대한방사선기술학회지:방사선기술과학 (Journal of radiological science and technology)

  • 제37권2호
  • /
  • Pages.101-107
  • /
  • 2014
  • /
  • 2288-3509(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-1168(eISSN)
대한방사선과학회 (Korean Society of Radiological Science)
권호 표지

디지털 유방확대촬영술에서 Air gap technique의 유용성 평가

Evaluation of the Usefulness for Air Gap Technique in Digital Magnification Mammography

  • 김미영 (단국대학교병원 영상의학과)
  • Kim, Mi-Young (Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Dankook University Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2014.03.19
  • 심사 : 2014.06.16
  • 발행 : 2014.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구는 디지털 유방확대촬영술에서 방사선 피폭을 감소시키며 영상의 질을 유지하기 위한 최적의 촬영조건을 알아보았다. 자동노출방식의 평균유선선량이 수동노출방식에 비해 높은 것으로 나타났다. 자동노출방식은 그리드(grid) 사용 여부에 따라 평균유선선량과 화질평가에 차이가 많았으나, 수동노출방식은 팬텀영상평가 점수에서만 차이가 있었다. 그러나 air gap technique을 사용할 경우 모든 노출방식에서 신호대잡음비의 증가가 뚜렷하게 나타났다. 따라서 유방확대촬영 시 air gap technique을 사용한다면 환자의 평균유선선량을 감소시키고 신호대잡음비를 높여 양질의 화질을 유지할 수 있을 것이다.

The purpose of this study was investigated optimal exposure condition in digital magnification mammography to decrease radiation dose and increase image quality of the examinee. Auto mode, the average glandular dose is higher than the manual mode. Average glandular dose and image quality were many differences on between grid and air gap technique in auto mode. However, Average glandular dose and signal-to-noise ratio were not different on between grid and air gap technique in manual mode. The signal-to-noise ratio was increased when using the air-gap technique in both mode. According to result, air gap technique may reduce average glandular dose and increase signal-to-noise ratio in digital magnification mammography.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 대한유방암학회: 2013 유방암백서통권제1호. 2013.
  2. Kim MY, Kim HS. The Evaluation of Radiation Dose by Exposure Method in Digital Magnification Mammography. J radiological science and technology. 35(4), pp.293-298, 2012.
  3. Kang SH, Chung KY, Kim YS, Choi JS, Lee SS. Pathologic Analysis of Clustered Microcalcification Found on Mammograms: A Review of 77 Case. J Korean Surg Soc. 66(1), pp.5-9, 2004.
  4. McParland BJ. Image Quality and Dose in Film-Screen Magnification Mammography. Brit J Radiol. 73, pp.1068-1077, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.73.874.11271899
  5. Jeon SJ, Kim MJ, Kim EK, Son EJ, Youk JH, Kwak JY et al. Interobserver Variability in th Interpretation of Microcalcification in Digital Magnification Mammographies. J Korean Soc Radiol. 63, pp.383-389, 2010. https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2010.63.4.383
  6. Tahoces PG, Vidal JJ. The Classification of Mammographic Breast Parenchymal Pattern. Physics of Medicine and Biology. 40(1), pp.1103-117, 1995.
  7. Kopans DB, Wood WC. Palpable Breast Masses, The Importance of Preoperative Mammography. JAMA. 246, pp.2819, 1981. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1981.03320240027019
  8. Tan PH, Ho J TS, Ng EH, Chiang G SC, Low SC, Ng FC, Bay BH. Pathologice-Radiologic Correlations in Screen-Detected Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast: Findings of the Singapore Breast Screening Project. Int J Cancer. 90, pp.231-236, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0215(20000820)90:4<231::AID-IJC6>3.0.CO;2-U
  9. Kim SH, Kim YM, Chung EA, Yang I, Lee Y, Chung SY. Benign Clustered Microcalcifications on Mammography: Comparison with Malignant calcification. J Korean Radiol Soc. 32, pp.643-647, 1995. https://doi.org/10.3348/jkrs.1995.32.4.643
  10. Han YH, Do YS, Cho BJ, Han H, Choi YH, Park JM et al. Clustered Microcalcifications without Mass on Mammography: Benignancy vs. Malignacy. J Korean Radiol Soc. 35, pp.819-824, 1996. https://doi.org/10.3348/jkrs.1996.35.5.819
  11. Sickles EA. Further Experience with Microfocal Spot Magnification Mammography in the Assessment of Clustered Breast Microcalcification. J Radiology. 137, pp.9-14, 1980. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.137.1.7422866
  12. Hong SS, Kang KM, Seong MS, Lee JW. Study on Dose and Image Quality by Added Filter and Grid Change when Exam Abdominal Fluoroscopy. Korean J Digit Med. 14(2), pp.47-56, 2012.
  13. Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ. Additional Factors for the Estimation of Mean Glandular Breast Dose Using the UK Mammography Dosimetry Protocol. Phys Med Biol. 45, pp.3225-3240, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/45/11/308
  14. Supawitoo Sookpeng, Potjana Ketted. Mean Glandular Dose from Routine Mammography. Naresuan University Journal. 14, pp.19-26, 2006.
  15. GE Medical System: Senographe 2000 D DAP: Quality Control Tests for MQSA Facilities-QC Manual, pp.15-25, 2003.
  16. Tanaka N, Naka K, Fukushima H, Morishita J, Toyofuke F, Ohki M et al. Digital Magnification Mammography with Matched Incident Exposure: Physical Imaging Properties and Detectability of Simulated Microcalcifications. Radiol Phys Technol. 4, pp.156-163, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-011-0116-3
  17. Boyce SJ, Samei E. Imaging Properties of Digital Magnification Radiography. Med Phys. 33(4), pp.984-996, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2174133