Regression Analysis between the Different Breast Dose Quantities Reported in Digital Mammography and Patient Age, Breast Thickness, and Acquisition Parameters
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Estimate the MGD per view, breast thickness, and age group for every subject enrolled in this study,
- Evaluate the impacts of mammography acquisition parameters, age, and breast thickness on the estimated MGD and other machine-produced dose quantities using a multilinear regression model,
- Conduct a correlation study between the ESD and OD, and the estimated MGD for each image view,
- Compare the findings of this study with other studies conducted on samples selected from different demographic regions.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Mammography Data
2.2. Estimating Mean Glandular Dose (MGD)
- -
- is the mammography machine output (calibration) measured in mGy. It is also known as the entrance dose at the surface of the breast. This quantity was provided by the manufacturers for each mammography scan and could also be obtained from the DICOM header.
- -
- is a conversion factor describing the fraction of “” that is absorbed by the glandular tissue in the breast. depends on breast thickness and the HVL.
- -
- is a correction factor for breast composition that corrects for any difference in glandularity from 50%, i.e., from 0–100%. Dance et al. [10] provided a reference table of factors for various HVLs, breast thicknesses from (2–11) cm, and glandularity from which one can extrapolate the percentage of glandularity for each individual.
- -
- is a correction factor for the X-ray spectrum that can be altered when using different target and filter combinations. Such a correction factor is independent of the HVL and can be found in [10] in a simple reference table that includes various target and filter combinations.
2.3. Regression Analysis
2.4. Regression Evaluation
3. Results
3.1. Mammography Data and MGD Estimation
3.2. Results of the Regression Analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Pwamang, C.; Sosu, E.; Schandorf, C.; Boadu, M.; Hewlett, V. Assessment of dose to glandular tissue of patients undergoing mammography examinations. J. Radiol. Radiat. Ther. 2016, 4, 1062. [Google Scholar]
- Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Al-Shamsi, H.O.; Alrawi, S. Breast cancer screening in the United Arab Emirates: Is it time to call for a screening at an earlier age? J. Cancer Prev. Curr. Res. 2018, 9, 123–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Narod, S.A. Reflections on screening mammography and the early detection of breast cancer. Curr. Oncol. 2014, 21, 210–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miglioretti, D.L.; Lange, J.; van den Broek, J.J.; Lee, C.I.; van Ravesteyn, N.T.; Ritley, D.; Kerlikowske, K.; Fenton, J.J.; Melnikow, J.; de Koning, J.H.; et al. Radiation induced breast cancer incidence and mortality from digital mammography screening: A modeling study. Ann. Inten. Med. 2016, 164, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yaffe, M.J.; Maiprize, J.G. Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. Radiology 2011, 258, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sulieman, A.; Serhan, O.; Al-Mohammed, H.I.; Mahmoud, M.Z.; Alkorayef, M.; Alonazi, B.; Manssor, E.; Yousef, A. Estimation of cancer risks during mammography procedure in Saudi Arabia. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2019, 26, 1107–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hendrick, E.R. Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies. Radiology 2010, 257, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Suleiman, M.E.; Brennan, P.C.; McEntee, M.F. DICOM Organ Dose Does Not Accurately Represent Calculated Dose in Mammography. In Proceedings of the SPIE 9783, Medical Imaging 2016: Physics of Medical Imaging, 97832L, San Diego, CA, USA, 22 March 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. Phys. Med. Biol. 2000, 45, 3225–3240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dance, D.R.; Young, K.C.; van Engen, R.E. Further factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys. Med. Biol. 2009, 54, 4361–4372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Naemi, H.M.; Taha, O.B.; Al-attar, A.O.; Tarabieh, M.A.; Abdallah, I.I.; Iqelian, N.A.; Aly, A.E. Evaluation of mean glandular dose from digital mammography exams at Qatar and compared with international guidelines levels. Br. J. Med. Med. Res. 2016, 14, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salomon, E.; Homolka, P.; Semturs, F.; Figl, M.; Gruber, M.; Hummel, J. Comparison of a personalized breast dosimetry method with standard dosimetry protocols. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 5866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, X.; Barnes, G.T.; Tucker, D.M. Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography. Radiology 1991, 179, 143–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Highnam, R. Patient-Specific Radiation Dose Estimation in Breast Cancer Screening. Available online: https://www.volparahealth.com/news/white-papers/patient-based-radiation-dose-estimation-in-breast-cancer-screening/ (accessed on 19 July 2022).
