pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.04520 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · ⚛️ physics.med-ph

Recognition: unknown

Development and Validation of Patient-Specific Monte Carlo Dosimetry for Synchrotron Breast Phase-Contrast CT

Amir Entezam , Ashkan Pakzad , Christopher J. Hall , Anton Maksimenko , Matthew John Cameron , Adam Round , Mojtaba Hoseini-Ghahfarokhi , Seyedamir T. Taba
show 6 more authors
Yakov I. Nesterets Daniel Hausermann Magdalena Bazalova-Carter Patrick C. Brennan Timur E. Gureyev Harry M. Quiney
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 17:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.med-ph
keywords Monte Carlo dosimetrypatient-specificsynchrotron breast CTphase-contrast imagingmean glandular doseEGSnrcanthropomorphic phantomsIMBL
0
0 comments X

The pith

A Monte Carlo framework using patient-derived voxel phantoms calculates accurate mean glandular dose for synchrotron phase-contrast breast CT.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a Monte Carlo dosimetry method that builds realistic breast models directly from synchrotron breast CT images of patients to estimate the mean glandular dose on an individual basis. It incorporates the specific photon beam properties from the Imaging and Medical Beamline to simulate how radiation deposits energy in heterogeneous breast tissue. This approach matters because generic phantoms used in prior work ignore real variations in breast size, glandular density, and skin thickness, which can lead to imprecise dose values that affect safety assessments and protocol optimization as the technique advances toward clinical use. Simulations across different breast sizes, skin thicknesses, and energies between 28 and 38 keV reveal clear dependencies, including lower dose with higher glandular density, higher dose with larger breast volume, and a 10% dose reduction from a 2 mm thicker skin layer, plus measurable differences between heterogeneous and homogeneous models.

Core claim

The authors implement a voxel-based EGSnrc Monte Carlo framework that computes mean glandular dose in anthropomorphic breast phantoms created from actual synchrotron BCT images, using IMBL beam characteristics as the source. Simulations covering breast height, skin thickness, and photon energies from 28 to 38 keV demonstrate that MGD varies strongly with anatomy and energy, with higher glandular density reducing MGD, larger breast volume increasing it, and a 2 mm skin thickness increase lowering MGD by 10%. Comparisons show that heterogeneous phantoms produce different air kerma to MGD conversion coefficients than homogeneous ones, underscoring the value of anatomical realism.

What carries the argument

Voxel-based anthropomorphic breast phantoms derived from synchrotron BCT images, input into EGSnrc Monte Carlo simulations driven by IMBL beam parameters, to compute patient-specific mean glandular dose.

If this is right

  • MGD decreases as glandular tissue density rises but increases with larger breast volume.
  • A 2 mm increase in skin thickness reduces MGD by 10%.
  • Heterogeneous phantoms yield different DgN conversion coefficients than homogeneous models, requiring anatomical detail for accuracy.
  • The framework enables improved protocol design and standardized patient-specific dosimetry across varying breast anatomies in synchrotron BCT.
  • Precise MGD estimation supports safer and more optimized clinical imaging protocols.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The method could be extended to other synchrotron or phase-contrast imaging applications beyond breast CT.
  • Patient-specific dose data might support personalized imaging parameters that balance image quality and risk for each individual.
  • Integration with real-time feedback from the scanner could allow dynamic adjustment of exposure to keep dose within limits.
  • The approach might help establish regulatory guidelines for dosimetry in advanced medical imaging systems.

Load-bearing premise

The voxel-based phantoms created from the synchrotron images accurately represent real patient anatomy and tissue compositions, and the modeled beam characteristics match the actual synchrotron source without major discrepancies.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of simulated MGD values against physical measurements taken with dosimeters inside a realistic breast phantom exposed to the actual IMBL synchrotron beam; large systematic differences would indicate the framework does not capture true dose deposition.

