Literature DB >> 31749130

Using aluminum for scatter control in mammography: preliminary work using measurements of CNR and FOM.

Khaled Al Khalifah1,2, Rob Davidson3, Abel Zhou2.   

Abstract

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) systems provide the current gold standard in mammographic examinations. Although FFDM provides the lowest mammographic doses, the radiation dose to the breast during mammographic examinations is still a concern. Thus, image quality optimization at the lowest dose is a major goal. In planar X-ray imaging, thin sheets of aluminum (Al) are used as filtration to reduce the number of low-energy X-ray photons reaching the patient. The goal of this work was to evaluate whether Al can be used in FFDM to remove scatter radiation from reaching the image detector, hence improving image quality. Doses were compared with the use of a grid. A Hologic Selenia mammographic unit was used to acquire images of two phantoms, namely, the ACR phantom and a Perspex phantom of 5 cm. Images were acquired using two tube voltages (kVp) and filter combinations under two exposure/dose conditions. Al sheets of various thicknesses were placed between the phantom and the image detector. Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and figure of merit (FOM) values were measured and compared with images acquired using a grid. When a constant dose was delivered to the image detector, the highest CNR was achieved using a grid; however, the highest FOM values were achieved when using 0.05 mm thick Al sheets. This study successfully demonstrates that thin sheets of Al can be used in mammography examinations to reduce scattered radiation and improve image quality, as indicated by the measured CNR values. Given the limitations of this work, further kVp and target/filter combinations and various methods of image quality measurement need to be studied.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aluminum sheets; CNR; FOM; Full-field digital mammography; Image quality; Radiation dose

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31749130     DOI: 10.1007/s12194-019-00545-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol        ISSN: 1865-0333


  11 in total

Review 1.  The use of a figure-of-merit (FOM) for optimisation in digital mammography: a literature review.

Authors:  M Borg; I Badr; G J Royle
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2012-01-09       Impact factor: 0.972

2.  Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.

Authors:  Xinming Liu; Chao-Jen Lai; Gary J Whitman; William R Geiser; Youtao Shen; Ying Yi; Chris C Shaw
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography.

Authors:  Mark B Williams; Priya Raghunathan; Mitali J More; J Anthony Seibert; Alexander Kwan; Joseph Y Lo; Ehsan Samei; Nicole T Ranger; Laurie L Fajardo; Allen McGruder; Sandra M McGruder; Andrew D A Maidment; Martin J Yaffe; Aili Bloomquist; Gordon E Mawdsley
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  An exposure indicator for digital radiography: AAPM Task Group 116 (executive summary).

Authors:  S Jeff Shepard; Jihong Wang; Michael Flynn; Eric Gingold; Lee Goldman; Kerry Krugh; David L Leong; Eugene Mah; Kent Ogden; Donald Peck; Ehsan Samei; Jihong Wang; Charles E Willis
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening.

Authors:  Laszlo Tabar; Ming-Fang Yen; Bedrich Vitak; Hsiu-Hsi Tony Chen; Robert A Smith; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2003-04-26       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  AAPM medical physics practice guideline 6.a.: Performance characteristics of radiation dose index monitoring systems.

Authors:  Dustin A Gress; Renee L Dickinson; William D Erwin; David W Jordan; Robert J Kobistek; Donna M Stevens; Mark P Supanich; Jia Wang; Lynne A Fairobent
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-05-12       Impact factor: 2.102

View more
  1 in total

1.  Usefulness of an Additional Filter Created Using 3D Printing for Whole-Body X-ray Imaging with a Long-Length Detector.

Authors:  Hyunsoo Seo; Wooyoung Kim; Bongju Han; Huimin Jang; Myeong Seong Yoon; Youngjin Lee
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-06       Impact factor: 3.847

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.