Breast dosimetry

Applied Radiation and Isotopes

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 185-203

  Dance, D R ^a   Skinner, C L ^a   Alm Carlsson, G ^b  

^a INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^b LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL RADIATION EFFECTS; DOSIMETRY; RADIATION PROTECTION;

BREAST DOSIMETRY;

MAMMOGRAPHY;

POLY(METHYL METHACRYLATE);

ADIPOSE TISSUE; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DOSIMETRY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMARY GLAND; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHANTOM; PHOTON; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION MEASUREMENT; TISSUE DISTRIBUTION;

EID: 0032936979     PISSN: 09698043     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0969-8043(98)00047-5     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. AAPM, American Association of Physicists in Medicine), 1990. Equipment Requirements and Quality Control for Mammography. Report 29, American Institute of Physics, New York
2. ACR (American College of Radiology), 1994. Mammography Quality Control Manual, Revised Edition 1994, Medical Physicist's Section. ACR, Reston, VA
3. Alm Carlsson, G., 1973. Dosimetry at interfaces. Theoretical analysis and measurements by means of thermoluminescent LiF. Acta Radiologica (Supplement 332)
4. Alm Carlsson G., Dance D. R. Breast absorbed doses in mammography: evaluation of experimental and theoretical approaches. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 43:1992;197-200.
5. Berger, M. J., Hubbell, J. H., 1987. XCOM: Photon Cross Sections on a Personal Computer. Version 1.2. National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD
6. Birch, R., Marshall, M., Ardran, G. M., 1979. Catalogue of Spectral Data for Diagnostic X-rays Report SRS30, HPA, London
7. BENT, 1978. Breast exposure: Nationwide trends. A mammographic Quality Assurance Programme. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Bureau of Radiological Health, Rockville, MD
8. Boag J. W., Stacey A. J., Davis R. Radiation exposure to the patient in Xeroradiography. British Journal of Radiology. 49:1976;253-261.
9. Bulling S. M., Nicoll J. J. Level and distribution of the radiation dose to the population from a mammography screening programme in New Zealand. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 57:1995;455-458.
10. Carlsson, C. A., Mårtensson, B. K. A., Alm Carlsson, G., 1968. High precision dosimetry using thermoluminescent LiF. In Proceedings Second International Conference on Luminescence Dosimetry, p. 936. Report CONF-68 09 20. United States Atomic Energy Commission, Springfield
11. Chan H.-P., Doi K. Monte Carlo simulation studies of backscatter factors in mammography. Radiology. 139:1981;195-199.
12. Dance D. R. The Monte Carlo calculation of integral radiation dose in Xeromammography. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 25:1980;25-37.
13. Dance D. R. Monte Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 35:1990;1211-1219.
14. Dance, D. R., 1994. Physical principles of mammography. In The Commissioning and Routine Testing of Mammographic X-ray Systems. IPSM report 59, 2nd Edn., pp. 15-28. IPSM, York
15. Dance D. R., Persliden J., Alm Carlsson G. Monte Carlo calculation of the properties of mammographic anti-scatter grids. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 37:1992;235-248.
16. DGMP (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Medizinische Physik), 1986. Praxis der Weichstrahl-dosimetrie. DGMP-Bericht 5. DGMP, Cologne
17. Doi K., Chan H.-P. Evaluation of absorbed dose in mammography: Monte Carlo simulation studies. Radiology. 135:1980;199-208.
18. Eklund S., Thilander A., Leitz W., Mattsson S. The impact of anatomic variations on absorbed radiation doses in mammography. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 49:1993;167-170.
19. European Protocol, 1996. European protocol on dosimetry in mammography. European Commission Report EUR 16263 EN, European Commission, Luxembourg
20. Everett, C. J., Cashwell, E. D., 1973. MCP Code Fluorescence Routine revision. Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report LA-5240-LS, Los Alamos
21. Faulkner K., Cranley K. An investigation into variations in the estimation of mean glandular dose in mammography. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 57:1995;405-408.
22. Faulkner K., Law J., Robson K. J. Assessment of mean glandular dose in mammography. British Journal of Radiology. 68:1995;877-881.
23. Fewell, T. R., Shuping, R. E., 1979. Handbook of Mammographic Spectra. DHEW Publication (FDA) 79-8071. Rockville, MD
24. Fife I. The physical dimensions of the compressed breast. British Journal of Radiology. 64:1991;73-74.
25. Fitzgerald M., White D. R., White E., Young J. Mammographic practice and dosimetry in Britain. British Journal of Radiology. 54:1981;212-220.
