Literature DB >> 16733678

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

Gisella Gennaro1, Cosimo di Maggio.   

Abstract

The study purpose was the comparison between doses delivered by a full-field digital mammography system and a screen/film mammography unit, both using the same type of X-ray tube. Exposure parameters and breast thickness were collected for 300 screen/film (GE Senographe DMR) and 296 digital mammograms (GE Senographe 2000D). The entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) was calculated from anode/filter combination, kV(p) and mAs values and breast thickness, by simulating spectra through a program based on a catalogue of experimental X-ray spectra. The average glandular dose (AGD) was also computed. Results showed an overall reduction of average glandular dose by 27% of digital over screen/film mammography. The dose saving was about 15% for thin and thick breasts, while it was between 30% and 40% for intermediate thicknesses. Full-field digital mammography dose reduction is allowed by wider dynamic range and higher efficiency of digital detector, which can be exposed at higher energy spectra than screen/film mammography, and by the separation between acquisition and displaying processes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16733678     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0314-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   7.034


  38 in total

1.  Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study.

Authors:  D R Dance; A K Thilander; M Sandborg; C L Skinner; I A Castellano; G A Carlsson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Monte Carlo simulation of x-ray spectra in mammography.

Authors:  K P Ng; C S Kwok; F H Tang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Radiation doses in the UK trial of breast screening in women aged 40-48 years.

Authors:  K C Young
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Dose to population as a metric in the design of optimised exposure control in digital mammography.

Authors:  R Klausz; N Shramchenko
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 0.972

5.  Computation of bremsstrahlung X-ray spectra and comparison with spectra measured with a Ge(Li) detector.

Authors:  R Birch; M Marshall
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  A model for optimization of spectral shape in digital mammography.

Authors:  R Fahrig; M J Yaffe
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Patient dose in digital mammography.

Authors:  Margarita Chevalier; Pilar Morán; José I Ten; José M Fernández Soto; T Cepeda; Eliseo Vañó
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  A calibration approach to glandular tissue composition estimation in digital mammography.

Authors:  J Kaufhold; J A Thomas; J W Eberhard; C E Galbo; D E González Trotter
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  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

View more
  12 in total

1.  Radiation doses received in the United Kingdom breast screening programme in 2010 to 2012.

Authors:  Kenneth C Young; Jennifer M Oduko
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: recent advances in digital mammography.

Authors:  Felix Diekmann; Ulrich Bick
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-07-28       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  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

4.  Quantification of breast density with dual energy mammography: a simulation study.

Authors:  Justin L Ducote; Sabee Molloi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Alicia Toledano; Cosimo di Maggio; Enrica Baldan; Elisabetta Bezzon; Manuela La Grassa; Luigi Pescarini; Ilaria Polico; Alessandro Proietti; Aida Toffoli; Pier Carlo Muzzio
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Impact of the digitalisation of mammography on performance parameters and breast dose in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme.

Authors:  Lore Timmermans; An De Hauwere; Klaus Bacher; Hilde Bosmans; Kim Lemmens; Luc Bleyen; Erik Van Limbergen; Patrick Martens; Andre Van Steen; Griet Mortier; Koen Van Herck; Hubert Thierens
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Radiation dose with digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography: per-view analysis.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; D Bernardi; N Houssami
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade.

Authors:  Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  United States radiological health activities: inspection results of mammography facilities.

Authors:  Dc Spelic; Rv Kaczmarek; M Hilohi; S Belella
Journal:  Biomed Imaging Interv J       Date:  2007-04-01

Review 10.  [Breast cancer imaging].

Authors:  M Funke; C Villena
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 0.635

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.