Third MAXIMA training school Breast Model Validation for Monte Carlo - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
third maxima training school
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Third MAXIMA training school Breast Model Validation for Monte Carlo - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 20, 2023 223 likes •396 views

Third MAXIMA training school Breast Model Validation for Monte Carlo Evaluation of Normalized Glandular Dose Coefficients in Mammography A. Sarno Napoli, 19 th September 2018 1 sarno@na.infn.it Dosimetry in mammography Mean Glandular Dose

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Breast Model Validation for Monte Carlo Evaluation of Normalized Glandular Dose Coefficients in Mammography

  • A. Sarno

Napoli, 19th September 2018

1

sarno@na.infn.it

Third MAXIMA training school

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Dosimetry in mammography

2

Mean Glandular Dose (MGD) = DgN ( or c·g·s) · K

Air kerma at the breast surface Coefficients calculated via MC simulations

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Breast model assumptions: skin thickness

3 Model from Skin layer (mm) Adipose layer (mm) Dance (1990) 0.00 5.00 Wu et al (1991) 4.00 0.00 BCT experiments 1.45 0.00 Histology 1.45 2.00

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Skin thickness influence on the MGD

4

10 20 30 40 25 50 75 100 100*(MGD1.45 - MGDx)/MGD1.45 Incident photon energy, E (keV) Skin thickness:

5-mm 4-mm 3-mm 2-mm Ref.: 1.45 mm skin thickenss

Compressed breast thickness = 5 cm; glandular fraction = 20%

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

10 20 30 40

  • 100
  • 80
  • 60
  • 40
  • 20

100*(MGDD-MGD1.45)/MGDD Incident photon energy, E (keV) 1.45 mm skin layer vs. 5 mm adipose

Skin model influence on the MGD

Compressed breast thickness = 5 cm; glandular fraction = 20%

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Breast model assumptions: glandular distribution

6

𝑄𝑠𝑝𝑐𝑏𝑐𝑗𝑚𝑗𝑢𝑧 𝑝𝑔 𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑓 𝑏𝑐𝑡𝑝𝑠𝑐𝑢𝑗𝑝𝑜 𝑗𝑜 𝑢ℎ𝑓 𝑕𝑚𝑏𝑜𝑒 = 𝑔

g × μen

ρ 𝐹 g 𝑔

g × μen

ρ 𝐹 g + (1 − 𝑔

g) × μen

ρ 𝐹 a

slide-7
SLIDE 7

20 voxelized patient specific breast phantoms from 3D breast images

7

Mean StdDev Min Max Glandular fraction (%) 23.1 15.3 5.0 54.3 Compressed thickness (cm) 5.9 1.5 2.9 7.8

*Sechopoulos et al 2012, "Characterization of the homogeneous tissue mixture approximation in breast imaging dosimetry." Med. Phys. 39 5050-5059.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

MC code for breast dosimetry

8

Code based on GEANT4 toolkit Physics list: Option4 Code validated vs AAPM TG195 data

16.8 keV 30 kVp 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7

MGD per photon (mGy) This work TG-195

x10

  • 12

20% glandular breast 5-cm thick

slide-9
SLIDE 9

MC validation for the heterogeneous model

9

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2 4 6 8 10 12 Breast thickness = 5 cm 20% glandular 100*(MGDhomo - MGDhete)/MGDhomo Incident photon energy, E (keV) Homogeneous vs. heterogeneous breast model

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Technique factors

10

Technique factors Breast thickness range (cm) Tube voltage (kV) W/0.700 mm Al W/0.050 mm Rh Simulated HVL (mmAl) Calculated HVL below the compression paddle (mmAl) Simulated HVL (mmAl) Calculated HVL below the compression paddle (mmAl) 23 26 0.399 0.440 0.460 0.488 34 27 0.420 0.464 0.471 0.501 45 28 0.440 0.486 0.482 0.511 56 29 0.459 0.508 0.491 0.521 67 30 0.479 0.530 0.499 0.530 78 31 0.498 0.552 0.508 0.538

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Standard models vs. patient specific phantoms

Dance model Wu model 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Mean = 0.89

Median

Mean = 1.01

75th percentile 25th percentile 10th percentile Min 90th percentile

MGD ratio

Max

Homogeneous - to - patient specific ratio

W/Al

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

New models vs. patient specific phantoms

1.45 mm skin 1.45 mm skin + 2 mm adipe 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 W/Al

Homogeneous - to - patient specific ratio

MGD ratio

Mean = Median = 1.01 Mean = 0.98

Max 90th percentile 75th percentile Median 25th percentile 10th percentile Min

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

D a n c e m

  • d

e l W u m

  • d

e l 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Mean = 0.86

Median

Mean = Median = 0.98

75th percentile 25th percentile 10th percentile Min 90th percentile

MGD ratio

Max

Homogeneous - to - patient specific ratio

W/Rh

Standard models vs. patient specific phantoms

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

New models vs. patient specific phantoms

1.45 mm skin 1.45 mm skin+2mm adipe 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 W/Al

Homogeneous - to - patient specific ratio

MGD ratio

Mean = 0.92 Mean = 0.99

Max 90th percentile 75th percentile Median 25th percentile 10th percentile Min

slide-15
SLIDE 15
  • The skin model in MC simulations presents a large influence on MGD

estimates;

  • A simple breast model can produce MGD underestimation up to about

42% when compared to the dose estimates via patient specific breast phantoms;

  • The model proposed by Wu et al (1991) led to the lowest dose
  • verestimation (16%) combined with the highest MGD underestimation

(-42%) for a specific breast (W/Rh spectra);

  • Breast model with a 1.45 mm skin thickness and the Dance’s model led to

the lowest differences (1%), on average, when compared to patient specific breast phantoms, with respect to Wu’s model (-11%).

15

Conclusions

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

Thank you!!! Any questions?

sarno@na.infn.it

Third MAXIMA Training school - Napoli 17th- 19th September 2018