Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography

被引:71
|
作者
Williams, Mark B. [1 ]
Raghunathan, Priya [1 ]
More, Mitali J. [1 ]
Seibert, J. Anthony [2 ]
Kwan, Alexander [2 ]
Lo, Joseph Y. [3 ]
Samei, Ehsan [3 ]
Ranger, Nicole T. [3 ]
Fajardo, Laurie L. [4 ]
McGruder, Allen [4 ]
McGruder, Sandra M. [4 ]
Maidment, Andrew D. A. [5 ]
Yaffe, Martin J. [6 ]
Bloomquist, Aili [6 ]
Mawdsley, Gordon E. [6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908 USA
[2] Univ Calif Davis, Sacramento, CA 95817 USA
[3] Duke Univ, Durham, NC 27705 USA
[4] Univ Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
[5] Univ Penn, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[6] Sunnybrook Hlth Sci Ctr, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
关键词
digital mammography; exposure parameters; technique factors; beam optimization;
D O I
10.1118/1.2912177
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Optimization of exposure parameters (target, filter, and kVp) in digital mammography necessitates maximization of the image signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), while simultaneously minimizing patient dose. The goal of this study is to compare, for each of the major commercially available full field digital mammography (FFDM) systems, the impact of the selection of technique factors on image SNR and radiation dose for a range of breast thickness and tissue types. This phantom study is an update of a previous investigation and includes measurements on recent versions of two of the FFDM systems discussed in that article, as well as on three FFDM systems not available at that time. The five commercial FFDM systems tested, the Senographe 2000D from GE Healthcare, the Mammomat Novation DR from Siemens, the Selenia from Hologic, the Fischer Senoscan, and Fuji's 5000MA used with a Lorad M-IV mammography unit, are located at five different university test sites. Performance was assessed using all available x-ray target and filter combinations and nine different phantom types (three compressed thicknesses and three tissue composition types). Each phantom type was also imaged using the automatic exposure control (AEC) of each system to identify the exposure parameters used under automated image acquisition. The figure of merit (FOM) used to compare technique factors is the ratio of the square of the image SNR to the mean glandular dose. The results show that, for a given target/filter combination, in general FOM is a slowly changing function of kVp, with stronger dependence on the choice of target/filter combination. In all cases the FOM was a decreasing function of kVp at the top of the available range of kVp settings, indicating that higher tube voltages would produce no further performance improvement. For a given phantom type, the exposure parameter set resulting in the highest FOM value was system specific, depending on both the set of available target/filter combinations, and on the receptor type. In most cases, the AECs of the FFDM systems successfully identified exposure parameters resulting in FOM values near the maximum ones, however, there were several examples where AEC performance could be improved. (C) 2008 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
引用
收藏
页码:2414 / 2423
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Optimization of the Imaging Parameters in Clinical Digital Mammography
    Park, Hye-Suk
    Kim, Hee-Joung
    Choi, Yu-Na
    Oh, Yuna
    Kim, Sang Tae
    JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, 2011, 59 (01) : 176 - 182
  • [22] Comparison of Radiologist Performance with Photon-Counting Full-Field Digital Mammography to Conventional Full-Field Digital Mammography
    Cole, Elodia B.
    Toledano, Alicia Y.
    Lundqvist, Mats
    Pisano, Etta D.
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2012, 19 (08) : 916 - 922
  • [23] Radiation Exposure of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Using an Antiscatter Grid Compared With Full-Field Digital Mammography
    Paulis, Leonie E.
    Lobbes, Marc B. I.
    Lalji, Ulrich C.
    Gelissen, Nicky
    Bouwman, Ramona W.
    Wildberger, Joachim E.
    Jeukens, Cecile R. L. P. N.
    INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2015, 50 (10) : 679 - 685
  • [24] Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a selenium flat-panel detector
    Gosch, D.
    Jendrass, S.
    Scholz, M.
    Kahn, T.
    ROFO-FORTSCHRITTE AUF DEM GEBIET DER RONTGENSTRAHLEN UND DER BILDGEBENDEN VERFAHREN, 2006, 178 (07): : 693 - 697
  • [25] Clinical experience in full field digital mammography II
    de Geer, G
    Piguet, JC
    Couson, F
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2002, 38 : S46 - S47
  • [26] Analysis of patient dose in full field digital mammography
    Chen, Baoying
    Wang, Yingmei
    Sun, Xin
    Guo, Wei
    Zhao, Ming
    Cui, Guangbin
    Hu, Lina
    Li, Pei
    Ren, Yan
    Feng, Jun
    Yu, Jun
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2012, 81 (05) : 868 - 872
  • [27] Initial clinical experience with full field digital mammography
    Pisano, ED
    DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY, 1998, 13 : 391 - 394
  • [28] Advantages of gridless full-field digital mammography
    Nykanen, KM
    Siltanen, S
    RADIOLOGY, 2002, 225 : 120 - 121
  • [29] Spectral analysis of full field digital mammography data
    Heine, JJ
    Velthuizen, RP
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2002, 29 (05) : 647 - 661
  • [30] Advantages of gridless full-field digital mammography
    Nykänen, K
    Siltanen, S
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2003: PHYSICS OF MEDICAL IMAGING, PTS 1 AND 2, 2003, 5030 : 137 - 146