Literature DB >> 10943284

Screen-film and digital mammography. Image quality and radiation dose considerations.

A G Haus1, M J Yaffe.   

Abstract

Factors affecting image quality and patient dose in screen-film and digital mammography have been discussed. Some proposed parameters for judging image quality and breast exposure measurements and dose calculations relating to changes in image quality factors have been reviewed. It is important to remember that the goal in making a mammogram is to obtain as much diagnostic information as possible at the lowest dose compatible with that information. As noted previously, this necessitates compromises (i.e., an optimization of factors that affect image quality). These include beam quality, compression, imaging geometry, grids, receptor characteristics, processing of the film or digital image, and display and viewing conditions. If this is done correctly, a high-quality mammogram can be obtained at a reasonably low dose to the patient. The goal is not simply to use as low a dose as possible, because if this is done there is a large risk of degrading the performance of mammography in detecting or accurately characterizing small, node-negative cancers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10943284     DOI: 10.1016/s0033-8389(05)70207-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am        ISSN: 0033-8389            Impact factor:   2.303


  6 in total

Review 1.  Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges.

Authors:  A Noel; F Thibault
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-10-08       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Quality of images acquired with and without grid in digital mammography.

Authors:  Khaled H Al Khalifah; Ajit Brindhaban; Raed A Saeed
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2013-11-05

3.  Cancer cases from ACRIN digital mammographic imaging screening trial: radiologist analysis with use of a logistic regression model.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Elodia B Cole; Helga S Marques; Martin J Yaffe; Meredith Blevins; Emily F Conant; R Edward Hendrick; Janet K Baum; Laurie L Fajardo; Roberta A Jong; Marcia A Koomen; Cherie M Kuzmiak; Yeonhee Lee; Dag Pavic; Sora C Yoon; Wittaya Padungchaichote; Constantine Gatsonis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: an Italian survey.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Paola Baldelli; Angelo Taibi; Cosimo Di Maggio; Mauro Gambaccini
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-08-12       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Introducing kernel based morphology as an enhancement method for mass classification on mammography.

Authors:  Azardokht Amirzadi; Reza Azmi
Journal:  J Med Signals Sens       Date:  2013-04

6.  Low-Dose, Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Compared to Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI: A Feasibility Study.

Authors:  Paola Clauser; Pascal A T Baltzer; Panagiotis Kapetas; Mathias Hoernig; Michael Weber; Federica Leone; Maria Bernathova; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2020-02-14       Impact factor: 4.813

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.