26. Geise R. A., Palchevsky A. Composition of mammographic phantom materials. Radiology. 198:1996;342-350.
27. GIM (Groupe Interdisciplinaire à la Mammographie), 1993. Recommendations du G.I.M. sur l'assurance de qualité en mammographie. Société Française de Radiologie/Société Française des Physiciens d'Hôpital, Paris
28. Hammerstein G. R., Miller D. W., White D. R., Masterson M. E., Woodard H. Q., Laughlin J. S. Absorbed radiation dose in mammography. Radiology. 130:1979;485-491.
29. Hubbell, J. H., Seltzer, S. M., 1995. Tables of X-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass energy-absorption coefficients 1 keV to 20 MeV for elements Z=1 to 92 and 48 additional substances of dosimetric interest. NISTIR (National Institute of Standards and Technology-Ionizing Radiation Division), Report 5632. NIST, Gaithersburg
30. Hubbell J. H., Veigele W. J., Briggs E. A., Brown R. T., Cromer D. T., Howerton R. J. Atomic form factors, incoherent scattering functions and photon scattering cross sections. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data. 4:1975;471-538.
31. ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1987. Statement from the 1987 Como meeting of the ICRP. ICRP Publication 52, Annals of the ICRP 17(4)
32. ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1991. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60, Annals of the ICRP 21(1-3)
33. ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements), 1989. Tissue substitutes in radiation dosimetry and measurement. ICRU Report 44. ICRU, Bethesda, MD
34. IPSM (Institute of Physical Sciences in Medicine), 1994. The commissioning and routine testing of mammographic X-ray systems. IPSM Report 59, 2nd Edn. IPSM, York
35. Iskiw A. P., Ritchie J. H., Gefter I. M., Moore R. S., Rainbow A. J. Use of a breast phantom to improve image quality and patient exposure in Ontario mammography facilities. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 49:1993;203-206.
36. Jansen J. T. M., de Wit N. J. P., Zoetelief J. Comparison of measured and calculated in-phantom depth-dose distributions for mammography. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 43:1992;245-249.
37. Johns P. C., Yaffe M. J. X-ray characteristics of normal and neoplastic breast tissues. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 32:1987;675-695.
38. Karlsson M., Nygren K., Wickman G., Hettinger G. Absorbed dose in mammary radiography. Acta Radiologica Therapy Physics and Biology. 15:1976;252-258.
39. Klein R., Aichinger H., Dierker J., Jansen J. T. M., Joite-Barfuß S., Säbel M., Schulz-Wendtland R., Zoetelief J. Determination of average glandular dose with modern mammography units for two large groups of patients. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 42:1997;651-671.
40. Larsson J. P., Persliden J., Sandborg M., Alm Carlsson G. Transmission ionization chambers for measurements of air collision kerma integrated over beam area. Factors influencing the accuracy of calibration. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 41:1996;2381-2398.
41. Law J. Risk and benefit associated with radiation dose in breast screening programmesan update. British Journal of Radiology. 68:1995;870-876.
42. McKinlay, A. F., 1981. Thermoluminescent Dosimetry. Medical Physics Handbook No 5. Adam Hilger, Bristol
43. Morán P., Chevalier M., Vañó E. Comparative study of dose values and image quality in mammography in the area of Madrid. British Journal of Radiology. 67:1994;556-563.
44. Mårtensson B. K. A. Thermoluminescence of LiF: A statistical analysis of the influence of pre-annealing on the precision of measurement. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 14:1969;119-130.
45. NCI (National Cancer Institute), 1977. Final report of the National Cancer Institute ad hoc working groups on mammography screening for breast cancer and a summary report of their joint findings and recommendations DHEW Publication NIH 77-1400, Rockville, MD
46. NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1986. Mammography: A User's Guide. NCRP Report 85. NCRP, Bethesda, MD
47. NCS (Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry), 1993. Dosimetric Aspects of Mammography. Report 6. NCS, Delft
48. Ng K. H., Aus R. J., DeWerd L. A., Vetter J. R. Entrance skin exposure and mean glandular dose: Effect of scatter and field gradient at mammography. Radiology. 205:1997;395-398.
49. Nielsen B., Fagerberg G. Image quality in mammography with special reference to anti-scatter grids and the magnification technique. Acta Radiologica Diagnosis. 27:1986;467-479.
50. NRPA (Nordic Radiation Protection Authorities), 1990. Quality Assurance in Mammography - Quality Control of Performance and Constancy. Report 1. NRPA, Stockholm
51. NRPB, 1992. National Protocol for Patient Dose Measurements in Diagnostic Radiology. National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton, Didcot
52. Panzer, W., Drexler, G., Widenmann, L., Platz, L., 1978. Spectra and exposure values in mammography. GSF-Bericht S 518. GSF, Munich