- Josephine, J.; Christian, N.C.; Zira, J.D.; Garba, A.M.; Umar, M.S.; Abdullahi, A.H.; Shem, B.S. Estimation of mean glandular doses for patients undergoing mammography examination in some selected centers in Lagos state, Nigeria. Afr. J. Med. Phys. 2020, 3, 10–13. [Google Scholar]
- Hendrick, R.E.; Pisano, E.D.; Averbukh, A.; Moran, C.; Berns, E.A.; Yaffe, M.J.; Herman, B.; Acharyya, S.; Gatsonis, C. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2010, 194, 362–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jamal, N.; Ng, K.-H.; McLean, D. A study of mean glandular dose during diagnostic mammography in Malaysia and some of the factors affecting it. Br. J. Radiol. 2003, 76, 238–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chevalier, M.; Moran, P.; Ten, J.I.; Soto, F.M.; Cepeda, T.; Vano, E. Patient dose in digital mammography. Med. Phys. 2004, 31, 2471–2479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riabi, H.A.; Mehnati, P.; Mesbahi, A. Evaluation of mean glandular dose in a full-field digital mammography unit in Tabriz, Iran. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2010, 142, 222–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, X.; Yu, N.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J. The relationship of the mean glandular dose with compressed breast thickness in mammography. J. Public Health Emerg. 2017, 1, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baek, J.E.; Kang, B.J.; Kim, S.H.; Lee, H.S. Radiation dose affected by mammographic composition and breast size: First application of a radiation dose management system for full-field digital mammography in Korean women. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2017, 15, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brand, J.S.; Czene, K.; Shepherd, J.A.; Leifland, K.; Heddson, B.; Sundbom, A.; Eriksson, M.; Li, J.; Humphreys, K.; Hall, P. Automated Measurement of Volumetric Mammographic Density: A Tool for Widespread Breast Cancer Risk AssessmentAutomated Measurement of Volumetric Mammographic Density. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2014, 23, 1764–1772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nakamura, N.; Okafuji, Y.; Adachi, S.; Takahashi, K.; Nakakuma, T.; Ueno, S. Effect of Different Breast Densities and Average Glandular Dose on Contrast to Noise Ratios in Full-Field Digital Mammography: Simulation and Phantom Study. Radiol. Res. Pract. 2018, 2018, 6192594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
View | Number of Images | Average | Standard Deviation | Range (Min–Max) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Entrance Skin Dose (mGy) | ||||
CC | 1013 | 3.698 | 1.763 | 0.452–21.768 |
MLO | 1013 | 4.996 | 2.356 | 1.047–18.730 |
Organ Dose (mGy) | ||||
CC | 1013 | 0.012 | 0.004 | 0.002–0.045 |
MLO | 1013 | 0.014 | 0.005 | 0.003–0.038 |
Mean Glandular Dose (mGy) | ||||
CC | 1013 | 0.832 | 0.296 | 0.110–3.491 |
MLO | 1013 | 0.995 | 0.350 | 0.256–2.949 |
Compressed Breast Thickness (cm) | Number of Images | Average | Standard Deviation | Range (Min–Max) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Entrance Skin Dose (mGy) | ||||
Fatty (5–7) | 1290 | 4.122 | 1.405 | 0.452–11.372 |
Medium (3–5) | 346 | 2.351 | 0.740 | 0.940–5.201 |
Dense (2–3) | 12 | 1.414 | 0.333 | 0.824–1.952 |
Organ Dose (mGy) | ||||
Fatty (5–7) | 1290 | 0.012 | 0.004 | 0.002–0.031 |
Medium (3–5) | 346 | 0.010 | 0.003 | 0.005–0.019 |
Dense (2–3) | 12 | 0.009 | 0.002 | 0.005–0.011 |
Mean Glandular Dose (mGy) | ||||
Fatty (5–7) | 1290 | 0.898 | 0.268 | 0.110–2.436 |
Medium (3–5) | 346 | 0.646 | 0.178 | 0.317–1.318 |
Dense (2–3) | 12 | 0.529 | 0.105 | 0.323–0.696 |
Age Group (Years) | Number of Images | Average | Standard Deviation | Range (Min–Max) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Entrance Skin Dose (mGy) | ||||
(Less than 40) years | 203 | 4.609 | 2.745 | 1.415–21.768 |
(40–49) years | 910 | 4.656 | 2.204 | 0.452–17.769 |
(50–64) years | 793 | 4.016 | 1.827 | 1.095–14.462 |
(Older than 64) years | 129 | 3.842 | 2.539 | 0.824–16.260 |
Organ Dose (mGy) | ||||
(Less than 40) years | 203 | 0.014 | 0.006 | 0.007–0.045 |
(40–49) years | 910 | 0.014 | 0.004 | 0.002–0.032 |
(50–64) years | 793 | 0.012 | 0.004 | 0.003–0.032 |
(Older than 64) years | 129 | 0.011 | 0.005 | 0.005–0.034 |
Mean Glandular Dose (mGy) | ||||
(Less than 40) years | 203 | 0.995 | 0.433 | 0.483–3.491 |
