Skip Navigation

Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2005 114(1-3):383-388; doi:10.1093/rpd/nch555
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hemdal, B.
Right arrow Articles by Mattsson, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hemdal, B.
Right arrow Articles by Mattsson, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? a pilot study using revised image quality criteria

B. Hemdal1,*, I. Andersson2, A. Grahn1, M. Håkansson3, M. Ruschin1, A. Thilander-Klang3, M. Båth3, S. Börjesson3, J. Medin1, A. Tingberg1, L. G. Månsson3 and S. Mattsson1

1 Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, Malmö University Hospital, SE-205 02 Malmö, Sweden
2 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Malmö University Hospital, SE-205 02 Malmö, Sweden
3 Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, SE-413 45 Göteborg, Sweden

* Corresponding author: bengt.hemdal{at}rfa.mas.lu.se

There is a need for tools that in a simple way can be used for the evaluation of image quality related to clinical requirements in mammography. The aim of this work was to adjust the present European image quality criteria to be relevant also for digital mammography images, and to use as simple and as few criteria as possible. A pilot evaluation of the new set of criteria was made with mammograms of 28 women from a General Electric Senographe 2000D full-field digital mammography system. One breast was exposed using the standard automatic exposure mode, the other using about half of that absorbed dose. Three experienced radiologists evaluated the images using visual grading analysis technique. The results indicate that the new quality criteria can be used for the evaluation of image quality related to clinical requirements in digital mammography in a simple way. The results also suggest that absorbed doses for the mammography system used may be substantially reduced.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
C. Van Ongeval, A. Van Steen, C. Geniets, F. Dekeyzer, H. Bosmans, and G. Marchal
CLINICAL IMAGE QUALITY CRITERIA FOR FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY: A FIRST PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, March 4, 2008; (2008) ncn029v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
T Svahn, B Hemdal, M Ruschin, D P Chakraborty, I Andersson, A Tingberg, and S Mattsson
Dose reduction and its influence on diagnostic accuracy and radiation risk in digital mammography: an observer performance study using an anthropomorphic breast phantom
Br. J. Radiol., July 1, 2007; 80(955): 557 - 562.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. Samei, R. S. Saunders Jr, J. A. Baker, and D. M. Delong
Digital Mammography: Effects of Reduced Radiation Dose on Diagnostic Performance
Radiology, May 1, 2007; 243(2): 396 - 404.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
M Bath and L G Mansson
Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation
Br. J. Radiol., March 1, 2007; 80(951): 169 - 176.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 radtechHome page
J. H. BRUSIN
Digital Mammography: An Update
Radiol. Technol., January 1, 2006; 77(3): 226M - 234M.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.