DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A study of dose and image quality with Convergence FFDM and DBT using tissue-equivalent phantom in digital mammography

유방조직등가 팬텀을 이용한 디지털유방촬영장치의 FFDM과 DBT의 선량과 영상품질에 대한 융합 연구

Yoo, Young-Sin;Han, Dong-Kyoon
유영신;한동균

  • Received : 2018.11.02
  • Accepted : 2019.02.20
  • Published : 2019.02.28

Abstract

In this study, we measure dose against various density and thickness using phantom to compare FFDM to DBT of Digital mammography equipment and evaluate usefulness of DBT through compare the image quality of FFDM and DBT. We use mammography equipment, Selenia Dimensions ; this is able to examine breast by both FFDM and DBT, The results are that when the thickness of phantom is 6cm or more and density is 70% or more and the thickness of phantom is 7cm or more and density is 50% or more, AGD of DBT is lower than that of FFDM. The evaluation results of image quality are that in the tumor and small calcification group that composed by mammary tissue and fat, FFDM is great and in fibrin, DBT is great. But in the all thicknesses of BR3D phantom that reflected overlapped tissue of breasts, DBT is great in calcification group, fibrin and tumor. DBT is greater image quality and lower dose more than FFDM in Thick and high density breast, Therefore, DBT is more useful in Korean women's breast that is characterized dense breast than FFDM.

Keywords

Mammography;Average Glandular Dose;FFDM;Tomosynthesis;DBT

References

  1. B. Y. Sim. (2016). Cancer Screening Guidelines in Korea. The Korean Journal of Medicine, 90(3), 224-230. DOI : 10.3904/kjm.2016.90.3.224 https://doi.org/10.3904/kjm.2016.90.3.224
  2. M. M. Jang. & H. S. Kim. (2017). Analysis of Factors Related to Pain Relief on Modified Mammography. Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology,11(5), 413-421 DOI : 10.7742/jksr.2017.11.5.413
  3. The Korea Central Cancer Registry. (2013). Annual report of cancer statistics in Korea in 2011. Ministry of Health and Welfare. http://ncc.re.kr/manage/manage03_033_list.jsp
  4. M. H. Kim. & G. S. Cheon. (2016). Changes in Spatial Resolution at Position of the Detector in Digital Mammography System. Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology,10(3), 215-222 DOI : 10.7742/jksr.2016.10.3.215 https://doi.org/10.7742/jksr.2016.10.3.215
  5. The Korea Central Cancer Registry. (2017). Annual report of cancer statistics in Korea in 2015. Ministry of Health and Welfare. http://ncc.re.kr/cancerStatsList.ncc?searchKey=total&searchValue=&pageNum=1)
  6. T. W. Won. (2017). Ductal carcinoma in situ arising within a fibroadenoma of breas. Journal of Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society, 18(11), 454-458 DOI : 10.5762/KAIS.2017.18.11.454 https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2017.18.1.454
  7. H. O. Y. Jeong. & P. G. JO. (2018). Quality Management for Mammography Equipment and Mammography. Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology, 12(5), 683-692 DOI : 10.7742/jksr.2018.12.5.683
  8. H. J. Shin. & A. Lee. (2015). Breast Cancer Screening in Korean Woman with Dense Breast Tissue. The Korean Society of Radiology, 73(5), 279-286. DOI : 10.3348/jksr.2015.73.5.279 https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2015.73.5.279
  9. S. H. Lee. & B. J. Kang (2018). Breast Cancer in Women Younger than 35-Years-Old: Correlation of MRI Findings with Clinicopathological Features and Immunohistochemical Subtypes Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology, 79(4), 196-203 DOI : 10.3348/jksr.2018.79.4.196 https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2018.79.4.196
  10. Etta D. Pisano. & Constantine Gatsonis. (2005). Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening. The New England Journal of Medicine, 353(17), 1773-1783. DOI : 10.1056/NEJMoa052911 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa052911
  11. Skaane. P. & Bandos. Al. (2013). Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology, 267(1), 47-56. DOI : 10.1148/radiol.12121373 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121373
  12. Friedewald. SM. & Rafferty. EA. (2014). Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. The journal of the American Medical Association, 311(24), 2499-2507. DOI : 10.1001/jama.2014.6095 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.6095
  13. Randell L. K. & Beth A. S. (2001). A survey of clinical factors and patient dose in mammography. The International journal of Medical Physics Research and Practice, 28(7), 1449-1454. DOI : 10.1118/1.1382606
  14. Ioannis. S.& Sankararaman. S. (2007). Computation of the glandular radiation dose in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. NIH Public Access, 34(1), 221-232 DOI : 10.1118/1.2400836
  15. Olgar. T. & Kahn. T. (2012). Average Glandular Dose in Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis. The journal of Thieme, 184(10), 911-918 DOI : 10.1055/s-0032-1312877