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
  • [31] Current status of full-field digital mammography
    Pisano, ED
    Yaffe, MJ
    Hemminger, BM
    Hendrick, RE
    Niklason, LT
    Maidment, ADA
    Kimme-Smith, CM
    Feig, SA
    Sickles, EA
    Braeuning, MP
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2000, 7 (04) : 266 - 280
  • [32] Digital full field mammography for imaging augmented breasts
    Diekmann, S
    Diekmann, F
    Hauschild, M
    Hamm, B
    RADIOLOGE, 2002, 42 (04): : 275 - 279
  • [33] Current status of full-field digital mammography
    Pisano, ED
    RADIOLOGY, 2000, 214 (01) : 26 - 28
  • [34] Mammographic Artifacts on Full-Field Digital Mammography
    Jae Jeong Choi
    Sung Hun Kim
    Bong Joo Kang
    Byung Gil Choi
    ByungJoo Song
    Haijo Jung
    Journal of Digital Imaging, 2014, 27 : 231 - 236
  • [35] Mammographic Artifacts on Full-Field Digital Mammography
    Choi, Jae Jeong
    Kim, Sung Hun
    Kang, Bong Joo
    Choi, Byung Gil
    Song, ByungJoo
    Jung, Haijo
    JOURNAL OF DIGITAL IMAGING, 2014, 27 (02) : 231 - 236
  • [36] Comparison of slot scanning digital mammography system with full-field digital mammography system
    Lai, Chao-Jen
    Shaw, Chris C.
    Geiser, William
    Chen, Lingyun
    Arribas, Elsa
    Stephens, Tanya
    Davis, Paul L.
    Ayyar, Geetha P.
    Dogan, Basak E.
    Nguyen, Victoria A.
    Whitman, Gary J.
    Yang, Wei T.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2008, 35 (06) : 2339 - 2346
  • [37] Performance of full-field digital mammography versus digital breast
    Wang, Mengru
    Zhuang, Shan
    Sheng, Liuli
    Zhao, Yu Nian
    Shen, Wenrong
    PRECISION MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2022, 11 (02): : 56 - 61
  • [38] The Impact of the Transition to Full Field Digital Mammography from Film Screen Mammography
    Woldenberg, Nina
    Plecha, Donna
    Panneerselvam, Ashok
    Schluchter, Mark
    Pham, Ramya
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY-CANCER CLINICAL TRIALS, 2009, 32 (05): : 554 - 555
  • [39] Clinical evaluation of CR mammography in comparison with full-field digital mammography
    Uchiyama, N
    Kobayashi, H
    Tanikoshi, M
    Machida, M
    Tajima, H
    Kumazaki, T
    Moriyama, N
    DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY, PROCEEDINGS, 2003, : 494 - 496
  • [40] Clinical optimization of filters in direct a-se FFDM (full field digital mammography) system
    Uchiyama, Nachiko
    Moriyama, Noriyuki
    Kitagawa, Mayumi
    Gomi, Shiho
    Nagai, Yuichi
    DIGITAL MAMOGRAPHY, PROCEEDINGS, 2006, 4046 : 315 - 323