A Potential Solution to Assess the Absorbed Dose at Any Point in Breast During Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) Imaging Using a Novel Monte Carlo Simulation Software

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

A: Good

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Good

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Very Good

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Good

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Good

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

A: Good

Comments: The Discussion briefly illustrates the importance of determining the arbitrary depth dose from the percentage depth dose (PDD), providing relevant literature. This further discusses the distribution of mammary glands in the breast with the stochastic effects of the breast. The authors also describe the usefulness of the depth dose measurements using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter (OSLD) in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and the proposed Mdec-Toki simulation method to calculate PDD and average glandular dose (AGD) with proper pictorial representation. The Conclusion discusses the variations of the absorbed dose among individuals in imaging conditions and the structure of the breast. Lastly, the authors suggest that the proposed Mdec-Toki method should be further improved to determine exposure doses in actual patients undergoing mammography.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Good

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments: There are few errors found in the manuscript, which are as follows:

·       Under Abstract, 5^th sentence, word “similar” was misspelled as “similer”.

·       In Introduction, 3^rd paragraph, 2^nd sentence, “However, the radiation absorption changes of the mammary gland with respect to depth cannot be determined…” is reframed as “However, the radiation absorption of the mammary gland changes with respect to the depth and cannot be determined…”.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: The study aims at visualizing the dose distribution of the entire breast under different arbitrary glandularities and evaluating the absorbed dose at an arbitrary point using Mdec-Toki Monte Carlo Method. Further, the research finds an accurate and effective method to determine the percentage depth dose (PDD) and average glandular dose during digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) at any point in the mammary gland. The manuscript also discusses the methods and results of the depth absorbed dose measurements using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter (OSLD), three-dimensional dose distribution of PDD, and average glandular dose (AGD) calculation using Mdec-Toki method and AGD calculation using Dance method.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team