ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2026
Radiation dose comparison of photon-counting breast CT and mammography: A phantom study.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Spiral breast CT (BCT) systems operate without breast compression while providing more comprehensive three-dimensional information than digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). However, before BCT systems can be considered as part of screening programs for breast cancer, concerns about dose exposure in a diagnostic setting (which is generally higher in CT systems) must be addressed. Methods: This work compares dose measurements between mammography and breast CT with commercial devices and clinical protocols. 3D-printed phantoms of three different sizes were filled with four mixtures simulating different breast densities. Calibrated MOSFET dosimeters measured the entrance surface dose (ESD); in Saddition, a Monte Carlo simulation was performed, matched to the measurements, and used to calculate the average absorbed dose (AAD). Results: The entrance dose for DM + DBT is always higher than for BCT, up four times for the largest and densier phantom, corresponding to 74% reduction in the ESD for BCT. The results for the AAD vary widely depending on size and density. In the lowest density phantom the dose with BCT is generally higher than with a standard diagnostic mammography protocol (up to +227% increase for the small phantom). However, in case of the highest density, BCT achieved a dose reduction compared to the mammography protocol (-14% for the medium phantom and -15% for the large phantom). Conclusions: BCT consistently reduced entrance surface dose compared to the combination of one DM and one DBT, while the average absorbed dose was higher for most phantom configurations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.