read the original abstract

This study develops and validates a patient-specific Monte Carlo (MC) dosimetry framework for propagation-based phase-contrast breast CT (BCT) at the Imaging and Medical Beamline (IMBL), ANSTO Australian Synchrotron, for accurate mean glandular dose (MGD) estimation. BCT provides 3D imaging without breast compression, improving comfort and visualization of internal structures for cancer detection. Propagation-based phase contrast improves soft-tissue contrast at equal or lower dose than conventional systems. Accurate dosimetry remains essential for safety and optimisation. Most MC-based MGD studies use non-patient-specific phantoms that ignore anatomical variability, while existing patient-specific methods lack a unified framework. Here, a voxel-based MC framework using EGSnrc was implemented to compute MGD in realistic anthropomorphic breast phantoms derived from synchrotron BCT images. IMBL beam characteristics were used as source inputs. Homogeneous phantoms were also generated to compute air Kerma to MGD conversion coefficients (DgN) for comparison with heterogeneous models. Simulations covered breast height, skin thickness, and photon energies (28 to 38 keV). Results show MGD depends strongly on anatomy and energy. Higher glandular density reduces MGD, while larger breast volume increases dose. A 2 mm increase in skin thickness reduces MGD by 10%. Differences between heterogeneous and homogeneous phantoms show variations in DgN, highlighting the need for anatomical realism. The framework provides a robust basis for patient-specific dosimetry in synchrotron phase-contrast BCT, enabling precise MGD estimation and supporting safe, optimised clinical imaging. This supports improved protocol design and contributes to standardised patient-specific dosimetry for clinical translation across varying breast anatomies and imaging conditions within synchrotron BCT applications.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops and validates a patient-specific Monte Carlo dosimetry framework using EGSnrc for propagation-based phase-contrast breast CT at the IMBL synchrotron. Voxel-based anthropomorphic phantoms are derived from patient BCT images to compute mean glandular dose (MGD) for heterogeneous tissue distributions; homogeneous versions are also created to derive DgN conversion coefficients. Parametric studies examine dependencies on breast height, skin thickness (0-2 mm), and monoenergetic beams from 28-38 keV. Results indicate strong anatomy and energy dependence, with a reported 10% MGD reduction for 2 mm added skin thickness and differences between heterogeneous and homogeneous models. The abstract concludes that the framework supplies a robust basis for precise patient-specific MGD estimation to support clinical optimisation.

Significance. If externally validated, the work would provide a useful computational tool for incorporating individual breast anatomy into synchrotron BCT dosimetry, moving beyond standard homogeneous DgN tables and potentially improving protocol design for dose optimisation across varying patient anatomies.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the EGSnrc framework 'provides a robust basis for patient-specific dosimetry... enabling precise MGD estimation' rests on validation that is described only as internal comparisons between heterogeneous and homogeneous phantoms. No external benchmarking against physical measurements (e.g., ionization chambers or TLDs in a physical phantom under the IMBL spectrum) or independent Monte Carlo codes is reported, leaving the precision assertion dependent on untested modeling assumptions for the segmented anatomy and beam characteristics.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Only qualitative trends are stated (e.g., '10% reduction', 'strong dependence'); quantitative tables, error bars, segmentation accuracy metrics, or specific MGD values are absent, making it difficult to assess the magnitude and statistical robustness of the reported differences.
  2. The description of phantom construction and beam modeling inputs lacks detail on tissue composition assignments and spectrum validation steps, which would aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment regarding validation below and have revised the abstract accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that the EGSnrc framework 'provides a robust basis for patient-specific dosimetry... enabling precise MGD estimation' rests on validation that is described only as internal comparisons between heterogeneous and homogeneous phantoms. No external benchmarking against physical measurements (e.g., ionization chambers or TLDs in a physical phantom under the IMBL spectrum) or independent Monte Carlo codes is reported, leaving the precision assertion dependent on untested modeling assumptions for the segmented anatomy and beam characteristics.

    Authors: We agree that the validation in the study is internal, based on direct comparisons of MGD between heterogeneous patient-derived phantoms and their homogeneous equivalents, plus consistency of derived DgN coefficients with literature values for similar monoenergetic beams and breast compositions. EGSnrc is a well-established code with extensive prior validation for photon transport in tissue-equivalent media, as referenced in the manuscript. We acknowledge that external experimental benchmarking (e.g., ionization chamber measurements under the actual IMBL spectrum) is not included, as the work focused on framework development using existing clinical image data rather than new physical experiments. To reflect this accurately, we will revise the abstract by replacing 'provides a robust basis for patient-specific dosimetry... enabling precise MGD estimation' with 'provides a computational basis for patient-specific dosimetry... supporting improved MGD estimation'. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation uses independent external inputs and established code

full rationale

The paper's core derivation is the implementation of a standard EGSnrc Monte Carlo simulation whose inputs (voxel phantoms segmented from synchrotron BCT images, IMBL beam spectrum and geometry) are supplied externally and are not derived from the MGD outputs themselves. No equations reduce to self-definition, no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes are imported via self-citation. The reported parametric sweeps and heterogeneous-vs-homogeneous comparisons are direct simulation results, not tautological restatements of the input data. The framework therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on standard Monte Carlo physics assumptions and image-derived phantoms; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Photon energy range (28-38 keV)
    Selected simulation inputs covering typical synchrotron BCT energies; not fitted but chosen for the study.
  • Skin thickness and breast height variations
    Varied as input parameters to explore dose sensitivity; values are not derived from first principles.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption EGSnrc code accurately models photon transport and interactions in breast tissue compositions
    Invoked implicitly as the basis for all dose calculations; standard in the field but unverified here.
  • domain assumption Synchrotron BCT images can be segmented into accurate voxel phantoms representing real anatomy
    Central to patient-specific aspect; assumed without detailed validation metrics in abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5689 in / 1382 out tokens · 70696 ms · 2026-05-08T17:01:31.904436+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references

  1. [1]

    In Australia, breast cancer was the leading cause of cancer-related death among females aged 45–64 in 2023 [2]

    Background Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer among women worldwide and remains one of the most serious global health concerns [1]. In Australia, breast cancer was the leading cause of cancer-related death among females aged 45–64 in 2023 [2]. Although screening programs have greatly improved early detection, diagnostic challenges remai...

    2023

  2. [2]

    The imaging experiments were conducted under a Human Ethics Certificate of Approval from Monash University (Project ID 26399)

    Materials and Methods 2.1 Voxel-based realistic breast phantoms 2.1.1 Specimen preparation and imaging Realistic digital anthropomorphic breast phantoms to be used in the MC calculations were developed from high-resolution CT imaging of human mastectomy specimens using PB-PCT at the IMBL. The imaging experiments were conducted under a Human Ethics Certifi...

    2016

  3. [3]

    The HU-to-material conversion was implemented using ranges informed by reported CT attenuation values of breast tissues [57]

    and subsequently added to the material library via the EGS-GUI interface. The HU-to-material conversion was implemented using ranges informed by reported CT attenuation values of breast tissues [57]. The calibration ramp was defined as follows: -1000 to -700 HU for air, -699 to -100 HU for adipose tissue, -99 to +80 HU for glandular tissue, and +81 to +20...

  4. [4]

    The phantom closely mimicked the actual breast, accurately reflecting the anatomical distribution of glandular, adipose, and skin tissues

    Heterogeneous phantoms: Each voxel retained its original mass density value and the corresponding HU range, preserving the natural spatial variations in tissue density. The phantom closely mimicked the actual breast, accurately reflecting the anatomical distribution of glandular, adipose, and skin tissues. This ensured that the density, realistic spatial ...

  5. [5]

    Material-homogeneous phantoms: Each tissue type (adipose, glandular, skin) was assigned a single mean density value, calculated from the corresponding voxels in the heterogeneous phantom. While the characteristic location of each tissue type was maintained, all voxels within a given tissue were set to this single mean value, thereby removing intra- tissue...

  6. [6]

    Unlike the material-homogeneous phantom, these voxels were uniformly distributed across the entire breast phantom volume, representing a fully mixed composition

    Homogeneous phantoms: In these phantoms, adipose and glandular voxels were assigned the single mean mass density value derived for the material-homogeneous phantom. Unlike the material-homogeneous phantom, these voxels were uniformly distributed across the entire breast phantom volume, representing a fully mixed composition. This uniform distribution did ...

  7. [7]

    Independent MATLAB-based homogeneous phantoms: These phantoms correspond to the voxelized homogeneous phantoms described above (Phantom 3) but are generated independently, without relying on patient-specific datasets. To create these phantoms, only a few key parameters are required: the mass densities of glandular and adipose tissues (obtained from NIST),...

  8. [8]

    PDDs were evaluated at multiple positions across the beam, including central and off-axis locations, to confirm spatial consistency at a given energy

    Results 3.1 Verification of MC imaging beam modelling To validate the MC model of the BCT imaging system, the PDD curves obtained from the experimental water tank measurements were compared with the corresponding PDD curves calculated using the EGSnrc/DOSXYZnrc simulation framework. PDDs were evaluated at multiple positions across the beam, including cent...

  9. [9]

    Discussion This study demonstrates that patient-specific breast phantoms, combined with a validated and system-tailored MC beam model, provide an accurate framework for MGD estimation. By explicitly modelling realistic breast anatomy, tissue composition, and imaging geometry, this approach establishes a gold-standard reference against which simplified bre...

    2017

  10. [10]

    Conclusion By integrating patient-specific anatomical phantoms with a validated beam model, the proposed MC framework enables calculation-based estimation of MGD under realistic synchrotron-based imaging conditions. The results demonstrate that breast geometry, glandular distribution, and skin thickness significantly influence DgN and MGD, while simplifie...

  11. [11]

    This work was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Grant No

    Acknowledgements The authors sincerely thank all participants who generously donated their tissue for this study, without whom this research would not have been possible. This work was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Grant No. 2021/GNT2011204). This research was undertaken on Imaging and Medical beamline at the Australian Sy...

    2021

  12. [12]

    L., Kratzer, T

    Siegel, R. L., Kratzer, T. B., Giaquinto, A. N., Sung, H., & Jemal, A. (2025). Cancer statistics, 2025. Ca, 75(1), 10

    2025

  13. [13]

    H., Byrne, S.,

    Tiruye, T., Duko, B., Mekonnen, L., Ward, P., Nguyen, T. H., Byrne, S., ... & Beckmann, K. ( 2025). Cancer burden attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors in Australia. Cancers, 17(19), 3101

    2025

  14. [14]

    Autier, P., & Boniol, M. (2018). Mammography screening: A major issue in medicine. European journal of cancer, 90, 34-62

    2018

  15. [15]

    M., Otten, J

    Van Schoor, G., Moss, S. M., Otten, J. D. M., Donders, R., Paap, E. D. E. N., Den Heeten, G. J., ... & Verbeek, A. L. M. (2011). Increasingly strong reduction in breast cancer mortality due to screening. British journal of cancer, 104(6), 910- 914

    2011

  16. [16]

    M., Athanasiou, A., Baltzer, P

    Mann, R. M., Athanasiou, A., Baltzer, P. A., Camps-Herrero, J., Clauser, P., Fallenberg, E. M., ... & European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI). (2022). Breast cancer screening in women with extremely dense breasts recommendations of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI). European radiology, 32(6), 4036-4045

    2022

  17. [17]

    F., Barlow, W

    Conant, E. F., Barlow, W. E., Herschorn, S. D., Weaver, D. L., Beaber, E. F., Tosteson, A. N., ... & Sprague, B. L. (2019). Association of digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography with cancer detection and recall rates by age and breast density. JAMA oncology, 5(5), 635-642

    2019

  18. [18]

    S., Backmann, H

    Moshina, N., Sagstad, S., Holen, Å. S., Backmann, H. A., Westermann, L. C., & Hofvind, S. (2023). Experience of pain during mammographic screening by three different compression paddles. Radiography, 29(5), 903-910

    2023

  19. [19]

    Natterer, F. (2001). The mathematics of computerized tomography. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

    2001

  20. [20]

    C., & Slaney, M

    Kak, A. C., & Slaney, M. (2001). Principles of computerized tomographic imaging. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

    2001

  21. [21]

    Bates, R. H. T., Garden, K. L., & Peters, T. M. (1983). Overview of computerized tomography with emphasis on future developments. Proceedings of the IEEE, 71(3), 356-372

    1983

  22. [22]

    Sarno, A., Mettivier, G., & Russo, P. ( 2015). Dedicated breast computed tomography: basic aspects. Medical physics, 42(6Part1), 2786-2804

    2015

  23. [23]

    L., Virkkunen, P., Leidenius, M., von Smitten, K.,

    Keyrilainen, J., Fernández, M., Karjalainen-Lindsberg, M. L., Virkkunen, P., Leidenius, M., von Smitten, K., ... & Bravin, A. (2008). Toward high-contrast breast CT at low radiation dose. Radiology, 249(1), 321-327

    2008

  24. [24]

    Su, T., Zheng, Y., Yang, H., Ouyang, Z., Fan, J., Lin, L., & Lv, F. (2024). Nomogram for preoperative differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumors using contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast CT (CE CB-BCT) quantitative imaging and assessment features. La radiologia medica, 129(5), 737-750

    2024

  25. [25]

    K., Boone, J

    Lindfors, K. K., Boone, J. M., Nelson, T. R., Yang, K., Kwan, A. L., & Miller, D. F. (2008). Dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. Radiology, 246(3), 725-733

    2008

  26. [26]

    F., Sass, S., & Alexander, J

    Grigoryants, N. F., Sass, S., & Alexander, J. ( 2023). Novel technologies in breast imaging: A scoping review. Cureus, 15(8)

    2023

  27. [27]

    Vaughan, C. L. ( 2019). Novel imaging approaches to screen for breast cancer: Recent advances and future prospects. Medical engineering & physics, 72, 27-37

    2019

  28. [28]

    unreasonable

    Gureyev, T. E., Nesterets, Y. I., Kozlov, A., Paganin, D. M., & Quiney, H. M. (2017). On the “unreasonable” effectiveness of transport of intensity imaging and optical deconvolution. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 34(12), 2251- 2260

    2017

  29. [29]

    C., Gureyev, T

    Paganin, D., Mayo, S. C., Gureyev, T. E., Miller, P. R., & Wilkins, S. W. (2002). Simultaneous phase and amplitude extraction from a single defocused image of a homogeneous object. Journal of microscopy, 206(1), 33-40

    2002

  30. [30]

    T., Arhatari, B

    Taba, S. T., Arhatari, B. D., Nesterets, Y. I., Gadomkar, Z., Mayo, S. C., Thompson, D., ... & Brennan, P. C. (2021). Propagation-based phase-contrast CT of the breast demonstrates higher quality than conventional absorption-based CT even at lower radiation dose. Academic radiology, 28(1), e20-e26

    2021

  31. [31]

    E., Nesterets, Y

    Gureyev, T. E., Nesterets, Y. I., Baran, P. M., Taba, S. T., Mayo, S. C., Thompson, D., ... & Brennan, P. C. ( 2019). Propagation‐based x‐ray phase‐contrast tomography of mastectomy samples using synchrotron radiation. Medical physics, 46(12), 5478-5487

    2019

  32. [32]

    I., & Gureyev, T

    Nesterets, Y. I., & Gureyev, T. E. ( 2014). Noise propagation in x-ray phase-contrast imaging and computed tomography. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 47(10), 105402

    2014

  33. [33]

    D., Stevenson, A

    Arhatari, B. D., Stevenson, A. W., Abbey, B., Nesterets, Y. I., Maksimenko, A., Hall, C. J., ... & Gureyev, T. E. (2021). X- ray phase-contrast computed tomography for soft tissue imaging at the imaging and medical beamline (IMBL) of the Australian synchrotron. Applied Sciences, 11(9), 4120

    2021

  34. [34]

    W., Pavlicek, W., Stefan, W., Hanson, J., Sharpe Jr, R

    Sanders, J. W., Pavlicek, W., Stefan, W., Hanson, J., Sharpe Jr, R. E., & Patel, B. K. ( 2025). Digital mammography, tomosynthesis, and contrast-enhanced mammography: intraindividual comparison of mean glandular dose for screening examinations. American Journal of Roentgenology, 224(3), e2432150

    2025

  35. [35]

    E., McEntee, M

    Liu, Q., Suleiman, M. E., McEntee, M. F., & Soh, B. P. (2022). Diagnostic reference levels in digital mammography: a systematic review. Journal of Radiological Protection, 42(1), 011503

    2022

  36. [36]

