DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

MLO View의 유방촬영에서 QC 프로그램을 이용한 선량 및 영상 평가

Evaluation of Radiation Dose and Imaging of the QC Program in Mammography MLO View

  • 이선화 (고려대학교 대학원 바이오융합공학과) ;
  • 김정민 (고려대학교 대학원 바이오융합공학과) ;
  • 권대철 (신한대학교 방사선학과)
  • Lee, Seon-Hwa (Department of Bio-convergence Engineering, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Jung-Min (Department of Bio-convergence Engineering, Korea University) ;
  • Kweon, Dae-Cheol (Department of Radiologic Science, Shinhan University)
  • 투고 : 2015.07.30
  • 심사 : 2015.09.10
  • 발행 : 2015.09.30

초록

목적: 디지털 유방촬영에서 QC 프로그램을 이용하여 방사선 피폭 선량의 감소와 고화질의 영상을 목적으로 하였다. 재료 및 방법: 디지털 유방촬영술에서 QC phantom을 사용하여 노출 방식에 따른 평균유선선량을 MLO view에서 $0^{\circ}C$, $30^{\circ}C$, $45^{\circ}C$, $50^{\circ}C$, $55^{\circ}C$, $70^{\circ}C$, $90^{\circ}C$ 구간에서 측정하였고, Hologic사의 QC 프로그램으로 영상에서 SNR과 CNR을 측정하여 평가하였다. 결과: 평균유선선량은 $90^{\circ}C$ 일 때 1.75 mGy로 최대치였고, $45^{\circ}C$에서 약 6 % 감소한 1.65 mGy 측정되었다. 또한 auto filter에서 1.67 mGy, manual에서는 1.52 mGy의 평균유선선량을 기록하여 노출 방식에 따라 선량이 차이가 있었다. 화질평가의 모든 각도 구간에서 SNR 50~52, CNR 11~12로 근소한 차이를 나타내고, 제조사의 권고치 내에 포함되었다. 결론: MLO view $45^{\circ}C$에서 가장 적은 선량이었고, SNR 및 CNR의 차이는 미미하였다. 이때의 노출방식은 환자의 체형이나 특성을 고려한 설정으로 차이를 두어 불필요한 환자의 피폭 선량을 줄이기 위한 방법이 필요하다.

Purpose: In digital mammography QC program was used for the purpose of reducing low-dose and high-definition images of the radiation dose. Materials and Methods: In digital mammography using a QC phantom according to the average glandular dose in the exposure method MLO view $0^{\circ}C$, $30^{\circ}C$, $45^{\circ}C$, $50^{\circ}C$, $55^{\circ}C$, $70^{\circ}C$, was measured at $90^{\circ}C$ intervals, an image with Hologic QC program to the SNR and CNR was measured to evaluate. Results: The average dose in the MLO view was wired to $90^{\circ}C$ when the maximum was 1.75 mGy, it decreased approximately 6% was measured at $45^{\circ}C$ 1.65 mGy. In addition, 1.67 mGy, manual record, there were an average wired in accordance with the exposure dose and the dose of 1.52 mGy difference in the way auto filter. Image quality evaluation at every angular section SNR 50 ~ 52, shows a slight difference in CNR 11 ~ 12, it was included in the manufacturer's recommended value. Conclusion: The dose was lowest in MLO view $45^{\circ}C$, the difference between SNR and CNR were insignificant. The method of exposure will need a way to reduce the exposure of the patient's body or unnecessary patient by placing a difference in settings in which the characteristics.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Lee IJ, Kim HS, Kim SS, Heo J: A study on the image quality of mammography and the average glandular dose, J Radiol Sci Technol, 25(2), 47-55, 2002
  2. Kweon DC, Lee EM, Park B: Measurement of the compression force and thickness applied during Mammography, J Radiol Sci Technol, 26(2), 29-35, 2003
  3. Kim KS, Kim SH, Han SA, et al.: Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy and Prophylactic Salphingo-Oophorectomy in a BRCA1-Positive Breast Cancer Patient: A Case Report, J Breast Cancer, 11(4), 218-222, 2008 https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2008.11.4.218
  4. Jang SY, Oh WK, Park JB, Jin KH: The energy spectrum and phantom image quality according to mammography target-filter combinations, J Radiol Sci Technol, 7(1), 51-55, 2013
  5. Park HS, Kim HJ, Lee CR, Cho HM, Yoo AR: Standardization of the method of measuring average glandular dose (AGD) and evaluation of the breast composition and thickness for AGD, Korean J Med Phys, 20(1), 21-29, 2009
  6. Kim MY, Kim HS: The evaluation of radiation dose by exposure method in digital magnification mammography: J Radiol Sci Technol, 35(4), 293-298, 2012
  7. Kang BJ, Jung YA, Jeong HS, Jeong JI, Yoo IR, Kim MH: The usefulness of mammography and scintimammography in differential diagnosis of breast tumor, Korean J Nucl Med 38(6), 492-497, 2004
  8. Phantom: http://www.gammex.com/n-portfolio/product page.asp?
  9. Sickles EA: Further experience with microfocal spot magnification mammography in the assessment of clustered breast microcalcification. Radiology, 137, 9-14, 1980 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.137.1.7422866
  10. Kim MY: Evaluation of the usefulness for air gap technique in digital magnification mammography, J Radiol Sci Technol, 37(2), 101-107, 2014
  11. Emanuelli S1, Rizzi E, Amerio S, Fasano C, Cesarani F: Dosimetric and image quality comparison of two digital mammography units with different target/filter combinations: Mo/Mo, Mo/Rh, W/Rh, W/Ag, Radiol Med, 116(2), 310-318, 2011 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-011-0617-y
  12. Sullivan DC, Beam CA, Goodman SM, Watt DL: Measurement of force applied during mammography, Radiology, 181, 355-357, 1991 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.181.2.1924771
  13. Basset LW, Axelrod: A modification of the craniocaudal view in mammography, Radiology, 132, 222-224, 1979 https://doi.org/10.1148/132.1.222
  14. Grisvold JJ, Martin JK: Prebiopsy localization of nonpalpable breast lesions, Am J Roentgenol, 143, 447-481, 1984 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.143.3.447
  15. Homer MJ: Localization of nonpalpable breast lesions: technical aspect of an analysis of 80 cases, Am J Roentgenol, 140, 807-811, 1983 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.140.4.807
  16. Fletcher SW, Elmore JG, Clinical practice: mammographic screening for breast cancer, N Engl J Med, 348, 1672-1680, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp021804
  17. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HHT, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA: Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality, Cancer, 91, 1724-1731, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20010501)91:9<1724::AID-CNCR1190>3.0.CO;2-V
  18. Brnic Z1, Hebrang A.: Breast compression and radiation dose in two different mammographic oblique projections: 45 and 60 degrees, Eur J Radiol, 40(1), 10-15, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0720-048X(01)00317-5
  19. Park HS, Ph Y, Jo HJ, Kim ST, Choi YN, Kim HJ: Comparison study of image quality of direct and indirect conversion digital mammography system, Korean J Med Phys, 21(3), 239-245, 2010