Top

Published in:

01-04-2004 | Physics

Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: an Italian survey

Authors: Gisella Gennaro, Paola Baldelli, Angelo Taibi, Cosimo Di Maggio, Mauro Gambaccini

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 4/2004

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare performance and patient dose of full-field digital mammography units for clinical use. Measurements of linearity and automatic exposure control stability were performed on four units installed in as many Italian sites. The tube output was also obtained by the same ionization chamber, permitting to evaluate ratios mGy/mAs for each available spectrum. The entrance air-kerma was calculated over a sample of 800 cranio-caudal mammograms and the average glandular dose obtained, assuming two mean glandular compositions of 50 and 30%, respectively. Digital systems showed very good linearity and comparable responses. The stability of the automatic exposure control was better than 5% for all systems. Regarding doses, the two mammography units that work mainly in contrast mode deliver, respectively, 17 and 28% more dose compared with those working in standard mode. For the latter mode, the mean average glandular dose was in the range 1.25–1.37 mGy and 1.37–1.49 mGy for the 50 and 30% glandular composition, respectively. Results of this study were compared with those of other surveys, showing that full-field digital mammography allows a significant clinical dose reduction compared with screen/film mammography.

Venta LA, Hendrick RE, Adler YT et al. (2001) Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting. Am J Roentgenol 176:1241–1248

Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ et al. (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873–880PubMed

Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, Heyden D von, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E (2002) Screen-film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 12:1697–1702CrossRefPubMed

Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Funke M, Grabbe E (2002) Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications. Eur Radiol 12:2188–2191PubMed

Baum F, Fischer U, Obenauer S, Grabbe E (2002) Computer-aided detection in direct digital full-field mammography: initial results. Eur Radiol 12:3015–3017PubMed

Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, Heyden D von, Vosshenrich R, Grabbe E (2002) Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 12:2679–2683PubMed

Vedantham S, Karellas A, Suryanarayanan S et al. (2000) Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. Med Phys 27:558–567CrossRefPubMed

Vedantham S, Karellas A, Suryanarayanan S, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE (2000) Breast imaging using an amorphous silicon-based full-field digital mammographic system: stability of a clinical prototype. J Dig Imaging 13:191–199

Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR (2002) Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice. Med Phys 29:830–834CrossRefPubMed

10.

Yorker JG, Jeffrey G, Jeromin LS et al. (2002) Characterization of a full-field digital mammography detector based on direct conversion in selenium. SPIE Proc 4682:21–29

11.

Besson GM, Guy M, Koch et al. (2002) Design and evaluation of a slot-scanning full-field digital mammography system. SPIE Proc 4682:457–468

12.

Arakawa S, Yasuda H, Hiroaki, Kohda K et al. (2000) Improvement of image quality in CR mammography by detection of emissions from dual-side of an imaging plate. SPIE Proc 3977:590–600

13.

Pisano ED (2000) Current status of full-field digital mammography. Radiology 214:26–28PubMed

14.

Yaffe MJ (1992) Digital mammography. In: Haus AG, Yaffe MJ (eds) Categorical course in physics: technical aspects of breast imaging. Radiological Society of North America, Oak Brook, Ill., pp 245–255

15.

Haus AG, Yaffe MJ (2000) Screen-film and digital mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 38:871–898PubMed

16.

Suleiman OH, Spelic DC, McCrohan JL, Symonds GR, Houn F (1999) Mammography in the 1990s: the United States and Canada. Radiology 210:345–351PubMed

17.

Kruger RL, Schueler BA (2001) A survey of clinical factors and patient dose in mammography. Med Phys 28:1149–1454CrossRef

18.

Feig SA (2002) Effect of service-screening mammography on population mortality from breast carcinoma. Cancer 95:451–457CrossRefPubMed

19.

Muller S (1999) Full-field digital mammography designed as a complete system. Eur J Radiol 31:25–34PubMed

20.

Gennaro G, Baldelli P, Di Maggio C, Taibi A, Gambaccini M (2003) A quality control first experience in full-field digital mammography. In: Peitgen HO (ed) Digital mammography, IWDM 2002. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 81–84

21.

Senographe 2000 D Acquisition System Service Manual, GE Technical Publications 2302228–100, revision 1, Half-value layer measurement, pp 187–189

22.

Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ (2000) Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 45:3225–3240CrossRefPubMed

23.

Dance DR, Thilander-Klang A, Sandborg M, Skinner CL, Castellano Smith A, Alm-Carlsson G (2000) 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 73:1056–1067PubMed

24.

Burch A, Goodman DA (1998) A pilot survey of radiation doses received in the United Kingdom breast screening programme. Br J Radiol 71:517–527PubMed

25.

Cranley K, Gilmore BJ, Fogarty GVA, Desponds L (1997) Catalog of diagnostic X-ray spectra and other data: report no. 78. Institute of Physics and Enginering in Medicine, York, UK

26.

American College of Radiology (1994) Committee on Quality Assurance in Mammography: mammography quality control, revised edition. American College of Radiology, Reston, Virginia

27.

The European Protocol for the Quality Control of the Technical Aspects of Mammography Screening (1993) CEC-Report EUR 14821

28.

European Protocol on Dosimetry in Mammography (1996) CEC-Report EUR 16263

29.

European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening (2001) European Commission, Luxembourg, 3rd edn

30.

Fahrig R, Yaffe M (1994) A model for optimization of spectral shape in digital mammography. Med Phys 21:1463–1471CrossRefPubMed

31.

Fahrig R, Yaffe M (1994) Optimization of spectral shape in digital mammography: dependence on anode material, breast thickness and lesion type. Med Phys 21:1473–1481CrossRefPubMed

32.

Kimme-Smith C (1999) New digital mammography systems may require different X-ray spectra and, therefore, more general normalized glandular dose values. Radiology 213:7–10PubMed

33.

Klein R, Aichinger H, Dierker J, Jansen JTM, Joite-Barfus S, Sabel M, Schulz-Wendtland R, Zoetelief J (1997) Determination of average glandular dose with modern mammography units for two large groups of patients. Phys Med Biol 42:651–671CrossRefPubMed

34.

Stines J, Noël A, Estivalet S, Troufléau P, Netter E, Quinquis J (1998) Qualité image densité optique en mammographie: étude sur fantôme. J Radiol 79:331–335PubMed

35.

Rosenberg RD, Kelsey CA, Williamson MR, Houston JD (2001) Computer-based collection of mammographic exposure data for quality assurance and dosimetry. Med Phys 28:1546–1551CrossRefPubMed

36.

Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Marten K, Kehbel S, Fischer U, Grabbe E (2002) Average glandular dose with amorphous silicon full-field digital mammography: clinical results. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 174:696–699CrossRefPubMed

Title: Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: an Italian survey
Authors: Gisella Gennaro
Paola Baldelli
Angelo Taibi
Cosimo Di Maggio
Mauro Gambaccini
Publication date: 01-04-2004
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 4/2004
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-2010-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: an Italian survey

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2004

Cerebral vasculitis due to Treponema pallidum infection: MRI and MRA findings

Evaluation of patient-absorbed doses during coronary angiography and intervention by femoral and radial artery access

Real-time MR with TrueFISP for the detection of acute pulmonary embolism: initial clinical experience

The role of MRI in patients with astrocytoma WHO II treated with fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy

Improvement of parenchymal and vascular enhancement using saline flush and power injection for multiple-detector-row abdominal CT

Dose and image quality in the comparison of analogue and digital techniques in paediatric urology examinations