Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7742/jksr.2011.5.3.111

The Average Glandular Dose in Mammography and Quality Control of the Equipment Status  

Jung, Hong-Ryang (Department of Radiological Science, Hanseo University)
Hwang, Su-Lyun (Department of Radiology Kwanghye Hospital)
Ha, Bon-Cheol (Department of Radiology, Chung-Ang University Medical Center)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology / v.5, no.3, 2011 , pp. 111-120 More about this Journal
Abstract
A purpose of study is to develop optimization and radiation dose exposure reference level by measuring actual radiation dose in condition of quality control of mammography equipment for 39 clinics. The result were as follows. First, we measured T-test separating radiology from general clinic. According to the test, mAs was measured at average 78.58 mAs; radiology at 80.16 mAs and general clinic at 77.22 mAs. And, kerma rate was measured at average 7.71 mGy/mR; radiology at 8.94 mGy/mR and general clinic at 6.66 mGy/mR. HVL was measured at average 0.42 mmAl; radiology at 0.40 mmAl and general clinic at 0.43 mmAl. Average glandular dose was measured at average 1.14 mGy; radiology at 1.09 mGy and general clinic at 1.19 mGy. Second, we measured value of mAs, HVL, processing method and so on dividing two groups. And, we compared and analyzed average value measured using T-test. As a result, there was significance level in SID(P<0.05). There was significance level in mAs(P<0.05). Because processor was measured at 1.00 mGy and CR at 1.17 mGy according to the processing method of radiology. Third, according to the correlation analysis, radiology had significance level between average glandular dose and mAs and general clinic had significance level between average glandular dose and SID(P<0.05). Forth, as a result of regression analysis, mAs affected 22.7%t of average glandular dose and SID affected 21.7% of average glandular dose, which had significance level(P<0.05). And, mAs affected 29.0% of average glandular dose in radiology and SID affected 29.1% of average glandular dose in general clinic, which was most influential.
Keywords
Mammography; Average Glandular Dose; Quality Control; Radiation Dose; Reference Level in Diagnostic;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 4  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 식품의약품안전청, 유방엑스선검사에서의 환자선량 권고량 가이드라인, p.22, 2008.
2 홍동희, "유방영상검사에서 screen-film, CR, DR에 관한 Image Quality 비교 연구", 석사학위논문, pp.6-12, 2005.
3 H. S. Park, H. J. Kim, C. L. Lee, H. M. Cho, A. R. Yu, "Standardization of the Methode of Measuring Average Glandular Dose(AGD) and Evaluation of the Breast Composition and Thickness for AGD" Med Phys, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.21-29, 2009.
4 KFDA, " Radiation Health Newsletter" (38) Vol. 11, No. 1, 2005.
5 G. S. Shin, J. H. Choi, Y. H. Kiim, J. M. Kim, C. K. Kim, J. H. Yang, "Patent Dose in Mammmography" Korean Society of Radiogical Science, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.293-295, 2005.
6 오기근, "유방촬영시 환자피폭선량 진단참고준위확립", 한국의료영상품질관리원, p.3, 2006.
7 I. J. Lee, K. Y. Park, S. S. Kim, "Research on the Actual Condition of Mammography and Space Scattered Dose in Mammography Room" Korean Society of Radiogical Science, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.21-28, 2006.
8 식품의약품안전청, "유방엑스선검사에서의 환자선량 권고량 가이드라인" pp.1-2, 2008
9 식품의약품안전청, 의료기기평가부, "유방촬영용장치의 검사기준 및 시험방법 해설" 방사선안전관리 시리즈, No. 4, 2002.
10 H. J. Yang, S. K. Ko, M. H. Joo, "Evaluation of MTF Image by Target/Filter Combined of X-ray Tube Using Mammgraphy" Korean Society of Radiogical Science, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp.113-119, 2007
11 N. Jamal. K. H. NG, D. Mclean, "A study of mean glandular dose during diagnostic mammmography in Malaysia and some of the factors affecting it" Br J Radiol, 76, pp.238-245, 2003   DOI   ScienceOn
12 고경희, "유방촬영의 정도관리" 대한유방검진학회지, Vol. 3, No. 1, ppp.75-79, 2006.
13 H. C. Kim, P. G. Cho, S. S. Kim, J. H. Choi, Y. H. Kim, "A Survey on Radiation Esposure of Patient in Mammography" Korean Society of Radiogical Science, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.55-60, 2004.
14 IAEA, "International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources" EADA Safety Series, No. 115, pp.279-280, 1996.