Comparison of Acquisition Parameters and Breast Dose in Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial

Hendrick, R. Edward; Pisano, Etta D.; Averbukh, Alice N.; Moran, Catherine J.; Berns, Eric A.; Yaffe, Martin J.; Herman, Benjamin A.; Acharyya, Suddhasatta; Gatsonis, Constantine

doi:10.2214/ajr.08.2114

Cited by 169 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The overall mean compression forces observed are similar compared with the values recorded on digital mammography systems by Hendrick et al [23]. The range of compression forces measured in this survey compare well with results obtained by Chevalier et al [12] even though they found that most compressions lay in the range of 190 N to 210 N. Better comparison was found with results obtained by Rosenberg and Hunt [24], who recorded mean compression forces of 71 N and 107 N for CC and OB views, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Clinical dose performance of full field digital mammography in a breast screening programme

McCullagh¹,

Baldelli²,

Phelan³

2011

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: BreastCheck, the Irish Breast Screening Programme, has employed three different models of a full field digital mammography (FFDM) system since its transition to a digital service in 2007. The three models from GE Healthcare, Hologic and Sectra exhibit differences in their design and function, the most significant of which include anode target/filter choice, detector technology and the type of exposure automation. Methods: The aim of this study was to use the results from a clinical breast dose survey to examine the differences between three different FFDM models in terms of exposure selection, breast mean glandular dose (MGD) and automatic exposure control (AEC) dose contribution. Results: The accuracy of the dose estimation was improved by inclusion of the AEC pre-exposure dose contribution. The photon-counting system demonstrated the lowest average MGD. The GE Healthcare and Hologic flat-panel detector systems demonstrated a small but statistically significant dose difference. The pre-exposure dose contribution did not exceed 13% of the total exposure dose for any system in the survey. A comparison of the system calculated organ dose estimate from each machine with the corresponding MGD calculated from medical physics measurements indicated reasonably accurate organ dose estimates for most systems in the survey. Conclusion:The results of this study provide a comprehensive assessment of the breast dose performance of current digital mammography systems in a clinical screening setting. The nationwide expansion of the Irish breast screening programme in 2007 was accompanied by a transition to full field digital mammography (FFDM) technology. Digital mammography could be still considered as a developing technology and experience with digital mammography in breast screening was limited at the time of the change. The advantages associated with digital imaging with respect to workflow efficiency and productivity are well established while the evidence base for clinical benefit associated with improved breast imaging performance through the adoption of digital imaging for mammography continues to grow [1,2]. There are other emerging advantages of digital imaging in breast screening, including the potential for radiation dose reduction [3][4][5]. Currently available digital mammography systems differ from each other in many ways which can affect the patient dose and can provide system dose advantages. The most significant technical factors in digital mammography systems which impact breast dose include the anode target/filter choice, detector technology and the type of exposure automation. There are also other factors which can affect the dose, including applied breast compression and grid type [6]. A standard feature available on all digital mammography systems is the calculation and display of organ dose estimation. This feature could be a significant factor for the user in the regulation of the patient breast dose.The Irish National Breast Screening Programme, BreastCheck, invites women in the age range 5...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Clinical dose performance of full field digital mammography in a breast screening programme

McCullagh¹,

Baldelli²,

Phelan³

2011

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Young et al showed that MGD values for DR systems were lower by 25% than those for SF systems [13]. Similar results have been shown by Hendrik et al [14].…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 67%

Mean glandular dose values used for the mammography screening program in Poland according to the type of image registration system

Fabiszewska

Pasicz²,

Grabska³

2017

Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

there have been considerable changes in the use of different types of detector systems at mammography facilities undertaking screening programs in Poland. The use of screen-film systems (termed SF systems) has largely decreased and been replaced by either computed radiography (termed CR systems) or digital radiography systems (termed DR systems); this inevitably affecting mean glandular dose values. The study aim was to evaluate changes of mean glandular dose values for a dose exposure of 4.5 cm (MGD 4,5cmPMMA ) achieved by using different image detectors. The study consisted of analysing 1499 protocols for quality control tests carried out by medical physicists at 16 Regional Coordination Offices in 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013. The mean CR system values were higher than for SF systems; by 25% in 2011, by 26% in 2012, and by 28% in 2013. In subsequent years, the MGD 4,5cmPMMA mean values for DR systems were higher than for SF systems by respectively 15%, 4% and 5%. Also in the subsequent years, the MGD 4,5cmPMMA mean values for CR systems were higher than for DR systems by respectively 13%, 23% and 24%. In all cases, the MGD 4,5cmPMMA mean values were within the acceptable level of 2.5 mGy. The MGD 4,5cmPMMA mean values were different, depending on the detection system used for mammography screening in Poland. NOWOTWORY J Oncol 2017; 67, 2: 115-120

show abstract

“…Firstly, DR images can be acquired using a lower breast radiation dose (known as the Mean Glandular Dose, MGD) [21][22][23][24]. This is partially attributed to the use of harder beam qualities, with most digital systems now employing a heavily filtered tungsten spectrum.…”

Section: Advances In Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

How many physicists does it take to test a mammography unit?

Diffey¹

2017

Australas Phys Eng Sci Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mammography is defined as the X-ray examination of the breast. It is just one of the modalities used for breast imaging; ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are incredibly valuable adjunct techniques and newer technologies are gradually being adopted, such as molecular breast imaging and dedicated breast computed tomography. Inevitably, we tend to associate the term breast imaging with breast screening. Although breast screening has its critics [3], there can be no doubt that breast cancer is a major health burden on a global scale; it is the second most common cancer in the world and is responsible for more female deaths than any other cancer type [4]. Within Australia, 1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the age of 85 [5]. However, it is reassuring to note that mortality rates are decreasing despite the fact that incidence rates continue to rise and the diagnosis rates in young women are increasing [6].Mammography is considered to be the gold standard for breast screening, having an overall sensitivity of about 85% and specificity of 90% [7] in women aged 50-70. Breast imaging is challenging since it is necessary to detect and classify pathological details (microcalcifications and masses) against a background of fibrous tissue, which can vary considerably in radiological appearance depending on breast thickness and composition.Microcalcifications have a relatively high atomic number and density and hence high inherent and subject contrast. Unfortunately they are generally very small in size, ranging from 10 µm through to several mm [8]. Although masses are of moderate size (5-10 mm), detection of carcinoma is difficult since malignant tissue has negligible physical density difference from fibrous breast tissue, a similar attenuation coefficient and therefore low inherent contrast I'm sorry to lure you in with a joke for which I don't have a punchline; the answer is just one, yet there are 95 physicists in Australia and New Zealand who hold ACPSEM Certification in Mammography Equipment Testing [1]. To put this into perspective, there are only 41 medical physicists who hold ACPSEM Certification in Radiology [2].This raises the questions of why mammography is the only radiology modality to have its own certification process and why there is so much demand for this qualification. Having spent 12 years specialising in mammography physics, I'll attempt to answer these questions and look at how mammographic technology has changed over the years and how this has impacted the role of the medical physicist.

show abstract

Comparison of Acquisition Parameters and Breast Dose in Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial

Cited by 169 publications

References 16 publications

Clinical dose performance of full field digital mammography in a breast screening programme

Clinical dose performance of full field digital mammography in a breast screening programme

Mean glandular dose values used for the mammography screening program in Poland according to the type of image registration system

How many physicists does it take to test a mammography unit?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About