(40–49) years | 910 | 0.945 | 0.322 | 0.110–2.375 |
(50–64) years | 793 | 0.865 | 0.291 | 0.252–2.460 |
(Older than 64) years | 129 | 0.845 | 0.416 | 0.317–2.699 |
Output Parameter: Entrance Skin Dose (ESD) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Input Parameters | R2 | MSE | MAE | MAPE | ||||
CC | MLO | CC | MLO | CC | MLO | CC | MLO | |
Patient age | 0.053 | 0.030 | 2.942 | 5.376 | 1.213 | 1.727 | 0.385 | 0.429 |
Compressed breast thickness (cm) | 0.499 | 0.568 | 1.555 | 2.398 | 0.884 | 1.139 | 0.255 | 0.248 |
X-ray tube voltage (kVp) | 0.454 | 0.492 | 1.696 | 2.819 | 0.918 | 1.214 | 0.262 | 0.257 |
Exposure time (msec) | 0.816 | 0.962 | 0.570 | 0.214 | 0.430 | 0.357 | 0.161 | 0.099 |
Exposure (mAs) | 0.938 | 0.945 | 0.194 | 0.306 | 0.314 | 0.413 | 0.087 | 0.086 |
X-ray tube current (mA) | 0.257 | 0.085 | 2.307 | 5.073 | 0.976 | 1.680 | 0.259 | 0.371 |
All input parameters (listed above) | 0.989 | 0.999 | 0.033 | 0.006 | 0.105 | 0.056 | 0.032 | 0.013 |
Subset of highly correlated parameters (exposure time and exposure) | 0.945 | 0.962 | 0.170 | 0.211 | 0.304 | 0.359 | 0.087 | 0.095 |
Output Parameter: Organ Dose (OD) | ||||||||
Patient age | 0.096 | 0.066 | 1.37 × 10−5 | 2.06 × 10−5 | 0.0027 | 0.0034 | 0.252 | 0.265 |
Compressed breast thickness (cm) | 0.217 | 0.294 | 1.19 × 10−5 | 1.55 × 10−5 | 0.0026 | 0.0030 | 0.243 | 0.231 |
X-ray tube voltage (kVp) | 0.204 | 0.257 | 1.21 × 10−5 | 1.64 × 10−5 | 0.0027 | 0.0031 | 0.242 | 0.231 |
Exposure time (msec) | 0.827 | 0.951 | 2.63 × 10−6 | 1.07 × 10−6 | 0.0010 | 0.0007 | 0.102 | 0.063 |
Exposure (mAs) | 0.969 | 0.983 | 4.69 × 10−7 | 3.69 × 10−7 | 0.0004 | 0.0004 | 0.041 | 0.035 |
X-ray tube current (mA) | 0.325 | 0.154 | 1.02 × 10−5 | 1.86 × 10−5 | 0.0021 | 0.0033 | 0.180 | 0.236 |
All input parameters | 0.995 | 0.996 | 6.92 × 10−8 | 7.92 × 10−8 | 0.0001 | 0.0002 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
Subset of highly correlated parameters (exposure time and exposure) | 0.974 | 0.984 | 3.97 × 10−7 | 3.53 × 10−7 | 0.0005 | 0.0005 | 0.042 | 0.036 |
Output Parameter: Mean Glandular Dose (MGD) | ||||||||
Patient age | 0.054 | 0.032 | 0.083 | 0.118 | 0.211 | 0.260 | 0.276 | 0.284 |
Compressed breast thickness (cm) | 0.315 | 0.351 | 0.060 | 0.079 | 0.183 | 0.210 | 0.233 | 0.221 |
X-ray tube voltage (kVp) | 0.292 | 0.304 | 0.062 | 0.085 | 0.187 | 0.217 | 0.234 | 0.224 |
Exposure time (msec) | 0.814 | 0.946 | 0.016 | 0.007 | 0.074 | 0.060 | 0.110 | 0.071 |
Exposure (mAs) | 0.980 | 0.972 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.030 | 0.043 | 0.037 | 0.043 |
X-ray tube current (mA) | 0.333 | 0.147 | 0.058 | 0.104 | 0.163 | 0.241 | 0.187 | 0.244 |
All input parameters | 0.990 | 0.980 | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.020 | 0.037 | 0.025 | 0.037 |
Subset of highly correlated parameters (exposure time and exposure) | 0.982 | 0.973 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.030 | 0.043 | 0.038 | 0.043 |
Output Parameter: Mean Glandular Dose (MGD) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Input Parameters | R2 | MSE | MAE | MAPE | ||||
CC | MLO | CC | MLO | CC | MLO | CC | MLO | |
ESD | 0.929 | 0.914 | 0.006 | 0.011 | 0.057 | 0.074 | 0.071 | 0.075 |
OD | 0.971 | 0.972 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.039 | 0.046 | 0.049 | 0.048 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Dhou, S.; Dalah, E.; AlGhafeer, R.; Hamidu, A.; Obaideen, A. Regression Analysis between the Different Breast Dose Quantities Reported in Digital Mammography and Patient Age, Breast Thickness, and Acquisition Parameters. J. Imaging 2022, 8, 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging8080211
Dhou S, Dalah E, AlGhafeer R, Hamidu A, Obaideen A. Regression Analysis between the Different Breast Dose Quantities Reported in Digital Mammography and Patient Age, Breast Thickness, and Acquisition Parameters. Journal of Imaging. 2022; 8(8):211. https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging8080211
Chicago/Turabian StyleDhou, Salam, Entesar Dalah, Reda AlGhafeer, Aisha Hamidu, and Abdulmunhem Obaideen. 2022. "Regression Analysis between the Different Breast Dose Quantities Reported in Digital Mammography and Patient Age, Breast Thickness, and Acquisition Parameters" Journal of Imaging 8, no. 8: 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging8080211