Evaluation of transmission curves for X-ray beams in contrast-enhanced digital mammography
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29384/rbfm.2021.v15.19849001628Keywords:
contrast-enhanced digital mammography, Monte Carlo, radiation protection, shieldingAbstract
Breast imaging has been increasingly more important in the fight against breast cancer. A new imaging technique, called dual energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography has been gaining attention for evaluation of suspicious lesions. It consists of using a contrast agent and the breast exposure to low- and high- energy beams. The aim of this work is to determine the transmission curves of the x-ray beams employed in contrast-enhanced mammography, through different materials used as shielding, and their fitting parameters α, β e γ. The methodology was based on Monte Carlo method, employing the code PENELOPE. Results show large differences between curves for low- and high- energy beams. Values of α decrease with tube potential, while β e γ do not present a general behavior. Therefore, the results obtained reinforce the importance of considering the proper transmission data for each imaging technique.
Downloads
References
2. Dromain C, Thibault F, Diekmann F, Fallenberg EM, Jong RA, Koomen M, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Res 2012;14(3):1-18.
3. James JJ, Tennant SL. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). Clin Radiol 2018;73(8):715-23.
4. Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, Heerdt AS, Thornton C, Moskowitz CS, et al. Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology 2013;266(3):743-51.
5. Lee-Felker SA, Tekchandani L, Thomas M, Gupta E, Andrews-Tang D, Roth A, et al. Newly diagnosed breast cancer: comparison of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and breast MR imaging in the evaluation of extent of disease. Radiology 2017;285(2):389-400.
6. Nosratieh A, Hernandez A, Shen SZ, Yaffe MJ, Seibert JA, Boone JM. Mean glandular dose coefficients (DgN) for x-ray spectra used in contemporary breast imaging systems. Phys Med Biol 2015;60(18):7179-90.
7. Jeukens CR, Lalji UC, Meijer E, Bakija B, Theunissen R, Wildberger JE, et al. Radiation exposure of constrast-enhanced spectral mammography compared with full-field digital mammography. Invest Radiol 2014;49(10):659-65.
8. James JR, Pavlicek W, Hanson JA, Boltz TF, Patel BK. Breast radiation dose with CESM compared with 2D FFDM and 3D tomosynthesis mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017;208(2):362-72.
9. Archer BR, Thornby JI, Bushong SC. Diagnostic x-ray shielding design based on an empirical model of photon attenuation. Health Phys 1983;44(5):507-17.
10. Salvat F, Fernández-Varea JM, Sempau J. PENELOPE-2008: A code system for Monte Carlo simulation of electron and photon transport. Workshop Proceedings. Barcelona, Spain;2008.
11. Cunha DM, Tomal A, Poletti ME. Monte Carlo simulation of x-ray spectra in mammography and contrast-enhanced digital mammography using the code PENELOPE. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2013;60(2):495-502.
12. Del Lama LS, Godeli J, Poletti ME. Monte Carlo simulation studies for the determination of microcalcification thickness and glandular ratio through dual-energy mammography. Radiat Phys Chem 2017;137:157-62.
13. Simpkin DJ. Shielding requirements for mammography. Health Phys 1987;53(3):267-79.
14. Li X, Zhang D, Liu B. Transmission of broad W/Rh and W/Al (target/filter) x-ray beams operated at 25–49 kVp through common shielding materials. Med Phys 2012;39(7):4132-38.
15. Archer BR, Fewell TR, Conway BJ, Quinn PW. Attenuation properties of diagnostic x-ray shielding materials. Med Phys 1994;21(9):1499-507.
16. NCRP Report Nº 147. Structural shielding design for medical x-ray imaging facilities. Bethesda, MD: National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurements, 2004.
17. Simpkin DJ. Shielding requirements for constant-potential diagnostic x-ray beams determined by a Monte Carlo calculation. Health Phys 1989;56(2):151-64
18. Huang H, Scaduto DA, Liu C, Yang J, Zhu C, Rinaldi K, et al. Comparison of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis for lesion assessment. J. Med. Imag. 2019;6(3):031407.
19. Hernandez AM, Seibert JA, Nosratieh A, Boone JM. Generation and analysis of clinically relevant breast imaging x-ray spectra. Med Phys 2017;44(6):2148-60.
20. Simpkin DJ. Transmission data for shielding diagnostic x-ray facilities. Health Phys 1995;68(5):704-9.
21. Hubbell JH, Seltzer SM. Tables of x-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass energy-absorption coefficients from 1 keV to 20 MeV for elements Z = 1 to 92 and 48 additional substances of dosimetric interest, 2004. Disponível em: https://www.nist.gov/pml/x-ray-mass-attenuation-coefficients. Acesso em 19 fevereiro de 2021.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The submission of original articles to the Brazilian Journal of Medical Physics implies the transfer, by the authors, of the rights of print and digital publication. Copyright for published articles remains with the author, with journal rights on first publication. Authors may only use the same results in other publications by clearly indicating this journal as the original publisher. As we are an open access journal, free use of articles in educational, scientific, non-commercial applications is allowed, as long as the source is cited.
The Brazilian Journal of Medical Physics is under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
