Literature DB >> 17268798

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

Paula Toroi1, Federica Zanca, Kenneth C Young, Chantal van Ongeval, Guy Marchal, Hilde Bosmans.   

Abstract

The signal difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR) between aluminium sheets and a homogeneous background was measured for various radiation qualities and breast thicknesses to determine the optimal radiation quality when using a Novation DR mammography system. Breast simulating phantoms, with a thickness from 2 cm to 7 cm, and aluminium sheet, with a thickness of 0.2 mm, were used. Three different combinations of anode/filter material and a wide range of tube voltages were employed for each phantom thickness. Each radiation quality was studied using three different dose levels. The tungsten (W) anode and rhodium (Rh) filter combination achieved the specified SDNR at the lowest mean glandular dose for all the phantom thicknesses and X-ray tube voltages. The difference between the doses for different anode/filter combinations increased with the phantom thickness. For a 5-cm phantom, with a peak tube voltage of 27 kV and a SDNR of 5, the mean glandular dose associated with the use of W/Rh was reduced by 49% when compared to the molybdenum/molybdenum (Mo/Mo) anode/filter combination and by 33% when compared to Mo/Rh. Based on these measurements, the use of the W/Rh anode/filter can be recommended. It remains important, however, to select the appropriate dose level.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17268798     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0574-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  17 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.  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.

Authors:  Eric A Berns; R Edward Hendrick; Gary R Cutter
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol.

Authors:  D R Dance; C L Skinner; K C Young; J R Beckett; C J Kotre
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  X-ray imaging with amorphous selenium: optimal spectra for digital mammography.

Authors:  R Fahrig; J A Rowlands; M J Yaffe
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Contrast and dose with Mo-Mo, Mo-Rh, and Rh-Rh target-filter combinations in mammography.

Authors:  E L Gingold; X Wu; G T Barnes
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 11.105

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.  Optimal x-ray spectra for screen-film mammography.

Authors:  R J Jennings; R J Eastgate; M P Siedband; D L Ergun
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1981 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 2001 and 2002.

Authors:  K C Young; A Burch; J M Oduko
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise.

Authors:  A E Burgess; F L Jacobson; P F Judy
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Towards a proposition of a diagnostic (dose) reference level for mammographic acquisitions in breast screening measurements in Belgium.

Authors:  K Smans; H Bosmans; M Xiao; A K Carton; G Marchal
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2006-02-07       Impact factor: 0.972

View more
  17 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

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

3.  Investigation of the effect of anode/filter materials on the dose and image quality of a digital mammography system based on an amorphous selenium flat panel detector.

Authors:  P Baldelli; N Phelan; G Egan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2009-12-17       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  An improved method for simulating microcalcifications in digital mammograms.

Authors:  Federica Zanca; Dev Prasad Chakraborty; Chantal Van Ongeval; Jurgen Jacobs; Filip Claus; Guy Marchal; Hilde Bosmans
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Investigation of an optimized scanning protocol for the dentomaxillofacial region using 320-slice multidetector computed tomography.

Authors:  Wei-Chan Lin; Hsueh-Han Wang; Wen-Lin Hsu; Bi-Hui Cao; De-Ji Chen; Chia-Jung Tsai
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 2.419

6.  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

7.  Towards standardization of x-ray beam filters in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: Monte Carlo simulations and analytical modelling.

Authors:  Suman Shrestha; Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Characterization and validation of the thorax phantom Lungman for dose assessment in chest radiography optimization studies.

Authors:  Sunay Rodríguez Pérez; Nicholas William Marshall; Lara Struelens; Hilde Bosmans
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-02-06

Review 9.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade.

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

10.  Characterization of the imaging settings in screening mammography using a tracking and reporting system: A multi-center and multi-vendor analysis.

Authors:  Bruno Barufaldi; Samantha P Zuckerman; Regina B Medeiros; Andrew D Maidment; Homero Schiabel
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 2.685

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.