Advertisement

Recent Trends in Screen-Film Mammography: Technical Factors and Radiation Dose

  • A. G. Haus
Part of the Recent Results in Cancer Research book series (RECENTCANCER, volume 105)

Abstract

The trend in screen-film mammography is toward high-contrast, high-resolution images. In this article technical factors associated with X-ray equipment and/or the screen-film combination which affects radiographic contrast, blurring (unsharpness), and noise will be reviewed. Radiation dose will be discussed in terms of measurement, calculation, and theoretical risk.

Keywords

Modulation Transfer Function Focal Spot Size Developer Temperature Geometric Resolution Mammographic Unit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold BA, Bjarngard BE, Klopping JC (1973) A modified pinhole camera method of investigation of X-ray tube focal spots. Phys Med Biol 18: 540–549PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes GT, Brezovich IA (1978) The intensity of scattered radiation in mammography. Radiography 126:243–247Google Scholar
  3. Barnes GT (1979) Characteristics of scatter. In: Logan WW, Muntz EP (eds) Reduced dose mammography. Masson, New York, pp 223–242Google Scholar
  4. Barnes GT, Chakraborty DP (1982) Radiographic mottle and patient exposure in mammography. Radiology 145: 815–821PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Boag JW, Stacey AJ, Davis R (1976) Radiation exposure to the patient in xeroradiography. Br J Radiol 49: 253–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braun M (1978) X-ray tube performance characteristics and their effect on radiologic image quality (recent and future trends in medical imaging). Proc Soc Photo-Opt Instrum Engineers 152:94–103Google Scholar
  7. Chan HP, Sepahdari S, Doi K (1983) Physical and clinical evaluation of ultra-high strip-density grids in mammography. Radiology (abstract) 149: 277 (Special Edition)Google Scholar
  8. DHEW Publication (NIH) 77–1400 (1977) Final reports of national cancer institute ad hoc working groups on mammography screening for breast cancer and a summary report of their joint findings and recommendations. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Dodd GD (1981) Radiation detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. Cancer 47:1766–1769PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dubuque GL, Cacak RK, Hendee WR (1977) Backscatter factors in the mammographic energy range. Med Phys 4: 397–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feig SA (1983) Low-dose mammography: assessment of theoretical risk. In: Feig SA, McLelland R (eds) Breast carcinoma: current diagnosis and treatment. Masson, New York, pp 69–76Google Scholar
  12. Fewell TR, Shuping RE (1978) A comparison of mammographic x-ray spectra. Radiology 128: 211–216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fewell TR, Shuping RE (1978) HEW publication (FDA) 79–8071), (Handbook of mammographic x-ray spectra)Google Scholar
  14. Fundamentals of Radiography (1980) Health Sciences Markets Division, Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, Twelfth EditionGoogle Scholar
  15. Hammerstein GR, Miller DW, White DR et al. (1979) Absorbed radiation dose in mammography. Radiology 130:485–491PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Haus AG, Metz CE, Chiles JT et al. (1976) The effect of x-ray spectra from molybdenum and tungsten target tubes on image quality in mammography. Radiology 118: 705–709PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Haus AG, Metz CE, Doi K (1977) Determination of x-ray spectra incident on and transmitted through breast tissue. Radiology 124: 511–513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Haus AG (1977) The effect of geometric unsharpness in mammography and breast xeroradiography. In: Logan WW (ed) Breast carcinoma. The Radiologist’s expanding role. Wiley, New York, pp 93–108Google Scholar
  19. Haus AG, Cowart RW, Dodd GD et al. (1978) A method of evaluating and minimizing geometric unsharpness for mammographic x-ray units. Radiology 128: 775–778PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Haus AG, Paulus DD, Dodd GD et al. (1979) Magnification mammography: evaluation of screen film and xeroradiographic techniques. Radiology 133: 223–226PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Haus AG, Meyer J, Guebert DK (1981) Evaluation of the resolution limit for radiological procedures. In: Gray JE, Haus AG, Properzio WS, Mulvaney JA (eds) Application of optical instrumentation in medicine IX. Proc Soc Photo-Opt Instrum Engineers 273:177–185Google Scholar