    Feng, S. S. J., & Sechopoulos, I. ( 2012). Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization. Radiology, 263(1), 35-42

    2012

  37. [37]

    Sechopoulos, I., Feng, S. S. J., & D'Orsi, C. J. ( 2010). Dosimetric characterization of a dedicated breast computed tomography clinical prototype. Medical physics, 37(8), 4110-4120

    2010

  38. [38]

    M., Boone, J

    Sarno, A., Mettivier, G., Bliznakova, K., Hernandez, A. M., Boone, J. M., & Russo, P. (2022). Comparisons of glandular breast dose between digital mammography, tomosynthesis and breast CT based on anthropomorphic patient-derived breast phantoms. Physica Medica, 97, 50-58

    2022

  39. [39]

    M., Houssami, N., Sechopoulos, I., & Mattsson, S

    Svahn, T. M., Houssami, N., Sechopoulos, I., & Mattsson, S. (2015). Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography. The Breast, 24(2), 93-99

    2015

  40. [40]

    Gennaro, G., Bernardi, D., & Houssami, N. (2018). Radiation dose with digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography: per-view analysis. European radiology, 28(2), 573-581

    2018

  41. [41]

    M., Kwan, A

    Boone, J. M., Kwan, A. L., Seibert, J. A., Shah, N., Lindfors, K. K., & Nelson, T. R. (2005). Technique factors and their relationship to radiation dose in pendant geometry breast CT. Medical physics, 32(12), 3767-3776

    2005

  42. [42]

    B., Barrett, R

    Brown, F. B., Barrett, R. F., Booth, T. E., Bull, J. S., Cox, L. J., Forster, R. A., ... & Sweezy, J. (2002). MCNP version

    2002

  43. [43]

    Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc, 87(273), 02-3935

  44. [44]

    Kawrakow, I. (2001). The EGSnrc code system, Monte Carlo simulation of electron and photon transport. NRCC Report Pirs-701

    2001

  45. [45]

    A., Apostolakis, J., Araujo, H., Arce, P.,

    Agostinelli, S., Allison, J., Amako, K. A., Apostolakis, J., Araujo, H., Arce, P., ... & Geant4 Collaboration. (2003). Geant4— a simulation toolkit. Nuclear instruments and methods in physics research section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 506(3), 250-303

    2003

  46. [46]

    M., Barca, P., Del Sarto, D., Lamastra, R., Mettivier, G., Retico, A.,

    Tucciariello, R. M., Barca, P., Del Sarto, D., Lamastra, R., Mettivier, G., Retico, A., ... & Fantacci, M. E. (2021). Voxelized Breast Phantoms for Dosimetry in Mammography. In BIOINFORMATICS (pp. 154-161)

    2021

  47. [47]

    Sechopoulos, I., Bliznakova, K., Qin, X., Fei, B., & Feng, S. S. J. (2012). Characterization of the homogeneous tissue mixture approximation in breast imaging dosimetry. Medical physics, 39(8), 5050-5059

    2012

  48. [48]

    Mettivier, G., Fedon, C., Di Lillo, F., Longo, R., Sarno, A., Tromba, G., & Russo, P. (2016). Glandular dose in breast computed tomography with synchrotron radiation. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 61(2), 569-587

    2016

  49. [49]

    M., Shah, N., & Nelson, T

    Boone, J. M., Shah, N., & Nelson, T. R. (2004). A comprehensive analysis of coefficients for pendant‐geometry cone‐ beam breast computed tomography. Medical physics, 31(2), 226-235

    2004

  50. [50]

    S., Badal, A., Badano, A., Boone, J

    Sechopoulos, I., Ali, E. S., Badal, A., Badano, A., Boone, J. M., Kyprianou, I. S., ... & Turner, A. C. (2015). Monte Carlo reference data sets for imaging research: Executive summary of the report of AAPM Research Committee Task Group

    2015

  51. [51]

    Medical physics, 42(10), 5679-5691

  52. [52]

    M., Dance, D., van Engen, R., Russo, P., & Young, K

    Sechopoulos, I., Boone, J. M., Dance, D., van Engen, R., Russo, P., & Young, K. C. (2020). Mammography dose estimates do not reflect any specific patient's breast dose. European Journal of Radiology, 131

