Comparison of AAPM TG282 and Dance breast dosimetry models: Impact on estimates of average MGD for the United Kingdom breast screening programmes.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Physica Medica-European Journal of Medical Physics Pub Date : 2025-01-21 DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2025.104908
John Loveland, Alistair Mackenzie
{"title":"Comparison of AAPM TG282 and Dance breast dosimetry models: Impact on estimates of average MGD for the United Kingdom breast screening programmes.","authors":"John Loveland, Alistair Mackenzie","doi":"10.1016/j.ejmp.2025.104908","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task group 282 (TG282) in collaboration with the European Federation for Organisations of Medical Physics (EFOMP) have developed a novel breast dosimetry model intended as a single international standard.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To explore the impact of TG282 dosimetry on estimates of average Mean Glandular Dose (MGD) in the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) Breast Screening Programmes (BSP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MGDs were estimated, using the TG282 dosimetry model, for the most recent UK NHSBSP dose survey. This dataset included MGDs estimated using the Dance dosimetry model for 439,916 Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) exposures of 111,132 women and 10,831 Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) exposures of 5,113 women. Direct comparisons of the two models were made and differences explored using this large-scale real world dataset.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>TG282 model MGDs were on average approximately 20 % and 15 % lower than Dance model values for FFDM and DBT respectively. For the UK National Diagnostic Reference Level (NDRL) breast thickness range of 50 mm to 60 mm inclusive differences were smaller at approximately 13 % and 10 % respectively. The difference between dosimetry models was shown to depend on the properties of the imaged population and X-ray equipment used. Average differences of up to 63.1 % were observed at higher CBT values for FFDM.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>On average, the TG282 dosimetry model resulted in lower estimates for MGD in UK mammography. The differences were more pronounced for women with larger than average compressed breast thickness.</p>","PeriodicalId":56092,"journal":{"name":"Physica Medica-European Journal of Medical Physics","volume":"130 ","pages":"104908"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physica Medica-European Journal of Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2025.104908","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task group 282 (TG282) in collaboration with the European Federation for Organisations of Medical Physics (EFOMP) have developed a novel breast dosimetry model intended as a single international standard.

Purpose: To explore the impact of TG282 dosimetry on estimates of average Mean Glandular Dose (MGD) in the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) Breast Screening Programmes (BSP).

Methods: MGDs were estimated, using the TG282 dosimetry model, for the most recent UK NHSBSP dose survey. This dataset included MGDs estimated using the Dance dosimetry model for 439,916 Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) exposures of 111,132 women and 10,831 Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) exposures of 5,113 women. Direct comparisons of the two models were made and differences explored using this large-scale real world dataset.

Results: TG282 model MGDs were on average approximately 20 % and 15 % lower than Dance model values for FFDM and DBT respectively. For the UK National Diagnostic Reference Level (NDRL) breast thickness range of 50 mm to 60 mm inclusive differences were smaller at approximately 13 % and 10 % respectively. The difference between dosimetry models was shown to depend on the properties of the imaged population and X-ray equipment used. Average differences of up to 63.1 % were observed at higher CBT values for FFDM.

Conclusion: On average, the TG282 dosimetry model resulted in lower estimates for MGD in UK mammography. The differences were more pronounced for women with larger than average compressed breast thickness.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
14.70%
发文量
493
审稿时长
78 days
期刊介绍: Physica Medica, European Journal of Medical Physics, publishing with Elsevier from 2007, provides an international forum for research and reviews on the following main topics: Medical Imaging Radiation Therapy Radiation Protection Measuring Systems and Signal Processing Education and training in Medical Physics Professional issues in Medical Physics.
期刊最新文献
Breast ultrasound imaging systems performance evaluation using novel Contrast-Detail (C-D) and Anechoic-Target (A-T) phantoms. Intrafraction motion in intra-cranial multi-target stereotactic radiosurgery plans: A multi-institutional investigation on robustness. A straightforward method for assessing the technical image quality of reconstructed and synthetic 2D images for Digital breast tomosynthesis systems. Characterization and evaluation methods of fused deposition modeling and stereolithography additive manufacturing for clinical linear accelerator photon and electron radiotherapy applications. Comparison of AAPM TG282 and Dance breast dosimetry models: Impact on estimates of average MGD for the United Kingdom breast screening programmes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1