Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system

The signal difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR) between aluminium sheets and a homogeneous background was measured for various radiation qualities and breast thicknesses to determine the optimal radiation quality when using a Novation DR mammography system. Breast simulating phantoms, with a thickness from 2 cm to 7 cm, and aluminium sheet, with a thickness of 0.2 mm, were used. Three different combinations of anode/filter material and a wide range of tube voltages were employed for each phantom thickness. Each radiation quality was studied using three different dose levels. The tungsten (W) anode and rhodium (Rh) filter combination achieved the specified SDNR at the lowest mean glandular dose for all the phantom thicknesses and X-ray tube voltages. The difference between the doses for different anode/filter combinations increased with the phantom thickness. For a 5-cm phantom, with a peak tube voltage of 27 kV and a SDNR of 5, the mean glandular dose associated with the use of W/Rh was reduced by 49% when compared to the molybdenum/molybdenum (Mo/Mo) anode/filter combination and by 33% when compared to Mo/Rh. Based on these measurements, the use of the W/Rh anode/filter can be recommended. It remains important, however, to select the appropriate dose level.

[1]  R Fahrig,et al.  A model for optimization of spectral shape in digital mammography. , 1994, Medical physics.

[2]  Kenneth C. Young,et al.  Use of the European Protocol to Optimise a Digital Mammography System , 2006, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[3]  J Vennart,et al.  1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. , 1991, Annals of the ICRP.

[4]  Daniel B. Kopans,et al.  Experimental and theoretical spectral optimization for digital mammography , 1999, Medical Imaging.

[5]  E Grabbe,et al.  Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study. , 2003, The British journal of radiology.

[6]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Physical characterization of a prototype selenium-based full field digital mammography detector. , 2005, Medical physics.

[7]  G. Marchal,et al.  Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen–film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial , 2006, European Radiology.

[8]  K C Young,et al.  Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 1997 and 1998. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[9]  Icrp.  1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection , 1991 .

[10]  J A Rowlands,et al.  X-ray imaging with amorphous selenium: optimal spectra for digital mammography. , 1996, Medical physics.

[11]  Icrp.  Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 60 , 1991 .

[12]  Ann-Katherine Carton,et al.  Contrast visibility of simulated microcalcifications in full field mammography systems , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[13]  H Bosmans,et al.  Optimal beam quality selection in digital mammography. , 2006, The British journal of radiology.

[14]  Gary R Cutter,et al.  Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose. , 2003, Medical physics.

[15]  G. Marchal,et al.  Towards a proposition of a diagnostic (dose) reference level for mammographic acquisitions in breast screening measurements in Belgium. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[16]  L Desponds,et al.  Influence of anode and filter material on image quality and glandular dose for screen-film mammography. , 1991, Physics in medicine and biology.

[17]  D R Dance,et al.  Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[18]  C. J. Kotre,et al.  Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[19]  G T Barnes,et al.  Contrast and dose with Mo-Mo, Mo-Rh, and Rh-Rh target-filter combinations in mammography. , 1995, Radiology.

[20]  Michael D. Abràmoff,et al.  Image processing with ImageJ , 2004 .

[21]  Francis R Verdun,et al.  A new test phantom with different breast tissue compositions for image quality assessment in conventional and digital mammography. , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[22]  R Holland,et al.  European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. , 2008, Annals of Oncology.

[23]  R Fahrig,et al.  Optimization of spectral shape in digital mammography: dependence on anode material, breast thickness, and lesion type. , 1994, Medical physics.

[24]  C J Martin,et al.  Application of contrast-to-noise ratio in optimizing beam quality for digital chest radiography: comparison of experimental measurements and theoretical simulations , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[25]  R. J. Eastgate,et al.  Optimal x-ray spectra for screen-film mammography. , 1981, Medical physics.

[26]  K C Young,et al.  Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 2001 and 2002. , 2005, The British journal of radiology.

[27]  A. Burgess,et al.  Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. , 2001, Medical physics.

[28]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Experimental Investigation of the Necessity for Extra Flat Field Corrections in Quality Control of Digital Mammography , 2006, Digital Mammography / IWDM.