53. Persliden J., Alm Carlsson G. Energy imparted to water slabs by photons in the energy range 5-300 keV. Calculations using a Monte Carlo photon transport model. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 29:1984;1075-1088.
54. Rosenstein, M., 1980. Mathematical model for breast doses in mammography. In Symposium on Biological Effects, Imaging Techniques and Dosimetry of Ionising Radiations. HHS Publications FDA 80-8128, pp. 125-128. BRH, Rockville, MD
55. Rosenstein, M., Andersen, L. W., Warner, G. G., 1985. Handbook of Glandular Tissue Doses in Mammography. HHS Publications FDA 85-8239. CDRH, Rockville, MD
56. Säbel M., Aichinger H. Recent developments in breast imaging. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 41:1996;315-368.
57. SEFM/SEPR (Sociedad Española de Fisica MedicaSociedad Española de Proteccion Radiologica), 1993. Protocolo Española sobre los Aspectos Technicos del Control de Calidad en Radiodiagnostico. SEFM/SEPR, Madrid
58. Servomaa A., Tapiovaara M. Radiation quality in assessing glandular dose in film-screen mammography. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 12:1991;1247-1248.
59. Servomaa A., Parviainen T., Kompaa T. Patient doses and radiation risks in film-screen mammography in Finland. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 57:1995;449-454.
60. SSI (Statens Strålskyddinstitut), 1989. Kvalitetssäkring för mammografi-prestanda-och-konstanskontroller. SSI Report 89-19, SSI, Stockholm
61. Stanton L., Day J. L., Brattelli S. D., Lightfoot D. A. Comparison of ion chamber and TLD dosimetry in mammography. Medical Physics. 8:1981;792-798.
62. Stanton L., Villefana T., Day J. L., Lightfoot D. A. Dosage evaluation in mammography. Radiology. 150:1984;577-584.
63. Thilander A., Eklund S., Leitz W., Mattsson S. Special problems of patient dosimetry in mammography. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 43:1992;217-220.
64. Thilander-Klang, A., Dance, D. R., Sandborg, M., Skinner, C., Castellano Smith, I., Alm Carlsson, G., Mattsson, S., 1997a. Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and mean absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. University of Göteborg report Radfys/MFT 97:01. University of Göteborg
65. Thilander-Klang A. C., Ackerholm H. R., Berlin I. C., Bjurstam N. G., Mattsson S. L. J., Månsson L. G., von Schéele C., Thunberg S. J. Influence of anode-filter combinations on image quality and radiation dose in 965 women undergoing mammography. Radiology. 203:1997;348-354.
66. Tochilin, E., Goldstein, N., Lyman, J. T., 1968. The quality and LET dependence of three thermoluminescent dosimeters and their potential use as secondary standards. In Proceedings of Second International Conference on Luminescence Dosimetry, p. 424. Report CONF-68 09 20. United States Atomic Energy Commission, Springfield
67. Whall M. A., Roberts P. J. Radiation dose in relation to compressed breast thickness for screening mammography. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 43:1992;253-255.
68. White D. R. The formulation of tissue substitute material using basic interaction data. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 22:1977;889-899.
69. White D. R., Martin R. J., Darlison R. Epoxy resin based tissue substitutes. British Journal of Radiology. 50:1977;814-821.
70. Woodard H. Q., White D. R. The composition of body tissues. British Journal of Radiology. 59:1986;1209-1219.
71. Wu X., Barnes G. T., Tucker D. M. Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography. Radiology. 179:1991;143-148.
72. Wu X., Gingold E. L., Barnes G. T., Tucker D. M. Normalized average glandular dose in molybdenum target-rhodium filter and rhodium target-rhodium filter mammography. Radiology. 193:1994;83-89.
73. Young K. C., Ramsdale M. L. Image quality and dose measurement phantoms in the UK Breast Screening Programme. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 49:1993;175-177.
74. Young, K. C., Ramsdale, M. L., 1997. Review of dosimetric methods for mammography in the UK Breast Screening Programme. In Reference Doses and Quality in Medical Imaging. Proceedings of a Training Workshop held in Luxembourg, 23-25 October 1997. (In preparation for publication in Radiation Protection Dosimetry.)
75. Zoetelief J., de Wit N. J. P., Broerse J. J. Dosimetric aspects of film/screen mammography: In-phantom dosimetry with thimble-type ionisation chambers. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 34:1989;1169-1177.
76. Zoetelief J., Broerse J. J., Thijssen M. A. O. A Dutch protocol for quality control in mammography screening: dosimetric aspects. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 43:1992;261-264.
77. Zoetelief J., Jansen J. T. M. Calculation of air kerma to average glandular tissue dose conversion factors for mammography. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 57:1995;397-400.