Literature DB >> 12857708

Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study.

S Obenauer1, K-P Hermann, E Grabbe.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential for radiation dose reduction by using other beam qualities in full-field digital mammography (FFDM) compared with screen-film mammography (SFM). FFDM was performed using an amorphous silicon detector with a caesium iodide scintillator layer (Senographe 2000D, GE, Milwaukee, USA). SFM was performed using a state-of-the-art conventional system (Senographe DMR, GE, Milwaukee, USA) with a dedicated screen-film combination. An anthropomorphic breast phantom with superimposed microcalcifications (50-200 microm) was used to evaluate the detectability of microcalcifications. Contact mammograms and magnification views (m=1.8) performed with both the digital and the screen-film system were compared. Images were exposed automatically. Molybdenum/Molybdenum (Mo/Mo) anode-filter combination, 28 kVp and 63 mAs were selected by the automatic optimization of parameters (AOP) of the conventional system. This exposure protocol (protocol A) was also used as baseline for the digital system. Dose reduction in digital mammography was achieved by using protocol B with Mo/Rh and 31 kVp and protocol C with Rh/Rh and 32 kVp. The detectability of microcalcifications was assessed by 3 experienced readers with a confidence level ranging from 1 to 5. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed. In protocol A the area under the ROC-curve (A(z)) for contact views performed by the screen-film system was 0.64 and for those performed with the FFDM system 0.68. The A(z) values were 0.74 in protocol B and 0.65 in protocol C for the digital system. For the conventional and digital magnification views A(z) values were 0.71 and 0.79, respectively. For protocol B the A(z) value was 0.81 and for protocol C it was 0.76. There is no statistically significant difference in the A(z) values for the different protocols in digital mammography and no significant difference from the screen-film system. A potential for dose reduction by using other beam qualities seems to be possible with this digital system.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12857708     DOI: 10.1259/bjr/67597156

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  10 in total

1.  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 2.  Digital mammography: current state and future aspects.

Authors:  U Fischer; K P Hermann; F Baum
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-08-20       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  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

4.  Effect of dose reduction on the ability of digital mammography to detect simulated microcalcifications.

Authors:  Mari Yakabe; Shuji Sakai; Hidetake Yabuuchi; Yoshio Matsuo; Takeshi Kamitani; Taro Setoguchi; Mayumi Cho; Masafumi Masuda; Masayuki Sasaki
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2009-05-05       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  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

6.  ACR-AAPM-SIIM practice guideline for determinants of image quality in digital mammography.

Authors:  Kalpana M Kanal; Elizabeth Krupinski; Eric A Berns; William R Geiser; Andrew Karellas; Martha B Mainiero; Melissa C Martin; Samir B Patel; Daniel L Rubin; Jon D Shepard; Eliot L Siegel; Judith A Wolfman; Tariq A Mian; Mary C Mahoney
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.056

7.  Breast phantom for comparison X-ray and polarimetric optical tomography imaging.

Authors:  P K Sobotka; K Chelminski; W Bulski; K Kacperski; J Dziukowa; E Wesolowska; S Wieczorek; S Miernicki; D Budaszewski; T R Wolinski; A W Domanski
Journal:  Photonics Lett Pol       Date:  2012

8.  3D-printed breast phantom for multi-purpose and multi-modality imaging.

Authors:  Yaoyao He; Yulin Liu; Brandon A Dyer; John M Boone; Shanshan Liu; Tiao Chen; Fenglian Zheng; Ye Zhu; Yong Sun; Yi Rong; Jianfeng Qiu
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2019-01

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

10.  Dose reduction in automatic optimization parameter of full field digital mammography: breast phantom study.

Authors:  Myung-Su Ko; Hak Hee Kim; Joo Hee Cha; Hee Jung Shin; Jeoung Hyun Kim; Min Jeong Kim
Journal:  J Breast Cancer       Date:  2013-03-31       Impact factor: 3.588

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.