Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography

European Radiology

Volumn 16, Issue 11, 2006, Pages 2559-2566

  Gennaro, Gisella ^a   Maggio, Cosimo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^b SEZIONE DI PADOVA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Averageglandular dose; Digital mammography; Dosimetry in mammography; Mammography

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; DIGITAL IMAGING; DOSIMETRY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; SIMULATION; X RAY SPECTROMETRY; X RAY TUBE;

BREAST DISEASES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MOLYBDENUM; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RELATIVE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTIVENESS; RHODIUM; TRACE ELEMENTS; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 33750434891     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0314-2     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Vedantham S, Karellas A, Suryanarayanan S, Albagli D, Han S, Tkaczyk EJ, Landberg CE, Opsahl-Ong B, Granfors PR, Levis I, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE (2000) Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: Physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. Med Phys 27:558-567
2. Muller S (1999) Full-field digital mammography designed as a complete system. Eur J Radiol 31:25-34
3. Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S (2004) Physical characteristics of a full-field digital mammography system. Nucl Instr Meth A 533:560-570
4. Noel A, Thibault F (2004) Digital detectors for mammography: The technical challenges. Eur Radiol 14:1990-1998
5. Mahesh M (2004) Digital mammography: An overview. Radiographics 24:1747-1760
6. Spahn M (2005) Flat detectors and their clinical applications. Eur Radiol 15:1934-1947
7. Lewin J, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, Isaac PK, Moss LJ, Karellas A, Sisney GA, Kuni CC, Cutter GR (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: Results of 4945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873-888
8. Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E (2002) Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: Image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 12:1697-1702
9. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A (2003) Population-based mammography screening: Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading-Oslo I study. Radiology 229:877-884
10. Skaane P, Skjennald (2004) A Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: Randomized trial in a population-based screening program-The Oslo II study. Radiology 232:197-204
11. Cole E, Pisano ED, Brown M, Kuzmiak C, Braeuning P, Kim HH, Jong R, Walsh R (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan digital mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol 11:879-886
12. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Suddhasatta A, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D'Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner M, for the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773-1783
13. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR (2002) Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice. Med Phys 29:830-834
14. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR (2003) Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose. Med Phys 30:334-340
15. Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Grabbe E (2003) Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: An antropomorphic breast phantom study. Br J Radiol 76:478-482
16. Gennaro G, Baldelli P, Taibi A, di Maggio C, Gambaccini M (2004) Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: An Italian survey. Eur Radiol 14:645-652
17. Chevalier M, Moran P, Yen JI, Soto JMF, Cepeda T, Vaño E (2004) Patient dose in digital mammography. Med Phys 31:2471-2479
18. Young KC, Ramsdale ML, Bignell F (1998) Review of dosimetric methods for mammography in the UK breast Screening Programme. Rad Prot Dosim 80:186-193
19. Kaulkner K, Cranley K (1995) An investigation into variations in the estimation of mean glandular dose in mammography. Rad Prot Dosim 57:405-407
20. Jacobson DR (1998) Mammography radiation dose and image quality. Rad Prot Dosim 80:293-297
21. Morán P, Chevalier M, Pombar M, Lobato R, Vaño E (2000) Breast doses from patients and from standard phantom: Analysis of differences. Rad Prot Dosim 90:117-121
22. Klein R, Aichinger H, Dierker J, Jansen JTM, Joite-Barfuss S, Sábel M, Schultz-Wendtland R, Zoetelief J (1997) Determination of average glandular dose with modern mammography units for two large groups of patients. Phys Med Biol 42:651-671
