{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,20]],"date-time":"2026-10-20T00:05:40Z","timestamp":1792454740393,"version":"4.5.0"},"reference-count":39,"publisher":"IOP Publishing","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2018,1,25]],"date-time":"2018-01-25T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1516838400000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org\/iop-standard\/v1"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2018,1,25]],"date-time":"2018-01-25T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1516838400000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/info\/page\/text-and-data-mining"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["iopscience.iop.org"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Phys. Med. Biol."],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2018,2,1]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    The main purpose was to compare average glandular dose (AGD) for same-compression digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) acquisitions in a population based screening program, with and without breast density stratification, as determined by automatically calculated breast density (Quantra\n                    <jats:sup>\u2122<\/jats:sup>\n                    ). Secondary, to compare AGD estimates based on measured breast density, air kerma and half value layer (HVL) to DICOM metadata based estimates. AGD was estimated for 3819 women participating in the screening trial. All received craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views of each breasts with paired DM and DBT acquisitions. Exposure parameters were extracted from DICOM metadata. Air kerma and HVL were measured for all beam qualities used to acquire the mammograms. Volumetric breast density was estimated using Quantra\n                    <jats:sup>\u2122<\/jats:sup>\n                    . AGD was estimated using the Dance model. AGD reported directly from the DICOM metadata was also assessed. Mean AGD was 1.74 and 2.10 mGy for DM and DBT, respectively. Mean DBT\/DM AGD ratio was 1.24. For fatty breasts: mean AGD was 1.74 and 2.27 mGy for DM and DBT, respectively. For dense breasts: mean AGD was 1.73 and 1.79 mGy, for DM and DBT, respectively. For breasts of similar thickness, dense breasts had higher AGD for DM and similar AGD for DBT. The DBT\/DM dose ratio was substantially lower for dense compared to fatty breasts (1.08 versus 1.33). The average\n                    <jats:italic>c<\/jats:italic>\n                    -factor was 1.16. Using previously published polynomials to estimate glandularity from thickness underestimated the\n                    <jats:italic>c<\/jats:italic>\n                    -factor by 5.9% on average. Mean AGD error between estimates based on measurements (air kerma and HVL) versus DICOM header data was 3.8%, but for one mammography unit as high as 7.9%. Mean error of using the AGD value reported in the DICOM header was 10.7 and 13.3%, respectively. Thus, measurement of breast density, radiation dose and beam quality can substantially affect AGD estimates.\n                  <\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1088\/1361-6560\/aaa614","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2018,1,9]],"date-time":"2018-01-09T02:15:39Z","timestamp":1515464139000},"page":"035006","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1088\/crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":31,"title":["Average glandular dose in paired digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis acquisitions in a population based screening program: effects of measuring breast density, air kerma and beam quality"],"prefix":"10.1088","volume":"63","author":[{"given":"Bj\u00f8rn Helge","family":"\u00d8ster\u00e5s","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Per","family":"Skaane","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Randi","family":"Gullien","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Anne Catrine Tr\u00e6gde","family":"Martinsen","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"266","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2018,1,25]]},"reference":[{"key":"pmbaaa614bib001","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"801","DOI":"10.1088\/0031-9155\/45\/3\/316","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Dosimetric implications of age related glandular changes in screening mammography","volume":"45","author":"Becket","year":"2000","journal-title":"Phys. Med. Biol."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib002","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1105","DOI":"10.1016\/S1470-2045(16)30101-2","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study","volume":"17","author":"Bernardi","year":"2016","journal-title":"Lancet Oncol."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib003","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1863","DOI":"10.1118\/1.598100","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Molybdenum, rhodium, and tungsten anode spectral models using interpolating polynomials with application to mammography","volume":"24","author":"Boone","year":"1997","journal-title":"Med. Phys."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib004","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"7893","DOI":"10.1088\/0031-9155\/60\/20\/7893","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Average glandular dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of phantom and patient data","volume":"60","author":"Bouwman","year":"2015","journal-title":"Phys. Med. Biol."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib005","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"168","DOI":"10.7326\/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00008","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography","volume":"138","author":"Carney","year":"2003","journal-title":"Ann. Int. Med."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib006","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"802","DOI":"10.1016\/j.acra.2017.01.011","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Automated breast density computation in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis","volume":"24","author":"Castillo-Garc\u00eda","year":"2017","journal-title":"Acad. Radiol."