    2020

  53. [53]

    Di Maria, S., Vedantham, S., & Vaz, P. (2022). Breast dosimetry in alternative X-ray-based imaging modalities used in current clinical practices. European journal of radiology, 155, 110509

    2022

  54. [54]

    J., Boone, J

    Yaffe, M. J., Boone, J. M., Packard, N., Alonzo‐Proulx, O., Huang, S. Y., Peressotti, C. L., ... & Brock, K. (2009). The myth of the 50‐50 breast. Medical physics, 36(12), 5437-5443

    2009

  55. [55]

    M., Dance, D

    Fedon, C., Caballo, M., García, E., Diaz, O., Boone, J. M., Dance, D. R., & Sechopoulos, I. (2021). Fibroglandular tissue distribution in the breast during mammography and tomosynthesis based on breast CT data: A patient‐based characterization of the breast parenchyma. Medical physics, 48(3), 1436-1447

    2021

  56. [56]

    E., Brennan, P

    Suleiman, M. E., Brennan, P. C., Ekpo, E., Kench, P., & McEntee, M. F. (2018). Integrating mammographic breast density in glandular dose calculation. The British journal of radiology, 91(1085), 20180032

    2018

  57. [57]

    C., & Glick, S

    Thacker, S. C., & Glick, S. J. ( 2004). Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for flat-panel CT breast imaging. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 49(24), 5433

    2004

  58. [58]

    M., Bliznakova, K., Boone, J

    Sarno, A., Mettivier, G., Tucciariello, R. M., Bliznakova, K., Boone, J. M., Sechopoulos, I., ... & Russo, P. (2018). Monte Carlo evaluation of glandular dose in cone-beam X-ray computed tomography dedicated to the breast: Homogeneous and heterogeneous breast models. Physica Medica, 51, 99-107

    2018

  59. [59]

    Vedantham, S., Shi, L., Karellas, A., & O'Connell, A. M. ( 2012). Dedicated breast CT: fibroglandular volume measurements in a diagnostic population. Medical physics, 39(12), 7317-7328

    2012

  60. [60]

    Shi, L., Vedantham, S., Karellas, A., & O'Connell, A. M. (2013). Skin thickness measurements using high‐resolution flat‐ panel cone‐beam dedicated breast CT a. Medical physics, 40(3), 031913

    2013

  61. [61]

    R., & Sechopoulos, I

    Dance, D. R., & Sechopoulos, I. (2016). Dosimetry in x-ray-based breast imaging. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 61(19), R271

    2016

  62. [62]

    W., White, D

    Richard Hammerstein, G., Miller, D. W., White, D. R., Ellen Masterson, M., Woodard, H. Q., & Laughlin, J. S. (1979). Absorbed radiation dose in mammography. radiology, 130(2), 485-491

    1979

  63. [63]

    I., Gureyev, T

    Nesterets, Y. I., Gureyev, T. E., Mayo, S. C., Stevenson, A. W., Thompson, D., Brown, J. M., ... & Tromba, G. (2015). A feasibility study of X-ray phase-contrast mammographic tomography at the Imaging and Medical beamline of the Australian Synchrotron. Synchrotron Radiation, 22(6), 1509-1523

    2015

  64. [64]

    A., Kolditz, D., Steiding, C., Ruth, V., Lück, F., Rößler, A

    Kalender, W. A., Kolditz, D., Steiding, C., Ruth, V., Lück, F., Rößler, A. C., & Wenkel, E. (2017). Technical feasibility proof for high-resolution low-dose photon-counting CT of the breast. European radiology, 27(3), 1081-1086

    2017

  65. [65]

    M., Unkelbach, J., & Boss, A

    Shim, S., Kolditz, D., Steiding, C., Ruth, V., Hoetker, A. M., Unkelbach, J., & Boss, A. (2023). Radiation dose estimates based on Monte Carlo simulation for spiral breast computed tomography imaging in a large cohort of patients. Medical physics, 50(4), 2417-2428

    2023

  66. [66]

    M., Bliznakova, K., Boone, J

    di Franco, F., Sarno, A., Mettivier, G., Hernandez, A. M., Bliznakova, K., Boone, J. M., & Russo, P. (2020). GEANT4 Monte Carlo simulations for virtual clinical trials in breast X-ray imaging: Proof of concept. Physica Medica, 74, 133- 142

