A comparison of fixed and variable kVp technique protocols for film-screen mammography

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 73, Issue 870, 2000, Pages 613-626

  McParland, B J ^a   Boyd, M M ^a  

^a KING FAHAD NATIONAL GUARD HOSPITAL   (Saudi Arabia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL TRIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE QUALITY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHANTOM; THICKNESS;

EID: 0034096875     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.73.870.10911785     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Sickles EA. Mammographic features of 300 consecutive nonpalpable breast cancers. AJR 1986;146: 661-3.
2. Sickles EA. Mammographic features of "early" breast cancer. AJR 1984;143:461-4.
3. Ma L, Fishell E, Wright B, Hanna W, Allan S, Boyd NF. Case-control study of factors associated with failure to detect breast cancer by mammography. J Nat Cancer Inst 1992;84:781-5.
4. Kimme-Smith C, Bassett LW, Gold RH, Chow S. Increased radiation dose at mammography due to prolonged exposure, delayed processing and increased film darkening. Radiology 1991;178:387-91.
5. Young KC, Wallis MG, Ramsdale ML. Mammographic film density and detection of small breast cancers. Clin Radiol 1994;49:461-5.
6. Young KC, Wallis MG, Blanks RG, Moss SM. Influence of number of views and mammographic film density on the detection of invasive cancers: results from the NHS Breast Screening Programme. Br J Radiol 1997;70:482-8.
7. McParland BJ, Boyd MM, al Yousef K. Optimizing optical density of a Kodak mammography film screen combination with standard-cycle processing. Br J Radiol 1998;71:950-3.
8. McParland BJ. A comparison of two mammography film-screen combinations designed for standard-cycle processing. Br J Radiol 1999;72:73-5.
9. Young KC, Ramsdale ML, Rust A. Dose and image quality in mammography with an automatic beam quality system. Br J Radiol 1996;69:555-62.
10. Burch A, Goodman DA. A pilot survey of radiation doses received in the United Kingdom Breast Screening Programme. Br J Radiol 1998;71:517-27.
11. Dance DR. Monte Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose. Phys Med Biol 1990;35:1211-9.
12. Johns PC, Yaffe M. X-ray characterisation of normal and neoplastic breast tissues. Phys Med Biol 1987;32:675-95.
13. Keller-Wood M, Bland KI. Breast physiology in normal, lactating and diseased states. In: Blatt KI, Copelands III EM, editors. The breast - comprehensive management of benign and malignant disease. Philadelphia: WB Saunders. 1991:36-45.
14. Klein R, Aichinger H, Dierker J, Jansen JTM, Joit-Barfuß S, Säbel M, et al. Determination of average glandular dose with modern mammography units for two large groups of patients. Phys Med Biol 1997;42:651-71.
15. Skubic SE, Fatouros PP. The effect of breast composition on absorbed dose and image contrast. Med Phys 1989;16:544-52.
16. Wagner LK, Archer BR, Cerra F. On the measurement of half-value layer in film screen mammography. Med Phys 1990;17:989-97.
17. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Equipment requirements and quality control for mammography. AAPM Report No. 9. New York. NY: American Institute of Physics, 1990.
18. American College of Radiology, Committee on Quality Assurance in Mammography. Mammography quality control. Reston. VA: American College of Radiology, 1992.
19. Schueler BA, Gray JE, Gisvold JJ. A comparison of mammography screen film combinations. Radiology 1992;184:629-34.
20. Stanton L, Villafana T, Day JL, Lightfoot DA. Dosage evaluation in mammography. Radiology 1984;150:577-84.
21. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Mammography: a user's guide, NCRP Report No. 85. Bethesda, MD: NCRP, 1986.
22. Institute of Physical Sciences in Medicine. The commissioning and routine testing of mammographie X-ray systems. Report 59/2. York: IPSM, 1994.
23. Wu X. Breast dosimetry in screen film mammography. In: Barnes GT, Frey GD, editors. Screen film mammography: imaging considerations and medical physics responsibilities. Madison. WI: Medical Physics Publishing, 1991:159-75.
24. Wu X, Barnes GT, Tucker DM. Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen film mammography. Radiology 1991;179:143-8.
25. Sobol WT, Wu X. Parameterization of mammography normalized average glandular dose tables. Med Phys 1997;24:547-54.
26. Breimester J. MCNP: a general Monte Carlo code for neutron and photon transport. Los Alamos. NM: Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1986.
27. Tucker DM, Barnes GT, Wu X. Molybdenum target X-ray spectra: a semiempirical model. Med Phys 1991;18:402-7.
28. Conway BJ, Suleiman OH, Rueter FG, Antonsen RG, Slayton RJ. National survey of mammographic facilities in 1985, 1988 and 1992. Radiology 1994;191:323-30.
29. Iskiw AP, Ritchie JH, Gefter IM, Moore RS, Rainbow AJ. Use of a breast phantom to improve image quality and patient exposure in Ontario mammography facilities. Radiat Protec Dosim 1993;49:203-6.
30. Walpole RE, Myers RH. Probability and statistics for engineers and scientists (5th edn). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993.
31. Burch A, Law J. A method for estimating compressed breast thickness during mammography. Br J Radiol 1995;68:394-9.
32. Federal Register. 21 CFR Part 900, Part II: 67560, 1993.
33. Hessler C, Depeursinge C, Grecescu M, Pochon Y, Raimondi S, Valley JF. Objective assessment of mammography systems: I Method. Radiology 1985; 156:215-9.
34. Faulkner K, Law J. A comparison of mammographic phantoms. Br J Radiol 1994;67:174-80.
35. Gentry JR, DeWerd LA. TLD measurements of in vivo mammographic exposures and the calculated mean glandular dose across the United States. Med Phys 1996;23:899-903.
36. Morán P, Chevalier M, Vañó E. Comparative study of dose values and image quality in mammography in the area of Madrid. Br J Radiol 1994;67:556-63.