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib007","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"53","DOI":"10.1093\/rpd\/nct120","type":"journal-article","article-title":"\u2018In vivo\u2019 average glandular dose evaluation: one-to-one comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography","volume":"157","author":"Cavagnetto","year":"2013","journal-title":"Radiat. Prot. Dosim."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib008","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1211","DOI":"10.1088\/0031-9155\/35\/9\/002","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Monte Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose","volume":"35","author":"Dance","year":"1990","journal-title":"Phys. Med. Biol."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib009","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"R271","DOI":"10.1088\/0031-9155\/61\/19\/R271","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Dosimetry in x-ray-based breast imaging","volume":"61","author":"Dance","year":"2016","journal-title":"Phys. Med. Biol."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib010","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"359","DOI":"10.1093\/rpd\/nch510","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Breast dosimetry using high-resolution voxel phantoms","volume":"114","author":"Dance","year":"2005","journal-title":"Radiat. Prot. Dosim."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib011","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3225","DOI":"10.1088\/0031-9155\/45\/11\/308","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol","volume":"45","author":"Dance","year":"2000","journal-title":"Phys. Med. Biol."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib012","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"4361","DOI":"10.1088\/0031-9155\/54\/14\/002","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Further factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols","volume":"54","author":"Dance","year":"2009","journal-title":"Phys. Med. Biol."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib013","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"453","DOI":"10.1088\/0031-9155\/56\/2\/011","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols","volume":"56","author":"Dance","year":"2011","journal-title":"Phys. Med. Biol."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib014","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"573","DOI":"10.1007\/s00330-017-5024-4","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Radiation dose with digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography: per-view analysis","volume":"28","author":"Gennaro","year":"2018","journal-title":"Eur. Radiol."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib015","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"485","DOI":"10.1148\/130.2.485","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Absorbed radiation dose in mammography","volume":"130","author":"Hammerstein","year":"1979","journal-title":"Radiology"},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib016","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"33","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-540-70538-3_5","type":"book","article-title":"Volumetric assessment of breast tissue composition from FFDM images","volume":"vol 5116","author":"Hartman","year":"2008"},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib017","author":"Highnam","year":"2017","type":"book"},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib018","author":"Hologic","year":"2012","type":"book"},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib019","article-title":"Dosimetry in diagnostic radiology: an international code of practice","author":"IAEA","year":"2007","type":"report"},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib020","author":"IAEA","year":"2011","type":"book"},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib021","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"675","DOI":"10.1088\/0031-9155\/32\/6\/002","type":"journal-article","article-title":"X-ray characterisation of normal and neoplastic breast tissues","volume":"32","author":"Johns","year":"1987","journal-title":"Phys. Med. Biol."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib022","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1159","DOI":"10.1158\/1055-9965.EPI-06-0034","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis","volume":"15","author":"McCormack","year":"2006","journal-title":"Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib023","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"911","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0032-1312877","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis","volume":"184","author":"Olgar","year":"2012","journal-title":"RoFo"},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib024","author":"Perry","year":"2006","edition":"4th edn","type":"book"},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib025","first-page":"14","type":"book","author":"Perry","year":"2013","edition":"4th edn"},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib026","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1773","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMoa052911","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening","volume":"353","author":"Pisano","year":"2005","journal-title":"N. Engl. J. Med."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib027","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1784","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2016.1708","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis and digital mammography in dense and nondense breasts","volume":"315","author":"Rafferty","year":"2016","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib028","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"775","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-31271-7_100","type":"book","article-title":"Local versus whole breast volumetric breast density assessments and implications","volume":"vol 7361","author":"Ren","year":"2012"},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib029","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"221","DOI":"10.1118\/1.2400836","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Computation of the glandular radiation dose in digital tomosynthesis of the breast","volume":"34","author":"Sechopoulos","year":"2007","journal-title":"Med. Phys."