Academic Radiology
Volume 16, Issue 10 , Pages 1272-1280 , October 2009

Intra-individual Comparison of Average Glandular Dose of Two Digital Mammography Units using Different Anode/Filter Combinations

  • Florian J.F. Engelken, MD, MBChB

      Affiliations

    • Institut für Radiologie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: F.J.F.E.
    • ,
  • Henning Meyer, MD

      Affiliations

    • Institut für Radiologie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany
    • ,
  • Ralf Juran, Diploma of Physics

      Affiliations

    • Institut für Radiologie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany
    • ,
  • Ulrich Bick, MD

      Affiliations

    • Institut für Radiologie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany
    • ,
  • Eva Fallenberg, MD

      Affiliations

    • Institut für Radiologie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany
    • ,
  • Felix Diekmann, MD

      Affiliations

    • Institut für Radiologie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany

Received 30 January 2009 ,Accepted 25 May 2009.

References 

  1. Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Pisano ED, et al. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I. Med Phys. 2006;33:719–736
  2. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1773–1783
  3. Rini JM, Horowitz A, Balter S, et al. A comparison of tungsten and molybdenum as target material for mammographic x-ray tubes. Radiology. 1973;106:657–661
  4. Bernhardt P, Mertelmeier T, Hoheisel M. X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study. Med Phys. 2006;33:4337–4349
  5. Dance DR, Thilander AK, Sandborg M, et al. 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. 2000;73:1056–1067
  6. Jennings RJ, Eastgate RJ, Siedband MP, et al. Optimal x-ray spectra for screen-film mammography. Med Phys. 1981;8:629–639
  7. Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP, Wenkel E, et al. [Experimental investigations for dose reduction by optimizing the radiation quality for digital mammography with an a-Se detector]. Rofo. 2007;179:487–491
  8. Toroi P, Zanca F, Young KC, et al. Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:2368–2375
  9. Uhlenbrock DF, Mertelmeier T. Comparison of anode/filter combinations in digital mammography with respect to the average glandular dose. Rofo. 2009;181:249–254
  10. Wallis M. NHSBSP Equipment Report 0601: evaluation and clinical assessment of digital mammography screening using a Sectra MicroDose full field digital x-ray unit and spectra breast imaging PACS. Sheffield, UK: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes; 2006;
  11. Schulz-Wendtland R, Lell M, Wenkel E, et al. [DR (a-Se) versus CR (DLR)—is an improvement of the accuracy possible? A retrospective histologic analysis (n = 100)]. Rontgenpraxis. 2007;56:129–135
  12. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition—summary document. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:614–622
  13. Bacher K, Smeets P, De Hauwere A, et al. Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection. Eur J Radiol. 2006;58:471–479
  14. Thijssen MAO, Thijssen HOM, Merx JL. A definition of image quality: the image quality figure. In:  Moores BM,  Wall BF,  Eriskat H editor. BIR report 20: optimization of image quality and patient exposure in diagnostic radiology. London: The British Institute of Radiology; 1989;p. 29–34
  15. Säbel M, Aichinger U, Schulz-Wendtland R. [Radiation exposure in x-ray mammography]. Rofo. 2001;173:79–91
  16. Beckett J, Kotre C, Michaelson J. Analysis of benefit: risk ratio and mortality reduction for the UK Breast Screening Programme. Br J Radiol. 2003;76:309–320
  17. Tabar L, Yen MF, Vitak B, et al. Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet. 2003;361:1405–1410

PII: S1076-6332(09)00311-0

doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2009.05.012

Academic Radiology
Volume 16, Issue 10 , Pages 1272-1280 , October 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution