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
  • [41] Dose Reduction in Automatic Optimization Parameter of Full Field Digital Mammography: Breast Phantom Study
    Ko, Myung-Su
    Kim, Hak Hee
    Cha, Joo Hee
    Shin, Hee Jung
    Kim, Jeoung Hyun
    Kim, Min Jeong
    JOURNAL OF BREAST CANCER, 2013, 16 (01) : 90 - 96
  • [42] Optimization of the exposure parameters in digital mammography for diverse glandularities using the contrast-detail metric
    Villarreal, Oscar A. Marti
    Velasco, Fermin G.
    Fausto, Agnes M. F.
    Milian, Felix Mas
    Mol, Anderson W.
    Capizzi, Krizia R.
    Ambrosio, Paulo
    PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2022, 101 : 112 - 119
  • [43] Causes of differences between full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography interpretations in the Colorado/Massachusetts full-field digital mammography screening trial
    Lewin, JM
    D'Orsi, CJ
    Isaacs, P
    Moss, LJ
    Hendrick, RE
    RADIOLOGY, 2000, 217 : 199 - 199
  • [44] Digital luminescence mammography (CR) versus full-field digital mammography (DR): A phantom study
    Schulz-Wendtland, RW
    Aichinger, UG
    Lell, MM
    Kuchar, I
    Tartsch, M
    Bautz, WA
    RADIOLOGY, 2002, 225 : 416 - 417
  • [45] Baseline Screening Mammography: Performance of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    McDonald, Elizabeth S.
    McCarthy, Anne Marie
    Akhtar, Amana L.
    Synnestvedt, Marie B.
    Schnall, Mitchell
    Conant, Emily F.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2015, 205 (05) : 1143 - 1148
  • [46] Implementation of telemanagement for full-field digital mammography (FFDM)
    Fan, Y
    Lou, SL
    Wong, A
    Zhang, H
    Sickles, EA
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2000: PACS DESIGN AND EVALUATION - ENGINEERING AND CLINICAL ISSUES, 2000, 3980 : 400 - 407
  • [47] Characterization of the effects of the FineView algorithm for full field digital mammography
    Urbanczyk, H.
    McDonagh, E.
    Marshall, N. W.
    Castellano, I.
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2012, 57 (07): : 1987 - 2003
  • [48] Evaluation of breast phantom masses with full field digital mammography
    Yang, WT
    Lai, CJ
    Whitman, GJ
    Murphy, WA
    Dryden, MJ
    Kushwaha, AC
    Sahin, AA
    Shaw, C
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2004, 182 (04) : 107 - 108
  • [49] Impact of CAD with Full Field Digital Mammography on Workflow and Cost
    Taylor, Paul
    Potts, Henry
    Wilkinson, Louise
    Given-Wilson, Rosalind
    DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY, 2010, 6136 : 1 - +
  • [50] The value of scatter removal by a grid in full field digital mammography
    Veldkamp, WJH
    Thijssen, MAO
    Karssemeijer, N
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2003, 30 (07) : 1712 - 1718