  22. Haus AG (1983) Physical principles and radiation dose in mammography. In: Feig SA, McLelland R (eds) Breast carcinoma: current diagnosis and treatment. Masson, New York, pp 99–114Google Scholar
  23. Jans RJ, Butler PF, McCrohan JL Jr (1979) The status of film-screen mammography. Results of the BENT Study. Radiology 132:197–200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Jennings RJ, Eastgate RJ, Siedband MP (1981) Optimal x-ray spectra for screen-film mammography. Med Phys 8: 629–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson GA, O’Foghludha F (1980) Simulation of mammographic x-ray spectra. Med Phys 7: 189–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones CH (1982) Methods of breast imaging. Phys Med Biol 27: 463–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lassen M, Gorson RO (1981) Patient dose in diagnostic radiology (refresher course handout at 67th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, Chicago)Google Scholar
  28. Lester RG (1977) Risk versus benefit in mammography. Radiology 124:1–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Malik S, Masterson ME, Hunt M (1983) Effects of kVp variation and x-ray tube filtration on the mammographic examination application of optical instrumentation in medicine XI. Proc SPIE 419:42–50Google Scholar
  30. Miller DW, Masterson ME (1979) Mammography phantom development at the northeast center for radiological physics. In: Logan WW, Muntz EP (eds) Reduced dose mammography. Masson, New York, pp 307–308Google Scholar
  31. Muntz EP (May/June) (1979) Relative carcinogenic effects of different mammography techniques. Med Phys 6: 205–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. NCRP Report 66 (1980) Mammography. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Pochin EE (1978) Why be quantitative about radiation risk estimates? Lecture No 2: The Lauriston S. Taylor lecture series in radiation protection and measurements. National Council on Radiation Protection and MeasurementsGoogle Scholar
  34. Roeck WW, Milne ENC (1978) A highly accurate focal spot camera — laboratory and field model. Radiology 127: 779–783PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rossman K (1964) Measurement of the modulation transfer function of radiographic systems containing fluorescent screens. Phys Med Biol 9 (4): 551–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roth B, Hamilton JF Jr, Bunch CP (1979) Fundamental aspects of mammographic photoreceptors: screens. In: Logan WW, Muntz EP (eds) Reduced dose mammography. Masson, New York, pp 529–536Google Scholar
  37. Rothenberg LN, Kirch RLA, Snyder RE (1975) Patient exposures from film and xeroradiographic mammographic techniques. Radiology 117: 701–703PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Shrivastava PN (1981) Radiation dose in mammography: an energy-balance approach. Radiology 140:483–490PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Siedband MP, Jennings RJ, Eastgate RJ (1977) X-ray beam filtration for mammography. In: Gray JE, Hendee WR (eds) Application of optical instrumentation in medicine VI. Proc Soc Photo-Opt Instrum Engineers 127: 204–207Google Scholar
  40. Seidman H (1980) Statistical and epidemiological data on cancer of the breast. American Cancer Society, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Stanton L, Day JL, Bratteli SD et al. (1981) Comarison of ion chamber and TLD dosimetry in mammography. Med Phys 8: 792–798PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stanton L, Villafana T, Day JL et al. (1984) Dose evaluation in mammography. Radiology 150: 577–584PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Wayrynen RE (1979) Fundamental aspects of mammographic receptors film process. In: Logan WW, Muntz EP (eds) Reduced dose mammography. Masson, New York, pp 521–528Google Scholar
  44. White DR, Martin RJ, Darlison R (1977) Epoxy resin based tissue substitutes. Br J Radiol 50: 814–821PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yester MV, Barnes GT, King MA (1981) Experimental measurements of the scatter reduction obtained in mammography with a scanning multiple slit assembly. Med Phys 8:158–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. G. Haus
    • 1
  1. 1.Health Sciences DivisionEastman Kodak Company, Corporate PlaceRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations