Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Radiological Physics and Technology 1/2020

01-03-2020 | Mammography

Using aluminum for scatter control in mammography: preliminary work using measurements of CNR and FOM

Authors: Khaled Al Khalifah, Rob Davidson, Abel Zhou

Published in: Radiological Physics and Technology | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) systems provide the current gold standard in mammographic examinations. Although FFDM provides the lowest mammographic doses, the radiation dose to the breast during mammographic examinations is still a concern. Thus, image quality optimization at the lowest dose is a major goal. In planar X-ray imaging, thin sheets of aluminum (Al) are used as filtration to reduce the number of low-energy X-ray photons reaching the patient. The goal of this work was to evaluate whether Al can be used in FFDM to remove scatter radiation from reaching the image detector, hence improving image quality. Doses were compared with the use of a grid. A Hologic Selenia mammographic unit was used to acquire images of two phantoms, namely, the ACR phantom and a Perspex phantom of 5 cm. Images were acquired using two tube voltages (kVp) and filter combinations under two exposure/dose conditions. Al sheets of various thicknesses were placed between the phantom and the image detector. Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and figure of merit (FOM) values were measured and compared with images acquired using a grid. When a constant dose was delivered to the image detector, the highest CNR was achieved using a grid; however, the highest FOM values were achieved when using 0.05 mm thick Al sheets. This study successfully demonstrates that thin sheets of Al can be used in mammography examinations to reduce scattered radiation and improve image quality, as indicated by the measured CNR values. Given the limitations of this work, further kVp and target/filter combinations and various methods of image quality measurement need to be studied.
Literature
1.
go back to reference The Swedish Organised Service Screening Evaluation Group. Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography with extended data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15:45–51.CrossRef The Swedish Organised Service Screening Evaluation Group. Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography with extended data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15:45–51.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer. 2001;91(9):1724–31.CrossRef Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer. 2001;91(9):1724–31.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Tabar L, Yen MF, Vitak B, Chen HH, Smith RA, Duffy SW. Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet (London, England). 2003;361(9367):1405–10.CrossRef Tabar L, Yen MF, Vitak B, Chen HH, Smith RA, Duffy SW. Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet (London, England). 2003;361(9367):1405–10.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Chawla AS, Samei E, Saunders R, Abbey C, Delong D. Effect of dose reduction on the detection of mammographic lesions: a mathematical observer model analysis. Med Phys. 2007;34(8):3385–98.CrossRef Chawla AS, Samei E, Saunders R, Abbey C, Delong D. Effect of dose reduction on the detection of mammographic lesions: a mathematical observer model analysis. Med Phys. 2007;34(8):3385–98.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Bushberg J, Seibert J, Leidholdt J, Boone J. The essential physics of medical imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012. Bushberg J, Seibert J, Leidholdt J, Boone J. The essential physics of medical imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
6.
go back to reference Aminah M, Ng KH, Abdullah BJJ, Jamal N. Optimal beam quality selection based on contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose in digital mammography. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2010;33(4):329–34.CrossRef Aminah M, Ng KH, Abdullah BJJ, Jamal N. Optimal beam quality selection based on contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose in digital mammography. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2010;33(4):329–34.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kanal KM, Krupinski E, Berns EA, Geiser WR, Karellas A, Mainiero MB, et al. ACR–AAPM–SIIM practice guideline for determinants of image quality in digital mammography. J Digit Imaging. 2013;26(1):10–25.CrossRef Kanal KM, Krupinski E, Berns EA, Geiser WR, Karellas A, Mainiero MB, et al. ACR–AAPM–SIIM practice guideline for determinants of image quality in digital mammography. J Digit Imaging. 2013;26(1):10–25.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Yaffe MJ, Bunch PC, Desponds L, Jong RA, Nishikawa RM, Tapiovaara MJ, et al. Technical aspects of image quality in mammography. J Int Comm Radiat Units Meas. 2009;9(2):33–51. Yaffe MJ, Bunch PC, Desponds L, Jong RA, Nishikawa RM, Tapiovaara MJ, et al. Technical aspects of image quality in mammography. J Int Comm Radiat Units Meas. 2009;9(2):33–51.
9.
go back to reference Varjonen M, Strömmer P. Optimizing the anode-filter combination in the sense of image quality and average glandular dose in digital mammography. In: Proc. SPIE 6913, Medical imaging 2008, San Diego, California; 2008. Varjonen M, Strömmer P. Optimizing the anode-filter combination in the sense of image quality and average glandular dose in digital mammography. In: Proc. SPIE 6913, Medical imaging 2008, San Diego, California; 2008.
10.
go back to reference Williams MB, Raghunathan P, More MJ, Seibert AJ, Kwan A, Lo JY, et al. Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography. Med Phys. 2008;35(6Part1):2414–23.CrossRef Williams MB, Raghunathan P, More MJ, Seibert AJ, Kwan A, Lo JY, et al. Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography. Med Phys. 2008;35(6Part1):2414–23.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists. Guidelines for quality control testing for digital (CR & DR) mammography. V4.0. 2018. https://www.ranzcr.com. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists. Guidelines for quality control testing for digital (CR & DR) mammography. V4.0. 2018. https://​www.​ranzcr.​com.
12.
go back to reference Xinming L, Chao-Jen L, Whitman GJ, Geiser WR, Youtao S, Ying Y, et al. Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom. Med Phys. 2011;38(12):6489–501.CrossRef Xinming L, Chao-Jen L, Whitman GJ, Geiser WR, Youtao S, Ying Y, et al. Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom. Med Phys. 2011;38(12):6489–501.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Borg M, Badr I, Royle G. The use of a figure-of-merit (FOM) for optimisation in digital mammography: a literature review. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2012;151(1):81–8.CrossRef Borg M, Badr I, Royle G. The use of a figure-of-merit (FOM) for optimisation in digital mammography: a literature review. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2012;151(1):81–8.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Delis H, Spyrou G, Costaridou L, Tzanakos G, Panayiotakis G. Evaluating the Figure of Merit in mammography utilizing Monte Carlo simulation. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect A. 2007;580(1):493–6.CrossRef Delis H, Spyrou G, Costaridou L, Tzanakos G, Panayiotakis G. Evaluating the Figure of Merit in mammography utilizing Monte Carlo simulation. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect A. 2007;580(1):493–6.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Shepard SJ, Wang J, Flynn M, Gingold E, Goldman L, Krugh K, et al. An exposure indicator for digital radiography: AAPM Task Group 116 (Executive Summary). Med Phys. 2009;36(7):2898–914.CrossRef Shepard SJ, Wang J, Flynn M, Gingold E, Goldman L, Krugh K, et al. An exposure indicator for digital radiography: AAPM Task Group 116 (Executive Summary). Med Phys. 2009;36(7):2898–914.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Gress DA, Dickinson RL, Erwin WD, Jordan DW, Kobistek RJ, Stevens DM, et al. AAPM medical physics practice guideline 6a: performance characteristics of radiation dose index monitoring systems. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18(4):12–22.CrossRef Gress DA, Dickinson RL, Erwin WD, Jordan DW, Kobistek RJ, Stevens DM, et al. AAPM medical physics practice guideline 6a: performance characteristics of radiation dose index monitoring systems. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18(4):12–22.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Koen L, Herbst C, Rae W. Computed radiography exposure indices in mammography. SA J Radiol. 2008;12(2):28–31.CrossRef Koen L, Herbst C, Rae W. Computed radiography exposure indices in mammography. SA J Radiol. 2008;12(2):28–31.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Using aluminum for scatter control in mammography: preliminary work using measurements of CNR and FOM
Authors
Khaled Al Khalifah
Rob Davidson
Abel Zhou
Publication date
01-03-2020
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Published in
Radiological Physics and Technology / Issue 1/2020
Print ISSN: 1865-0333
Electronic ISSN: 1865-0341
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-019-00545-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Radiological Physics and Technology 1/2020 Go to the issue