Personalizing Mammographic Dosimetry Using Multilayered Anatomy-Based Breast Models

  • Mariela A. Porras-Chaverri
  • John R. Vetter
  • Ralph Highnam
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7361)

Abstract

A methodology for patient-oriented calculations of mean glandular dose (MGD) is introduced in this study. The method takes into consideration the influence of the glandular tissue distribution in the MGD. The glandular tissue information was estimated from conventional mammography images using breast density assessment software followed by the Mammography-Image Based (MIB) method presented in this work. The corresponding dose conversion coefficients (DgN − HLB) were determined using a Heterogeneously-Layered Breast (HLB) geometry. The effect of the glandular tissue distribution on the MGD was studied using a set of HLB models and their corresponding homogeneous model. DgN − HLB values were between 48% lower and 24% larger than the value calculated using a homogeneous glandular tissue distribution, despite the current methods predicting the same coefficient for all glandular tissue distributions. The proposed methods were applied to a group of patients. For the cases analyzed, the variation in MGD was as large as 14.8% for a highly heterogeneous dense breast.

Keywords

breast imaging dosimetry mean glandular dose breast anatomy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Boone, J.M., Chavez, A.: Comparison of x-ray cross sections for diagnostic and therapeutic medical physics. Medical Physics 23(12), 1997–2005 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dance, D.R.: Monte Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose. Physics in Medicine and Biology 35(9), 1211–1219 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dance, D.R., Hunt, R.A., Bakic, P.R., Maidment, A.D.A., Sandborg, M., Ullman, G., Carlsson, C.A.: Breast dosimetry using high-resolution voxel phantoms. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 114(1-3), 359–363 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dance, D.R., Skinner, C.L., Young, K.C., Beckett, J.R., Kotre, C.J.: Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Physics in Medicine and Biology 45, 3225–3240 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hammerstein, G.R., Miller, D.W., White, D.R., Masterson, M.E., Woodard, H.Q., Laughlin, J.S.: Absorbed radiation doses in mammography. Radiation Physics 130, 485–491 (1979)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Highnam, R., Brady, J.M.: Mammographic Image Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Highnam, R., Brady, M., Shepstone, B.: A representation for mammographic image processing. Medical Image Analysis 1(1), 1–18 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang, S., Boone, J.M., Yang, K., Kwan, A.L., Packard, N.J.: The effect of skin thickness determined using breast CT on mammographic dosimetry. Medical Physics 35(4), 1199–1206 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kopans, D.B.: Basic physics and doubts about relationship between mammographically determined tissue density and breast cancer risk. Radiology 246(2), 348–353 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosado-Méndez, I., Palma, B.A., Brandan, M.E.: Analytical optimization of digital subtraction mammography with contrast medium using a commercial unit. Medical Physics 35(12), 5544–5557 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wu, X., Barnes, G.T., Tucker, D.M.: Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography. Radiology 179, 143–148 (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wu, X.Z., Gingold, E.L., Barnes, G.T., Tucker, D.M.: Normalized average glandular dose in molybdenum target-rhodium filter and rhodium target-rhodium filter mammography. Radiology 193(1), 83–89 (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yaffe, M.J., Boone, J.M., Packard, N., Alonzo-Proulx, O., Huang, S.Y., Peressotti, C.L., Al-Mayah, A., Brock, K.: The myth of the 50-50 breast. Medical Physics 36(12), 5437–5443 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mariela A. Porras-Chaverri
    • 1
    • 2
  • John R. Vetter
    • 1
  • Ralph Highnam
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Medical PhysicsUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.School of PhysicsUniversity of Costa RicaSan JoséCosta Rica
  3. 3.Matakina Technology LimitedWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations