Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.17946/JRST.2015.38.3.05

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

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)
Publication Information
Journal of radiological science and technology / v.38, no.3, 2015 , pp. 221-228 More about this Journal
Abstract
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.
Keywords
Digital mammography; Oblique view; Mean glandular dose; Phantom;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 8  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
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   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI
12 Sullivan DC, Beam CA, Goodman SM, Watt DL: Measurement of force applied during mammography, Radiology, 181, 355-357, 1991   DOI
13 Basset LW, Axelrod: A modification of the craniocaudal view in mammography, Radiology, 132, 222-224, 1979   DOI
14 Grisvold JJ, Martin JK: Prebiopsy localization of nonpalpable breast lesions, Am J Roentgenol, 143, 447-481, 1984   DOI
15 Homer MJ: Localization of nonpalpable breast lesions: technical aspect of an analysis of 80 cases, Am J Roentgenol, 140, 807-811, 1983   DOI
16 Fletcher SW, Elmore JG, Clinical practice: mammographic screening for breast cancer, N Engl J Med, 348, 1672-1680, 2003   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI
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