimetry calculations. The skin models have major impacts on MGD values, and the results complement previous literature findings. The current protocols should be updated to include a more realistic skin model, which provides a reliable breast dose estimation.
引用
收藏
页码:38 / 47
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Glandular dose indices using a glandular dose to air kerma volume histogram in mammography
    Shinohara, Sae
    Araki, Fujio
    Ohno, Takeshi
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2020, 47 (03) : 1340 - 1348
  • [42] MEAN GLANDULAR DOSE IN SIX DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY SERVICES IN SANTIAGO, CHILE: PRELIMINARY REFERENCE LEVELS
    Leyton, Fernando
    Nogueira, Maria Do Socorro
    Dantas, Marcelino
    Paz Duran, Maria
    Ubeda, Carlos
    [J]. RADIATION PROTECTION DOSIMETRY, 2015, 165 (1-4) : 115 - 120
  • [43] NORMALIZED AVERAGE GLANDULAR DOSE IN MAGNIFICATION MAMMOGRAPHY
    LIU, B
    GOODSITT, M
    CHAN, HP
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1995, 197 (01) : 27 - 32
  • [44] Method for the evaluation of a average glandular dose in mammography
    Okunade, AA
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2006, 33 (04) : 1153 - 1164
  • [45] Patient Specific Average Glandular Dose in Mammography
    Patel, V.
    Highnam, R.
    Tromans, C.
    Pizzutiello, R. J.
    Destounis, S.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2013, 40 (06)
  • [46] Glandular Dose Indices Using a Glandular Dose-To-Air Kerma Volume Histogram in Mammography
    Shinohara, S.
    Araki, F.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 46 (06) : E360 - E360
  • [47] A survey on mean glandular dose in mammography examination and the factors affecting it in Shahid Sadoughi Hospital, Yazd, Iran
    Asadollahzadeh, Najmeh
    Razavi, Seidkazem
    Zare, Mohammad Hossein
    [J]. RADIATION PROTECTION DOSIMETRY, 2024, 200 (09) : 809 - 821
  • [48] Comparison of Mean Glandular Dose between Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Teoh, Kar Choon
    Manan, Hanani Abdul
    Norsuddin, Norhashimah Mohd
    Rizuana, Iqbal Hussain
    [J]. HEALTHCARE, 2021, 9 (12)
  • [49] Parametrization of mammography normalized average glandular dose tables
    Sobol, WT
    Wu, XZ
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1997, 24 (04) : 547 - 554
  • [50] New Way for Calculating the Average Glandular Dose in the Mammography
    Penchev, P.
    Schopphoven, S.
    Smirnov, A.
    Bock, K.
    Fiebich, M.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2011, 38 (06)