Literature DB >> 29514152

Investigation of Exposure Factors for Various Breast Composition and Thicknesses in Digital Screening Mammography Related to Breast Dose.

Khaled Alkhalifah, Ajit Brindhaban.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of exposure factors used in digital screening mammography on image quality of different breast compositions.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A digital mammography unit, with tungsten (W) as target, rhodium (Rh) and silver (Ag) as filters, and amorphous selenium detectors, was used to image Computerized Imaging Reference Systems (CIRS) Model 12A phantoms of thickness 4, 5, and 6 cm. Images of each phantom were obtained using target-filter combinations of W/Rh and W/Ag, at 28, 30, and 32 kVp. Images were evaluated by 5 senior technologists with experience in mammography. Image scores were assigned, for each type of feature present in the phantom. Statistical analysis was performed using nonparametric tests to compare sets of image scores at p = 0.05.
RESULTS: A small but statistically significant improvement was detected in the visibility of microcalcifications (8.8 ± 0.2; p = 0.031) for the W/Rh combination but this did not show any differences in the visibility of masses or fibers. The entrance skin dose (ESD) and mean glandular dose (MGD) were lower for the W/Ag (ESD = 1.30-3.70; MGD = 0.44-0.93 mGy) combination compared to W/Rh (ESD = 1.66-5.40; MGD = 0.52-1.12 mGy). The Mann-Whitney test revealed that 30-kV exposure with the W/Rh combination showed a significantly better visibility of specks in the 30/70 phantom compared to other exposures.
CONCLUSION: The use of an Rh filter showed a better image quality for all phantoms. 28 and 30 kVp with the W/Rh combination provided a slightly better image quality, and the MGD is less than 1.2 mGy.
© 2018 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast composition; Digital screening mammography; Exposure factors; Mammography phantom; Target/filter

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29514152      PMCID: PMC6062728          DOI: 10.1159/000488198

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Princ Pract        ISSN: 1011-7571            Impact factor:   1.927


  15 in total

1.  Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography: 1. Further confirmation with extended data.

Authors: 
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Effect of dose reduction on the detection of mammographic lesions: a mathematical observer model analysis.

Authors:  Amarpreet S Chawla; Ehsan Samei; Robert Saunders; Craig Abbey; David Delong
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Determination of Tube Output (kVp) and Exposure Mode for Breast Phantom of Various Thicknesses/Glandularity for Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Kamal Izdihar; Kumari Chelliah Kanaga; Vijayalakshimi Krishnapillai; Tamanang Sulaiman
Journal:  Malays J Med Sci       Date:  2015 Jan-Feb

4.  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

5.  Optimal beam quality selection based on contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose in digital mammography.

Authors:  M Aminah; K H Ng; B J J Abdullah; N Jamal
Journal:  Australas Phys Eng Sci Med       Date:  2010-10-12       Impact factor: 1.430

6.  Cancer in Kuwait: magnitude of the problem.

Authors:  A Elbasmi; A Al-Asfour; Y Al-Nesf; A Al-Awadi
Journal:  Gulf J Oncolog       Date:  2010-07

7.  Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality.

Authors:  L Tabár; B Vitak; H H Chen; M F Yen; S W Duffy; R A Smith
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2001-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography.

Authors:  Lucy M Warren; Alistair Mackenzie; Julie Cooke; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; Matthew G Wallis; Dev P Chakraborty; David R Dance; Hilde Bosmans; Kenneth C Young
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 9.  Dense breasts: a review of reporting legislation and available supplemental screening options.

Authors:  Jessica M Ho; Nasima Jafferjee; Gabriel M Covarrubias; Munir Ghesani; Bradley Handler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Evaluation of Doses and Image Quality in Mammography with Screen-Film, CR, and DR Detectors - Application of the ACR Phantom.

Authors:  Wioletta Ślusarczyk-Kacprzyk; Witold Skrzyński; Ewa Fabiszewska
Journal:  Pol J Radiol       Date:  2016-08-18
View more
  2 in total

1.  Image Quality and Radiation Dose for Fibrofatty Breast using Target/filter Combinations in Two Digital Mammography Systems.

Authors:  Khaled Alkhalifah; Akram Asbeutah; Ajit Brindhaban
Journal:  J Clin Imaging Sci       Date:  2020-09-07

2.  Kuwait National Mammography Screening Program: outcomes of 5 years of screening in Kuwaiti women.

Authors:  Hanaa Abdulla Alkhawari; Akram Mahmoud Asbeutah; Abdullah Abdulaziz Almajran; Latifa Abdullah AlKandari
Journal:  Ann Saudi Med       Date:  2021-10-07       Impact factor: 1.526

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.