The Effect of Breast Compression Thickness to the Average Glandular Dose (AGD) and Image Quality in Digital Mammography: A Phantom Study
Main Article Content
Abstract
Breast imaging techniques, like Full-Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT), play a crucial role in early breast diagnosis. To ensure high-quality images and patient comfort during mammography, an optimum thickness of breast compression is essential. This study delves into how different compression thickness affect the Average Glandular Dose (AGD) and image quality in FFDM and DBT. Materials and methods: In this work, a breast phantom is fabricated using gelatine to mimic human breast tissue. Optical density (OD), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and AGD in the phantom were measured involving a range of compression thicknesses, from 31 to 40 mm. ImageJ and RadiAnt DICOM Viewer software were employed to quantify OD and SNR and compared unprocessed digital images obtained from FFDM and DBT. Results: The findings revealed the optimal compression thickness for achieving both the desired absorbed dose and high image quality. For FFDM, an ideal point is 35 mm, which results in an AGD of 1.83 mGy and an SNR of 10.61. In the case of DBT, the ideal compression thickness is about 33.8 mm, leading to an AGD of 4.76 mGy and SNR of 13.47. To attain a suitable balance between OD and SNR, we recommend breast thicknesses of 36.8 mm for FFDM and 37.3 mm for DBT. Conclusion: The findings offer valuable insights for further validating mammography parameters in order to strike a balance between AGD and image quality during breast scans, improving patients’ comfort while maximizing the effectiveness of the scan.
Downloads
Article Details
References
Kidwell, J., 2018. ACR PRACTICE PARAMETER FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF SCREENING AND DIAGNOSTIC MAMMOGRAPHY PREAMBLE, American College of Radiology. United States of America. Retrieved from https://coilink.org/20.500.12592/whrj9z on 25 Feb 2025. COI: 20.500.12592/whrj9z.
Virginia Tsapaki, (2020). Radiation dose optimization in diagnostic and interventional radiology: Current issues and future perspectives, Physica Medica, Volume 79, Pages 16-21, ISSN 1120-1797, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.09.015.
Fausto, A. M., Lopes, M. C., de Sousa, M. C., Furquim, T. A., Mol, A. W., & Velasco, F. G. (2017). Optimization of Image Quality and Dose in Digital Mammography. Journal of digital imaging, 30(2), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-016-9928-3
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), (2005) Optimization of the Radiological Protection of Patients: Image Quality and Dose in Mammography (coordinated research in Europe) IAEA, VIENNA, AUSTRIA,IAEA-TECDOC-1447, ISBN 92–0–102305–7, ISSN 1011–4289.
American Association of Physicists in Medicine. (1990). Report of AAPM TG 7: Equipments requirements and Quality Control for Mammography (Report No. 29). American Association of Physicists in Medicine. https://www. https://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/rpt_29.pdf
Helvie MA, Chan HP, Adler DD, Boyd PG. (1994) Breast thickness in routine mammograms: effect on image quality and radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994 Dec;163(6):1371-4. doi: 10.2214/ajr.163.6.7992731. PMID: 7992731.
Holland, K., Sechopoulos, I., Mann, R.M. et al. (2017). Influence of breast compression pressure on the performance of population-based mammography screening. Breast Cancer Res 19, 126n. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-017-0917-3
Ikejimba, L.C., Graff, C.G., Rosenthal, S., Badal, A., Ghammraoui, B., Lo, J.Y. and Glick, S.J. (2017), A novel physical anthropomorphic breast phantom for 2D and 3D x-ray imaging. Med. Phys., 44: 407-416. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12062
Kiarashi, N., Nolte, A. C., Sturgeon, G. M., Segars, W. P., Ghate, S. V., Nolte, L. W., Samei, E., & Lo, J. Y. (2015). Development of realistic physical breast phantoms matched to virtual breast phantoms based on human subject data. Medical physics, 42(7), 4116–4126. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4919771
Morehouse, H., Thaker, H. P., & Persaud, C. (2007). Addition of Metamucil to gelatin for a realistic breast biopsy phantom. Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, 26(8), 1123–1126. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2007.26.8.1123
Hofstetter, L. W., Fausett, L., Mueller, A., Odéen, H., Payne, A., Christensen, D. A., & Parker, D. L. (2020). Development and characterization of a tissue mimicking psyllium husk gelatin phantom for ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. International Journal of Hyperthermia, 37(1), 283-290.
Dance, D. R., Skinner, C. L., Young, K. C., Beckett, J. R., & Kotre, C. J. (2000). Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Physics in medicine and biology, 45(11), 3225–3240. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/45/11/308
Hall, T. J., Bilgen, M., Insana, M. F., & Krouskop, T. A. (1997). Phantom materials for elastography. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 44(6), 1355-1365. https://doi.org/10.1109/58.656639
Sanchez, A., Mills, C., & Scurr, J. (2017). Estimating Breast Mass-Density: A Retrospective Analysis of Radiological Data. The breast journal, 23(2), 237–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12725
Desperito E, Schwartz L, Capaccione KM, Collins BT, Jamabawalikar S, Peng B, Patrizio R, Salvatore MM. (2022). Chest CT for Breast Cancer Diagnosis. Life,12(11):1699. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12111699.
Nakamura, N., Okafuji, Y., Adachi, S., Takahashi, K., Nakakuma, T., & Ueno, S. (2018). Effect of Different Breast Densities and Average Glandular Dose on Contrast to Noise Ratios in Full-Field Digital Mammography: Simulation and Phantom Study. Radiology research and practice, 2018, 6192594. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6192594
He, Y., Liu, Y., Dyer, B. A., Boone, J. M., Liu, S., Chen, T., Zheng, F., Zhu, Y., Sun, Y., Rong, Y., & Qiu, J. (2019). 3D-printed breast phantom for multi-purpose and multi-modality imaging. Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 9(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.21037/qims.2019.01.05
European Commission: Directorate-General for Health and Consumers, Karsa, L., Holland, R., Broeders, M., Wolf, C., Perry, N., & Törnberg, S. (2013). European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis : fourth edition, supplements, (L.Karsa,editor,R.Holland,editor,M.Broeders,editor,C.Wolf,editor,N.Perry,editor,S.Törnberg,edito) Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2772/13196
Poulos, A., & McLean, D. (2004). The application of breast compression in mammography: a new perspective. Radiography, 10(2), 131–137. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2004.02.012.
Davidson, R., Al Khalifah, K., & Zhou, A. (2022). Variation in digital breast tomosynthesis image quality at differing heights above the detector. Journal of medical radiation sciences, 69(2), 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.565