Variations in breast doses for an automatic mammography unit

Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 122-126

  Bor, Doǧan ^a   Tükel, Selma ^a   Olgar, Turan ^a   Aydin, Elif ^a  

^a ANKARA UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Automatic exposure control; Entrance surface air kerma; Mean glandular dose

Indexed keywords

ADIPOSE TISSUE; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; BREAST EXAMINATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOSIMETRY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMARY GLAND; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ADIPOSE TISSUE; BODY COMPOSITION; BREAST; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION INJURIES; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOMETRY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 55149092739     PISSN: 13053825     EISSN: 13053612     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Mammography: a user's guide. NCRP Report No. 85. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1986.
2. Institute of Physical Sciences in Medicine. The commissioning and routine testing of mammographic X-ray systems, Topic Group Report 59/2 York, IPSM, 1994.
3. Zoetelief J, Fitzgerald M, Leitz W, Sabel M. European protocol on disimetry in mammography. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1996.
4. Morán P, Chevalier M, Pombar M, Lobato R, Vaño E. Breast doses from patients and from standard phantom: analysis of differences. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2000; 90:117-121.
5. Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ. Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 2000; 35:3225-3240.
6. Young, KC, Ramsdale ML, Bignell F. Review of dosimetric methods for mammography in the UK Breast Screening Programme. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1998; 80:183-186.
7. 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.
8. Kruger RK, Schueler BA. A survey of clinical factors and patient dose in mammography. Med Phys 2001; 28:1449-1454.
9. Young KC, Ramsdale ML, Rust A, Cooke J. Effect of automatic kV selection on dose and contrast for a mammographic x-ray system. Br J Radiol 1997; 70:1036-1042.
10. Thilander-Klang AC, Ackerholm PH, Berlin IC, et al. Influence of ariode-filter combinations on image quality and radiation dose in 965 women undergoing mammography. Radiology 1997; 203:348-354.
11. Klein R, Aichinger H, Dierker J, et al. Determination of average glandular dose with modern mammography units for two large groups of patients. Phys Med Biol 1997; 42:651-671.
12. Eklund S, Thilander A, Leitz W, Mattsson S. The impact of anatomic variations on absorbed radiation doses in mammography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1993; 49:167-170.
13. Ozdemir A. Clinical evaluation of breast dose and the factors affecting breast dose in screen-film mammography. Diagn Interv Radiol 2007; 13:134-139.
14. Young KC. Radiation doses in the UK trial of breast screening in women aged 40-48 years. Br J Radiol 2002; 75:362-370.
15. Young KC, Burch A, Oduko JM. Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 2001 and 2002. Br J Radiol 2005; 78:207-218.