Literature DB >> 12674233

Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.

Eric A Berns1, R Edward Hendrick, Gary R Cutter.   

Abstract

Contrast-detail experiments were performed to optimize technique factors for the detection of low-contrast lesions using a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system under the conditions of a matched average glandular dose (AGD) for different techniques. Optimization was performed for compressed breast thickness from 2 to 8 cm. FFDM results were compared to screen-film mammography (SFM) at each breast thickness. Four contrast-detail (CD) images were acquired on a SFM unit with optimal techniques at 2, 4, 6, and 8 cm breast thicknesses. The AGD for each breast thickness was calculated based on half-value layer (HVL) and entrance exposure measurements on the SFM unit. A computer algorithm was developed and used to determine FFDM beam current (mAs) that matched AGD between FFDM and SFM at each thickness, while varying target, filter, and peak kilovoltage (kVp) across the full range available for the FFDM unit. CD images were then acquired on FFDM for kVp values from 23-35 for a molybdenum-molybdenum (Mo-Mo), 23-40 for a molybdenum-rhodium (Mo-Rh), and 25-49 for a rhodium-rhodium (Rh-Rh) target-filter under the constraint of matching the AGD from screen-film for each breast thickness (2, 4, 6, and 8 cm). CD images were scored independently for SFM and each FFDM technique by six readers. CD scores were analyzed to assess trends as a function of target-filter and kVp and were compared to SFM at each breast thickness. For 2 cm thick breasts, optimal FFDM CD scores occurred at the lowest possible kVp setting for each target-filter, with significant decreases in FFDM CD scores as kVp was increased under the constraint of matched AGD. For 2 cm breasts, optimal FFDM CD scores were not significantly different from SFM CD scores. For 4-8 cm breasts, optimum FFDM CD scores were superior to SFM CD scores. For 4 cm breasts, FFDM CD scores decreased as kVp increased for each target-filter combination. For 6 cm breasts, CD scores decreased slightly as kVp increased for Mo-Mo, but did not change significantly as a function of kVp for either Mo-Rh or Rh-Rh. For 8 cm breasts, Rh/Rh FFDM CD scores were superior to other target-filter combinations and increased significantly as kVp increased. These results indicate that low-contrast lesion detection was optimized for FFDM by using a softer x-ray beam for thin breasts and a harder x-ray beam for thick breasts, when AGD was kept constant for a given breast thickness. Under this constraint, optimum low-contrast lesion detection with FFDM was superior to that for SFM for all but the thinnest breasts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12674233     DOI: 10.1118/1.1544674

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  9 in total

1.  Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.

Authors:  Xinming Liu; Chao-Jen Lai; Gary J Whitman; William R Geiser; Youtao Shen; Ying Yi; Chris C Shaw
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  A technique optimization protocol and the potential for dose reduction in digital mammography.

Authors:  Nicole T Ranger; Joseph Y Lo; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 3.  Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges.

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

4.  Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system.

Authors:  Paula Toroi; Federica Zanca; Kenneth C Young; Chantal van Ongeval; Guy Marchal; Hilde Bosmans
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02-01       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Digital mammography: what do we and what don't we know?

Authors:  Ulrich Bick; Felix Diekmann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography.

Authors:  Mark B Williams; Priya Raghunathan; Mitali J More; J Anthony Seibert; Alexander Kwan; Joseph Y Lo; Ehsan Samei; Nicole T Ranger; Laurie L Fajardo; Allen McGruder; Sandra M McGruder; Andrew D A Maidment; Martin J Yaffe; Aili Bloomquist; Gordon E Mawdsley
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Clinical dose performance of full field digital mammography in a breast screening programme.

Authors:  J B McCullagh; P Baldelli; N Phelan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-05-17       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Optimization of Image Quality and Dose in Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Agnes M F Fausto; M C Lopes; M C de Sousa; Tânia A C Furquim; Anderson W Mol; Fermin G Velasco
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.056

9.  Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Cosimo di Maggio
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-05-30       Impact factor: 7.034

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.