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib030","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1007\/s00330-014-3399-z","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Comparative evaluation of average glandular dose and breast cancer detection between single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view digital mammography (DM) and two-view DM: correlation with breast thickness and density","volume":"25","author":"Shin","year":"2015","journal-title":"Eur. Radiol."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib031","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2061","DOI":"10.1007\/s00330-013-2820-3","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration","volume":"23","author":"Skaane","year":"2013","journal-title":"Eur. Radiol."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib032","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"655","DOI":"10.1148\/radiol.13131391","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images","volume":"271","author":"Skaane","year":"2014","journal-title":"Radiology"},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib033","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"93","DOI":"10.1016\/j.breast.2014.12.002","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography","volume":"24","author":"Svahn","year":"2015","journal-title":"Breast"},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib034","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"20130255","DOI":"10.1259\/bjr.20130255","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Estimation of percentage breast tissue density: comparison between digital mammography (2D full field digital mammography) and digital breast tomosynthesis according to different BI-RADS categories","volume":"86","author":"Tagliafico","year":"2013","journal-title":"Br. J. Radiol."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib035","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"158","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-319-07887-8_23","type":"book","article-title":"Patient specific dose calculation using volumetric breast density for mammography and tomosynthesis","volume":"vol 8539","author":"Tromans","year":"2014"},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib036","author":"van Engen","year":"2016","type":"book"},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib037","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"209","DOI":"10.1186\/bcr2102","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Mammographic density. Measurement of mammographic density","volume":"10","author":"Yaffe","year":"2008","journal-title":"Breast Cancer Res."},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib038","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"98","DOI":"10.1148\/radiol.10100655","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening","volume":"258","author":"Yaffe","year":"2011","journal-title":"Radiology"},{"key":"pmbaaa614bib039","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"555","DOI":"10.1259\/0007-1285-69-822-555","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Dose and image quality in mammography with an automatic beam quality system","volume":"69","author":"Young","year":"1996","journal-title":"Br. J. Radiol."}],"container-title":["Physics in Medicine &amp; Biology"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/stacks.iop.org\/0031-9155\/63\/i=3\/a=035006?key=crossref.ffece05f1f289b75c8fc783feeb53610","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"http:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/aaa614\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"am","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"http:\/\/stacks.iop.org\/0031-9155\/63\/i=3\/a=035006\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"http:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/aaa614","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"am","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/aaa614","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/aaa614\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"http:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/aaa614\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"am","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/aaa614\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"http:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/aaa614\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"am","intended-application":"similarity-checking"},{"URL":"http:\/\/stacks.iop.org\/0031-9155\/63\/i=3\/a=035006\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"},{"URL":"http:\/\/stacks.iop.org\/0031-9155\/63\/i=3\/a=035006?key=crossref.ffece05f1f289b75c8fc783feeb53610","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"},{"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/aaa614\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,11]],"date-time":"2026-04-11T13:27:33Z","timestamp":1775914053000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/aaa614"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2018,1,25]]},"references-count":39,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2018,1,25]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2018,2,1]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/aaa614","relation":{},"ISSN":["0031-9155","1361-6560"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0031-9155","type":"print"},{"value":"1361-6560","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2018,1,25]]},"assertion":[{"value":"Average glandular dose in paired digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis acquisitions in a population based screening program: effects of measuring breast density, air kerma and beam quality","name":"article_title","label":"Article Title"},{"value":"Physics in Medicine & Biology","name":"journal_title","label":"Journal Title"},{"value":"paper","name":"article_type","label":"Article Type"},{"value":"\u00a9 2018 Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.","name":"copyright_information","label":"Copyright Information"},{"value":"2017-05-18","name":"date_received","label":"Date Received","group":{"name":"publication_dates","label":"Publication dates"}},{"value":"2018-01-08","name":"date_accepted","label":"Date Accepted","group":{"name":"publication_dates","label":"Publication dates"}},{"value":"2018-01-25","name":"date_epub","label":"Online publication date","group":{"name":"publication_dates","label":"Publication dates"}}]}}