23. Burch A, Goodman DA (1998) A pilot survey of radiation doses received in the United Kingdom Breast Screening Programme. Br J Radiol 71:517-527
24. Kruger RL, Schueler BA (2001) A survey of clinical factors and patient dose in mammography. Med Phys 28:1449-1454
25. Rosemberg RD, Kelsey CA, Williamson MR, Houston JD (2001) Computer-based collection of mammographic exposure data for quality assurance and dosimetry. Med Phys 28:1546-1551
26. Young KC (2002) Radiation doses in the UK trial of breast screening in women aged 40-48 years. Br J Radiol 75:362-370
27. European guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening, 3rd edn (2001) European Commission, Luxembourg
28. van Engen R, Young KC, Bosmans H, Thijssen M (2003) Addendum on digital mammography, version 1.0, Nov 2003; addendum to chapter 3 of the European guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening, 3rd edn, 2001: Http://www.euref.org
29. Heidsieck R (1996) Method of calibrating a radiological system and of measuring the equivalent thickness of an object, United States Patent, Number 5,528,649
30. Shramchenko N, Blin P, Mathey C, Klausz R (2004) Optimized exposure control in digital mammography. Proc SPIE Vol 5368:445-456
31. Klausz R, Shramchenko N (2005) Dose to population as a metric in the design of optimized exposure control in digital mammography. Rad Prot Dosim 114:369-374
32. Desponds L, Klausz R (1994) Automatic estimation of breast composition with mammographic X-ray systems. Radiology 193(Suppl):200
33. X-ray tube assembly Maxiray 70 TH-F, GE Medical Systems Technical Publications 2219407-100, revision 0 (1998)
34. Senographe DMR+ Operator Manual, GE Medical Systems Technical Publications 2233530-100, revision 1 (1999)
35. Birch R, Marshall M (1979) Computation of bremsstrahlung X-ray spectra and comparison with spectra measured with a Ge(Li) detector. Phys Med Biol 24:505-517
36. Cranley K, Gilmore BJ, Fogarty GW, Desponds L (1997) IPEM report 78: Catalogue of diagnostic X-ray spectra and other data. (CD-ROM edition 1997) (electronic version prepared by D Sutton) The Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM),York
37. Berger MJ, Hubbel JH (1987) XCOM: Photon cross sections on a personal computer, National Bureau of Standards Report NBSIR 87-3597
38. Ng KP, Kwork CS, Tang FH (2000) Monte Carlo simulation of X-ray spectra in mammography. Phys Med Biol 45:1309-1318
39. Ay MR, Shahriari M, Sarkar S, Adib M, Zaidi H (2004) Monte Carlo simulation of X-ray spectra in diagnostic radiology and mammography using MCNP4C. Phys Med Biol 49:4897-4917
40. Wilkinson LE, Johnston PN, Heggie JC P (2001) A comparison of mammography spectral measurements with spectra produced using several different mathematical models. Phys Med Biol 46:1575-1589
41. Robson KJ (2001) A parametric method for determining mammographic X-ray tube output and half value layer. Br J Radiol 74:335-340
42. Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ (2000) Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 45:3225-3240
43. Beckett JR, Kotre CJ (2000) Dosimetric implication of age related glandular changes in screening mammography. Phys Med Biol 45:801-813
44. Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE (2004) Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: Relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 230:29-41
45. Gingold EL, Wu X, Barnes GT (1995) Contrast and dose with Mo-Mo, Mo-Rh and Rh-Rh target-filter combinations in mammography. Radiology 195:639-644
46. Young KC, Ramsdale ML, Rust A, Cooke J (1997) Effect of automatic selection on dose and contrast for a mammographic system. Br J Radiol 70:1036-1042
47. Dance DR, Thilander Klang A, Sandborg M, Skinner CL, Castellano Smith IA, Alm Carlsson G (2000) Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: A Monte Carlo study. Br J Radiol 73:1056-1067
48. Huda W, Sajewitz AM, Ogden KM, Dance DR (2003) Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system. Med Phys 30:442-448
49. Flynn MJ, Dodge C, Peck DJ, Swinford A (2004) Optimal radiographic techniques for digital mammograms obtained by an amorphous selenium detector. Proc SPIE Vol 5030:147-156
50. Fahrig R, Yaffe M (1994) Optimization of spectral shape in digital mammography: Dependence on anode material, breast thickness and lesion type. Med Phys 21:1473-1481
51. Fahrig R, Yaffe MJ (1994) A model for optimization of spectral shape in digital mammography. Med Phys 21:1463-1471
52. Fahrig R, Rowlands JA, Yaffe MJ (1996) X-ray imaging with amorphous selenium: Optimal spectra for digital mammography. Med Phys 23:557-567
53. Kaufhold J, Thomas JA, Eberhard JW, Galbo CE, Gonzales Trotter DE (2002) A calibration approach to glandular tissue composition estimation in digital mammography. Med Phys 29:1867-1880