A critical comparison of three full field digital mammography systems using figure of merit

Medical Journal of Malaysia

Volumn 65, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 119-122

  Kanaga, Kanaga Chelliah ^a   Yap, H H ^a   Laila, S E ^a   Sulaiman, T ^a   Zaharah, M ^a   Shantini, A A ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Average glandular dose; Contrast to noise ratio; Figure of merit; Full field digital mammography

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; GENERAL ELECTRIC SENOGRAPHE ESSENTIAL; HOLOGIC LORAD SELENIA; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MATHEMATICAL PARAMETERS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SIEMENS MAMMOMAT NOVATION; THERMOLUMINESCENCE DOSIMETER; BREAST; HUMAN; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGING PHANTOM; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIATION DOSE;

BREAST; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT;

EID: 77958046026     PISSN: 03005283     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Hemdal B, Andersson I, Thilander-Klang A - recent technical developments and their clinical potential. SSI report 2002:08.
2. Sabel M. Physical and technical aspects of mammography. In: Daniel J Dronkers, Jan H C L Hendriks, Roland Holland & Gerd Rosenbusch. The practice of mammography: pathology, technique, interpretation, adjunct modalities. Netherlands: Thieme, 2001: 59-96.
3. Koutalonis M, Delis H, Costaridou L, Tzanakos G, Panayiotakis G. Monte Carlo generated conversion factors for the estimation of average glandular dose in contact and magnification mammography. Phys. Med. Biol 2006;51: 5539-5548.
4. Hendrick RE. Quality assurance in mammography: accreditation, legislation, and compliance with quality assurance standards. Radiol Clin North Am 1992;30:243-255.
5. Cardenosa G. Phantom images. In: Breast imaging companion, 2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven: Philadelphia, 2001: 37-40.
6. Heywang-Koebrunner SH, Schreer I and Dershaw DD. Quality factors. In: Diagnostic breast imaging. Thieme: Stuttgart, 1997: 57-61.
7. Shimamoto K, Ikeda M, Satake H, Ishigaki S, Sawaki A, Ishigaki T. Interobserver agreement and performance score comparison in quality control using a breast phantom: screen-film mammography vs computed radiography. Eur Radiol 2002;12: 2192-2197.
8. Oberhofer N, Paruccini N, Moroder E. Image quality assessment and equipment optimisation with automated phantom evaluation in full field digital mammography (FFDM). Lecture Notes In Computer Science 2008;5116: 235-242.
9. Huda W, Sajewicz AM, Ogden KM, Dance DR. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system. Med. Phys. 2003;30: 442-448.
10. Flynn M, Dodge C, Peck D and Swinford A. Optimal radiographic techniques for digital mammograms obtained with an amorphous selenium detector. In: Yaffe MJ, Antonuk LE, eds. Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging 2003: Physics of Medical Imaging, 2003;5030: 147-156.
11. Klausz R, Shramchenko N. Dose to population as a metric in the design of optimized exposure control in digital mammography. Rad. Prot. Dosim. 2005;114: 369-374.
12. Young KC, Odoku JM, Bosmans H, Nijs K, Martinez L. Optimal beam quality selection in digital mammography. Br. J. Radiol. 2006;79: 981-990.
13. Toroi P, Zanca F, Young KC, van Ongeval C, Marchal G, Bosmans H. Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium filter anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system. Eur. Radiol. 2007;17:2368-2375.
14. Hammerstein GR, Miller DW, White DR, Masterson ME, Woodard HQ Laughlin JS. Absorbed radiation dose in Mammography Radiology. Eur Rradiol. 1979;130: 485-491.
15. Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ. Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys. Med.Biol. 2000;45: 3225-3240.
16. Van Engen R, Young K, Bonmans H and Thijssen M. 2006. European Protocol for the Quality Control of the Physical and Technical Aspects of Mammography Screening. Part B: Digital Mammography. In: European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 4th edn., European Communities, Luxembourg.
17. Seibert JA. "Physics of Mammography," Syllabus: Categorical course in diagnostic radiology physics: Advances in breast imaging. Annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. 2004.
18. Bernhardt P, Mertelmeier T, Hohaisel M. X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study. Med. Phys. 2006;33: 4337-4349.
19. Yaffe MJ, Bloomquist AK, Mawdsley GE, et al. Quality control for digital mammography: part II recommendations from the ACRIN DMIST trial. Med. Phys. 2006;33: 737-752.