The effect of reduced breast compression in breast tomosynthesis: Human observer study using clinical cases

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

Volumn 139, Issue 1-3, 2010, Pages 118-123

  Fornvik D ^a   Andersson, I ^a   Svahn, T ^a   Timberg, P ^a   Zackrisson, S ^a   Tingberg, A ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PALPATION; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STIMULATION;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PALPATION; PHYSICAL STIMULATION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 77953344605     PISSN: 01448420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncq103     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Saunders, R. S., Samei, E., Lo, J. Y. and Baker, J. A. Can compression be reduced for breast tomosynthesis? Monte carlo study on mass and microcalcification conspicuity in tomosynthesis. Radiology 251, 673-682 (2009).
2. Aro, A. R., de Koning, H. J., Absetz, P. and Schreck, M. Psychosocial predictors of first attendance for organised mammography screening. J. Med. Screen. 6, 82-88 (1999).
3. Miller, D., Livingstone, V. and Herbison, P. Interventions for relieving the pain and discomfort of screening mammography. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. CD002942 (2008).
4. Bissonnette, M. et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis using an amorphous selenium flat panel detector. Proc. SPIE 5745, 529-540 (2005).
5. Zoetelief, J., Fitzgerald, M., Leitz, W. and Säbel, M. European protocol on dosimetry in mammography. Publication EUR 16263 EN (Brussels, Belgium: European Commission) (1996).
6. Mertelmeier, T., Orman, J., Haerer, W. and Dudam, M. K. Optimizing filtered backprojection reconstruction for a breast tomosynthesis device. Proc. SPIE 6142, 131-142 (2006).
7. Rasband, W. S. Image J., U. S. National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, Maryland, USA). http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/, 1997-2009.
8. NEMA Standards Publications PS 3.14. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM), Part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2101 L Street, NW, Washington, D.C., 20037 (1998).
9. Börjesson, S. et al. A software tool for increased efficiency in observer performance studies in radiology. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 114, 45-52 (2005).
10. Grahn, A. et al. Clinical evaluation of a new set of image quality criteria for mammography. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 114, 389-394 (2005).
11. Hemdal, B. et al. Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 114, 383-388 (2005).
12. Tingberg, A. Quantifying the quality of medical X-ray images. An evaluation based on normal anatomy for lumbar spine and chest radiography. Thesis, Lund University, Malmö (2000).
13. Altman, D. G. Practical Statistics for Medical Research (London: Chapman and Hall) (1991).
14. Thilander Klang, A. Diagnostic quality and absorbed dose in mammography. Influence of X-ray spectra and breast anatomy. Thesis, University of Göteborg, Göteborg (1997).
15. Poulos, A., McLean, D., Rickard, M. and Heard, R. Breast compression in mammography: how much is enough? Australas. Radiol. 47, 121-126 (2003).
16. European Commission. CEC quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images and patient exposure trial. EUR 12952, Brussels (1990).
17. European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. EUR 16260, Brussels (1996).
18. Månsson, L. G. Evaluation of radiographic procedures. Investigations related to chest imaging. Thesis, University of Göteborg, Göteborg (1994).
19. Gur, D., Rubin, D. A., Kart, B. H., Peterson, A. M., Fuhrman, C. R., Rockette, H. E. and King, J. L. Forced choice and ordinal discrete rating assessment of image quality: a comparison. J. Digit. Imaging. 10, 103-107 (1997).