Optimal photon energy comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography: A case study |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Centro de Ciência e Tecnologias Nucleares, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Estrada Nacional 10, Km 139,7, 2695-066 Bobadela, Portugal;2. Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Ciências, Instituto de Biofísica e Engenharia Biomédica, Campo Grande, 1749-016 Lisboa, Portugal;3. Escola Superior de Saúde da Cruz Vermelha Portuguesa, Avenida de Ceuta, 1, Edifício Urbiceuta, 1300-125 Lisboa, Portugal;4. Serviço de Imagiologia, Hospital da Luz, Avenida Lusíada, 100, 1500-650 Lisboa, Portugal;1. Centre for Perinatal Neuroscience, Imperial College London, Du Cane Road, London W12 0HS, United Kingdom;2. Department of Histopathology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, Great Ormond Street, London WC1 3JH, United Kingdom;3. Centre for Cardiovascular Imaging, Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom;1. Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA;2. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA;3. Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA;4. Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children''s Hospital, Boston, MA;1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Clinic Erlangen, Germany;2. Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany;3. GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research, Darmstadt, Germany;1. Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), Radiology Section, University of Genova, Via Pastore, 1-16132, Genova, Italy;2. Emergency Radiology, Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi, 10-16132, Genova, Italy;3. Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Citta Della Salute e Della Scienza di Torino, Via Ventimiglia, 1-10126, Torino, Italy;4. Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Carreggi, Largo Brambilla, 3-50134, Firenze, Italy;5. SSD Radiodiagnostica Senologica-IRCCS Istituto Tumori Bari “Giovanni Paolo II”, Via O. Flacco, 65-70124, Bari, Italy;6. Unit of Radiology, San Bartolomeo Hospital, ASL 5 “Spezzino”, Via Cisa Loc. Santa Caterina, 19038, Sarzana, Italy;7. Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV – IRCCS, Via Gattamelata, 64-35128, Padua, Italy;8. Department of Imaging, ASL 3 Genovese, SC Radiologia – P.O. Villa Scassi Via Onofrio Scassi, 1-16125, Genova, Italy;9. Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genova, Via Pastore 1-16132, Genova, Italy;10. Breast Radiology, Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi, 10-16132, Genova, Italy;11. Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | A comparison, in terms of the optimal energy that maximizes the image quality between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM) was performed in a MAMMOMAT Inspiration system (Siemens) based on amorphous selenium flat panel detector. In this paper we measured the image quality by the signal difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR), and the patient risk by the mean glandular dose (MGD). Using these quantities we compared the optimal voltage that maximizes the image quality both in breast tomosynthesis and standard mammography acquisition mode. The comparison for the two acquisition modes was performed for a W/Rh anode filter combinations by using a 4.5 cm tissue equivalent mammography phantom. Moreover, in order to check if the used equipment was quantum noise limited, the relation of the relative noise with respect to the detector dose was evaluated. Results showed that in the tomosynthesis acquisition mode the optimal voltage is 28 kV, whereas in standard mammography the optimal voltage is 30 kV. The automatic exposure control (AEC) of the system selects 28 kV as optimal voltage both for DBT and DM. Monte Carlo simulations showed a qualitative agreement with the AEC selection system, since an optimal monochromatic energy of 20 keV was found both for DBT and DM. Moreover, the check about the noise showed that the system is not completely quantum noise limited, and this issue could explain the experimental slight difference in terms of optimal voltage between DBT and DM. According to these results, the use of higher voltage settings is not justified for the improvement of the image quality during a DBT examination. |
| |
| Keywords: | Digital mammography Digital breast tomosynthesis Image quality Mean glandular dose Monte Carlo simulations |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
