Application of European protocol in the evaluation of contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose for two digital mammography systems

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

Volumn 129, Issue 1-3, 2008, Pages 231-236

  Muhogora, W E ^a,b   Devetti, A ^c   Padovani, R ^a   Msaki, P ^b   Bonutti, F ^a  

^a Ospedale Universitario   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM   (Tanzania)

^c UNIVERSITY OF UDINE   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

POLY(METHYL METHACRYLATE); CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DOSIMETRY; EUROPE; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; NOISE STANDARD; PHANTOM; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIATION DOSE; REFERENCE VALUE; BREAST; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; RADIATION EXPOSURE;

BREAST; CONTRAST MEDIA; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EUROPE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 55249086292     PISSN: 01448420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncn023     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Benhardt, P., Mertelmeier, T. and Hoheisel, M. X-ray spectrum offull-filed digital mammography: Simulation and phantom study. Med. Phys. 33(11), 4337-4349 (2006).
2. Fischer, U., Hermann, K. P and Baum, F. Digital mammography: Current ytate and future aspécts. Eur. Radiol. 16, 38-44 (2006).
3. Samei, E.,Dobbins, J. T. III, Lo, J. Y. and Tornai, M. P. A framework for optimising the radiographic technique in digital x-ray imaging. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 114(1-3), 220-229 (2005).
4. Toroi, P., Zanca, F., Young, K. C., van Ongeval, C., Marchal, G. and Bosmans, H. Experimental Investigation on the choice of the tungsten/ rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system. Eur. Radiol. 17(9), 2368-2375 (2007).
5. Fahrig, R. and Yaffe, M. J. A model for optimisation of spectral shape in digital mammography. Med. Phys. 21(9), 1463-1471 (1994).
6. Monnin, P, Holzer, Z., Wolf, R., Neitzel, U., Vock, P., Gudinchet, F. and Verdun, F. R. Image quality comparison of standard and dual-side read CR systems for pediatric radiology. Med. Phys. 33(2), 411-420 (2006).
7. Van Engen, R., Young, K., Bosmans, H. and Thijsen, M. The European protocol for the quality control of physical and technical aspects of mammography screening. Part B Digital mammography, fourth edition, European Guidelines for Breast cancer screening. Luxembourg, European Communities (2006).
8. Rasband, W. S. Image J, US National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, http://rsb.info.nih.gov,/ij/, 1997-2006.
9. Abramoff, M. D., Magelhaes, P. J. and Ram, S. J. Image processing with image J. Biophotonics Int. 11(7), 36-42 (2004).
10. Schubauer-Berigan, M. K., Frey, G. D. and Hoel, D. G. Mammography dose in relation to body mass index, race and menopausal status. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 98(4), 425-432 (2002).
11. Huda, W., Sajewicz, A. M. and Ogden, K. M. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system. Med. Phys. 30(3), 442-448 (2003).
12. Pisano, M. J. and Yaffe, M. J. Digital mammography. Radiology 234(2), 353-362 (2005).
13. Fahrig, R., Rowlands, J. A. and Yaffe, M. J. X-ray imaging with amorphous selenium: Optimal spectra for digital mammography. Med. Phys. 23(4), 557-567 (1996).
14. Cahn, R. N., Cederstrom, B., Danielsson, M., Hall, A., Lundquist, M. and Nygren, D. Detective quantum efficiency dependence on x-ray energy weighting in mammography. Med. Phys. 26(12), 2680-2683 (1999).
15. Lu. Z. F., Nickoloff, E. L., So, J. C. and Dutta, A. K. Comparison of computed radiography and film/screen combination using a contrast-detail phantom. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 4(1), 99-98 (2003).