A phantom-based evaluation of an exposure equalization technique in mammography

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 72, Issue OKT., 1999, Pages 977-985

  Skiadopoulos, S ^a   Pierrakeas, C ^a   Costaridou, L ^a   Kalogeropoulou, C P ^a   Panayiotakis, G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CONTRAST; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; OPTICAL DENSITY; PHANTOM; RADIATION EXPOSURE; TECHNIQUE; THICKNESS;

EID: 0032842377     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.72.862.10673949     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Panayiotakis G, Likaki H, Proimos B, Dimopoulos J. An anatomical filter for the improvement of mammographic image. In: U Faust, editor. Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Biomedical Engineering; 1991 February 17-20; Nice. Nice, France: COOPIM Imprimeur Createur, 1991:74-5.
2. Panayiotakis G, Likaki H, Kolitsi Z, Dimopoulos J. An anatomical filter for exposure equalization in mammography. Eur J Radiol 1992;15:15-7.
3. Lam KL, Chan HP. Effects of x-ray beam equalization on mammographic imaging. Med Phys 1990;17:242-9.
4. Lam KL, Chan HP. Exposure equalization technique in mammography. Invest Radiol 1989;24: 154-7.
5. Goodsitt MM, Chan HP, Liu B, Guru SV, Morton AR, Kesharmurthy S, et al. Classification of compressed breast shapes for the design of equalization filters in x-ray mammography. Med Phys 1998;25:937-48.
6. Sabol JM, Soutar IC, Plewes DB. Mammographic scanning equalization radiography. Med Phys 1993; 20:1505-15.
7. Sabol JM, Soutar IC, Plewes DB. Observer performance and dose efficiency of mammographic scanning equalization radiography. Med Phys 1993; 20:1517-25.
8. Oestmann JW, Stoel B, Scbrijverhof M, Vrooman H, Schultze-Kool L. Scanning equalization mammography: preliminary evaluation. Radiographics 1994;14:123-8.
9. Sabol JM, Tam KK, Plewes DB. Rotary scanning equalization radiography: an efficient geometry for equalization mammography. Med Phys 1994; 21:1523-33.
10. Sabol JM, Soutar IC, Plewes DB. A method for practical equalization mammography of the radiographically dense breast. Radiographics 1995; 15:1191-202.
11. Plewes DB, Sabol JM, Soutar IC. Role of equalisation mammography of dense breasts. Med Biol Eng Comput 1995;33:167-73.
12. Sabol JM, Plewes DB. Analytical description of the high and low contrast behavior of a scan-rotate geometry for equalization mammography. Med Phys 1996;23:887-98.
13. Sabol JM, Soutar IC, Plewes DB. Practical application of a scan-rotate equalization geometry to mammography. Med Phys 1996;23:1987-96.
14. Panayiotakis G, Skiadopoulos S, Solomou E, Pierrakeas C, Costaridou L, Kalogeropoulou CP, et al. Evaluation of an anatomical filter-based exposure equalization technique in mammography. Br J Radiol 1998;71:1049-57.
15. Cowen AR, Workman A, Coleman NJ. Leeds mammographic test object instruction manual. Leeds: The University of Leeds, Department of Medical Physics, 1988.
16. Young KC, Ramsdale ML. Image quality and dose measurement phantoms in the UK breast screening programme. Radiat Prot Dosim 1993;49:175-7.
17. Chevalier M, Morán P, Vañó E. Comparative study of dose values and image quality in mammography in the Madrid area. Br J Radiol 1996;69:42-8.
18. Faulkner K, Law J. A comparison of mammographic phantoms. Br J Radiol 1994;67:174-80.
19. Castellano SAD, Castellano SIA, Dance DR. Objective assessment of phantom image quality in mammography: a feasibility study. Br J Radiol 1998;71:48-58.
20. Flioni-Vyza A, Xenofos S, Panayiotakis G, Giakoumakis E, Proimos B. Analysis of the results of a QC project on mammography in Greece. Radiat Prot Dosim 1995;57:329-32.
21. Faulkner K, Law J. Methods of scoring mammographic phantom films. Radiat Prot Dosim 1993; 49:183-4.
22. Robinson A, Underwood AC. Scoring of image quality phantom films in mammography. Br J Radiol 1991;64:640-1.
23. Anastasi A, Urbina S. Reliability. In: P Janzow, editor. Psychological testing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997:84-112.
24. Siegel S, Castellan NJ. The case of one sample, two measures or paired replicates. In: JD Anker, editor. Nonparametric statistics for behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988:128-37.
25. Law J, Faulkner K. A critical comparison of five different mammographic phantoms under different radiographic conditions. Radiat Prot Dosim 1993; 49:179-81.
26. Patry W, Costaridou L, Panayiotakis G, Cornelis J. Mammography: exposure equalisation and digital shading correction. In: CH Sande, RH Dominguez, JA Rodriguez, editors. Proceedings of V International Symposium on Biological Engineering; 1994 September 26-28; Santiago. Spain: International Federation of Biomedical Engineering, 1994:135-6.
27. Ulrich B, Giger ML, Schmidt RA, Nishikawa RM, Doi K. Density correction of peripheral breast tissue on digital mammograms. Radiographics 1996;16:1403-11.
28. Byng JW, Critten JP, Yaffe MJ. Thickness-equalization processing for mammographic images. Radiology 1997;203:564-8.