Literature DB >> 22225296

The readout thickness versus the measured thickness for a range of screen film mammography and full-field digital mammography units.

Ingrid H R Hauge1, Peter Hogg, Katy Szczepura, Paul Connolly, George McGill, Claire Mercer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To establish a simple method to determine breast readout accuracy on mammography units.
METHODS: A thickness measuring device (TMD) was used in conjunction with a breast phantom. This phantom had compression characteristics similar to human female breast tissue. The phantom was compressed, and the thickness was measured using TMD and mammography unit readout. Measurements were performed on a range of screen film mammography (SFM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) units (8 units in total; 6 different models/manufacturers) for two different sized paddles and two different compression forces (60 and 100 N).
RESULTS: The difference between machine readout and TMD for the breast area, when applying 100 N compression force, for nonflexible paddles was largest for GE Senographe DMR+ (24 cm × 30 cm paddle: +14.3%). For flexible paddles the largest difference occurred for Hologic Lorad Selenia (18 cm × 24 cm paddle: +26.0%).
CONCLUSIONS: None of the units assessed were found to have perfect correlation between measured and readout thickness. TMD measures and thickness readouts were different for the duplicate units from two different models/manufacturers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22225296     DOI: 10.1118/1.3663579

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


  8 in total

1.  Analysis of motion during the breast clamping phase of mammography.

Authors:  Wang Kei Ma; Mark F McEntee; Claire Mercer; Judith Kelly; Sara Millington; Peter Hogg
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Extra patient movement during mammographic imaging: an experimental study.

Authors:  W K Ma; D Brettle; D Howard; J Kelly; S Millington; P Hogg
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Practitioner compression force variability in mammography: a preliminary study.

Authors:  C E Mercer; P Hogg; R Lawson; J Diffey; E R E Denton
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Pressure and breast thickness in mammography--an exploratory calibration study.

Authors:  P Hogg; M Taylor; K Szczepura; C Mercer; E Denton
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Automatic Estimation of Volumetric Breast Density Using Artificial Neural Network-Based Calibration of Full-Field Digital Mammography: Feasibility on Japanese Women With and Without Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Jeff Wang; Fumi Kato; Hiroko Yamashita; Motoi Baba; Yi Cui; Ruijiang Li; Noriko Oyama-Manabe; Hiroki Shirato
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  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

7.  Comparison of a flexible versus a rigid breast compression paddle: pain experience, projected breast area, radiation dose and technical image quality.

Authors:  Mireille J M Broeders; Marloes Ten Voorde; Wouter J H Veldkamp; Ruben E van Engen; Cary van Landsveld-Verhoeven; Machteld N L 't Jong-Gunneman; Jos de Win; Kitty Droogh-de Greve; Ellen Paap; Gerard J den Heeten
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Technical challenges in generalizing calibration techniques for breast density measurements.

Authors:  Erin E E Fowler; Autumn M Smallwood; Nadia Z Khan; Kaitlyn Kilpatrick; Thomas A Sellers; John Heine
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2019-01-11       Impact factor: 4.071

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.