    2020

  67. [67]

    J., Leatham, T

    Pakzad, A., Turnbull, R., Mutch, S. J., Leatham, T. A., Lockie, D., Fox, J., ... & Quiney, H. M. (2026). Amplifying image quality gain in x-ray phase contrast imaging of mastectomy samples with deep learning denoising. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 71(3), 035018

    2026

  68. [68]

    Berger, M. J. O. K. (2010). XCOM: photon cross sections database. http://www. nist. gov/pml/data/xcom/index. cfm

    2010

  69. [69]

    Seltzer, S. (1987). XCOM-photon cross sections database, NIST standard reference database 8. (No Title)

    1987

  70. [70]

    Jaikuna, T., Wilson, F., Anandadas, C., Azria, D., Chang-Claude, J., De Santis, M. C., ... & Aznar, M. C. (2026). Breast Composition and Dose Deposition to Fat and Fibroglandular Tissues Are Associated with Breast Toxicity after Radiation Therapy. The Breast, 104694

    2026

  71. [71]

    W., Kim, S

    Lee, J. W., Kim, S. Y., Lee, H. J., Han, S. W., Lee, J. E., & Lee, S. M. (2019). Prognostic significance of CT-attenuation of tumor-adjacent breast adipose tissue in breast cancer patients with surgical resection. Cancers, 11(8), 1135

    2019

  72. [72]

    & Boss, A

    Shim, S., Cester, D., Ruby, L., Bluethgen, C., Marcon, M., Berger, N., ... & Boss, A. ( 2022). Fully automated breast segmentation on spiral breast computed tomography images. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 23(10), e13726

    2022

  73. [74]

    Entezam, A., Fielding, A., Bradley, D., & Fontanarosa, D. (2023). Absorbed dose calculation for a realistic CT-derived mouse phantom irradiated with a standard Cs-137 cell irradiator using a Monte Carlo method. Plos one, 18(2), e0280765

    2023

  74. [75]

    F., Crosbie, J

    Livingstone, J., Adam, J. F., Crosbie, J. C., Hall, C. J., Lye, J. E., McKinlay, J., ... & Häusermann, D. (2017). Preclinical radiotherapy at the Australian Synchrotron's Imaging and Medical Beamline: instrumentation, dosimetry and a small- animal feasibility study. Synchrotron Radiation, 24(4), 854-865

    2017

  75. [76]

    Yoo, S., Grimm, D., Zhu, R., Jursinic, P., Lopez, F., Rownd, J., & Gillin, M. (2002). Clinical implementation of AAPM TG61 protocol for kilovoltage x‐ray beam dosimetry. Medical physics, 29(10), 2269-2273

    2002

  76. [77]

    Walters, B. R. B. I., Kawrakow, I., & Rogers, D. W. O. (2005). DOSXYZnrc users manual. Nrc Report Pirs, 794, 57-58

    2005

  77. [78]

    W., Bazalova‐Carter, M., Bolch, W

    Sechopoulos, I., Rogers, D. W., Bazalova‐Carter, M., Bolch, W. E., Heath, E. C., McNitt‐Gray, M. F., ... & Williamson, J. F. (2018). RECORDS: improved reporting of montE CarlO RaDiation transport studies: report of the AAPM Research Committee Task Group 268. Medical physics, 45(1), e1-e5

    2018

  78. [79]

    A., & Dempsey, J

    Low, D. A., & Dempsey, J. F. ( 2003). Evaluation of the gamma dose distribution comparison method. Medical physics, 30(9), 2455-2464

    2003

  79. [80]

    Sarno, A., Mettivier, G., & Russo, P. (2017). Air kerma calculation in Monte Carlo simulations for deriving normalized glandular dose coefficients in mammography. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 62(14), N337-N349

    2017

  80. [81]

    Niko, H., Dafina, X., Theodhor, K., & Ervis, T. ( 2014). Calculation methods in radiotherapy using matlab. Journal International Environmental Application Science, ISSN, 1, 1307-0428

    2014

Showing first 80 references.