TY - JOUR
T1 - The Impact of Automatic Exposure Control Technology on the In Vivo Radiation Dose in Digital Mammography
T2 - A Comparison Between Different Systems and Target/Filter Combinations
AU - Alhulail, Ahmad A.
AU - Albeshan, Salman M.
AU - Alshuhri, Mohammed S.
AU - Alkhybari, Essam M.
AU - Almanaa, Mansour A.
AU - Alahmad, Haitham
AU - Alenazi, Khaled
AU - Alshabibi, Abdulaziz S.
AU - Alsufayan, Mohammed
AU - Alsulaiman, Saleh A.
AU - Almuqbil, Maha M.
AU - Elsharkawi, Mahmoud M.
AU - Alghamdi, Sultan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 by the authors.
PY - 2025/5
Y1 - 2025/5
N2 - Background/Objectives: Digital mammography is widely used for breast cancer screening; however, variations in system design and automatic exposure control (AEC) strategies can lead to significant differences in radiation dose, potentially affecting the diagnostic quality and patient safety. In this study, we aimed to determine the effect of various mammographic technologies on the in vivo mean glandular doses (MGDs) that are received in clinical settings. Methods: The MGDs and applied acquisition parameters from 194,608 mammograms, acquired employing AEC using different digital mammography systems (GE, Siemens, and two different models of Hologic), were retrospectively collected. The potential variation in MGD resulting from different technologies (system and target/filter combination) was assessed employing the Kruskal–Wallis test, followed by Dunn’s post hoc. The AEC optimization of acquisition parameters (kVp, mAs) within each system was investigated through a multi-regression analysis as a function of the compressed breast thickness (CBT). The trend line of these parameters in addition to the MGD and source-to-breast distance were also plotted and compared. Results: There were significant variations in delivered doses per CBT based on which technology was used (p < 0.001). The regression analyses revealed system-specific differences in AEC adjustments of mAs and kVp in response to CBT changes. As the CBT increases, the MGD increases with different degrees, rates, and patterns across systems due to differences in AEC strategies. Conclusions: The MGD is affected by the applied technology, which is different between systems. Clinicians need to be aware of these variations and how they affect the MGD. Additionally, manufacturers may need to consider standardizing the implemented technology effects on the MGDs.
AB - Background/Objectives: Digital mammography is widely used for breast cancer screening; however, variations in system design and automatic exposure control (AEC) strategies can lead to significant differences in radiation dose, potentially affecting the diagnostic quality and patient safety. In this study, we aimed to determine the effect of various mammographic technologies on the in vivo mean glandular doses (MGDs) that are received in clinical settings. Methods: The MGDs and applied acquisition parameters from 194,608 mammograms, acquired employing AEC using different digital mammography systems (GE, Siemens, and two different models of Hologic), were retrospectively collected. The potential variation in MGD resulting from different technologies (system and target/filter combination) was assessed employing the Kruskal–Wallis test, followed by Dunn’s post hoc. The AEC optimization of acquisition parameters (kVp, mAs) within each system was investigated through a multi-regression analysis as a function of the compressed breast thickness (CBT). The trend line of these parameters in addition to the MGD and source-to-breast distance were also plotted and compared. Results: There were significant variations in delivered doses per CBT based on which technology was used (p < 0.001). The regression analyses revealed system-specific differences in AEC adjustments of mAs and kVp in response to CBT changes. As the CBT increases, the MGD increases with different degrees, rates, and patterns across systems due to differences in AEC strategies. Conclusions: The MGD is affected by the applied technology, which is different between systems. Clinicians need to be aware of these variations and how they affect the MGD. Additionally, manufacturers may need to consider standardizing the implemented technology effects on the MGDs.
KW - AEC optimization
KW - compressed breast thickness
KW - digital mammography
KW - mammography technology
KW - mean glandular dose
KW - target/filter combination
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105006627605&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/diagnostics15101185
DO - 10.3390/diagnostics15101185
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:105006627605
SN - 2075-4418
VL - 15
JO - Diagnostics
JF - Diagnostics
IS - 10
M1 - 1185
ER -