Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system

  • Physics
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The signal difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR) between aluminium sheets and a homogeneous background was measured for various radiation qualities and breast thicknesses to determine the optimal radiation quality when using a Novation DR mammography system. Breast simulating phantoms, with a thickness from 2 cm to 7 cm, and aluminium sheet, with a thickness of 0.2 mm, were used. Three different combinations of anode/filter material and a wide range of tube voltages were employed for each phantom thickness. Each radiation quality was studied using three different dose levels. The tungsten (W) anode and rhodium (Rh) filter combination achieved the specified SDNR at the lowest mean glandular dose for all the phantom thicknesses and X-ray tube voltages. The difference between the doses for different anode/filter combinations increased with the phantom thickness. For a 5-cm phantom, with a peak tube voltage of 27 kV and a SDNR of 5, the mean glandular dose associated with the use of W/Rh was reduced by 49% when compared to the molybdenum/molybdenum (Mo/Mo) anode/filter combination and by 33% when compared to Mo/Rh. Based on these measurements, the use of the W/Rh anode/filter can be recommended. It remains important, however, to select the appropriate dose level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. van Ongeval C, Bosmans H, Van Steen A, Joossens K, Celis V, Van Goethem M, Verslegers I, Nijs K, Rogge F, Marchal G (2006) Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen-film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial. Eur Radiol 16:1360–1366. DOI 10.1007/s00330-005-0134-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Saunders RS Jr, Samei E, Jesneck JL, Lo JL (2005) Physical characterization of a prototype selenium-based full field digital mammography detector. Med Phys 32:588–599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Doyle P, Martin CJ, Gentle D (2006) Application of contrast-to-noise ration in optimizing beam quality for digital chest radiography: comparison of experimental measurements and theoretical simulations. Phys Med Biol 51:2953–2970

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gingold EL, Xizeng W, Barnes GT (1995) Contrast and dose with Mo-Mo, Mo-Rh and Rh-Rh target-filter combinations in mammography. Radiology 195:639–644

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Desponds L, Depeursinge C, Grecescu M, Hessler C, Samiri A, Valley JF (1991) Influence of anode and filter material on image quality and glandular dose for screen-film mammography. Phys Med Biol 36:1165–1182

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Jennings RJ, Eastgate RJ, Siedband MP, Ergun DL (1981) Optimal X-ray spectra for screen-film mammography. Med Phys 8:629–639

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dance DR, Thilander Klang A, Sandborg M, Skinner CL, Castellano S, Alm Carlsson G (2000) Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. Br J Radiol 73:1056–1067

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fahrig R, Yaffe MJ (1994) Optimization of spectral shape in digital mammography: Dependence on anode material, breast thickness, and lesion type. Med Phys 21:1473–1481

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fahrig R, Yaffe MJ (1994) A model for optimization of spectral shape in digital mammography. Med Phys 21:1463–1471

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fahrig R, Rowlands JA, Yaffe MJ (1996) X-ray imaging with amorphous selenium: Optimal spectra for digital mammography. Med Phys 23:557–567

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR (2003) Optimization of technique factors for silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose. Med Phys 30:334–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Obenauer S, Hermann K-P, Grabbe E (2003) Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthromorphic breast phantom study. Br J Radiol 76:478–482

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Venkatakrishnan V, Yavuz M, Niklason LT, Opsahl-Ong B, Han S, Landberg C, Nevin R, Hamberg L, Kopans D (1999) Experimental and theoretical spectral optimization for digital mammography. Proceedings of the SPIE 3659:142–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Young KC, Oduko JM, Bosmans H (2005) Optimal beam quality selection in digital mammography, In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Digital Mammography:105–109

  15. Young KC (2004) Breast dose surveys in the NHSBSP: software and instruction manual, Version 2.0. NHSBSP Report 04/05, Guildford

  16. Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Korte CJ (2000) Additional factors for estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 45:3225–3240

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Moore AC, Dance DR, Evans DS, Lawinski CP, Pitcher EM, Rust A, Young KC (2005) Commissioning and routine testing of mammographic X-ray systems, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. IPEM Report No. 89

  18. Abramoff MD, Magelhaes PJ, Ram SJ (2004) Image processing with Image. J Biophoton Int 11:36–42

    Google Scholar 

  19. Carton AK, Bosmans H, Van Ongeval C (2003) Contrast visibility of simulated microcalcifications in full field mammography systems. Proceedings of the SPIE 5034:412–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edition. European Communities, Luxembourg: chapter 2

  21. Pachoud M, Lepori D, Valley J-F, Verdun FR (2004) A new test phantom with different breast tissue compositions for image quality assessment in conventional and digital mammography. Phys Med Biol 49:5267–5281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pöyry P, Zanca F, Bosmans H (2006) Experimental investigation of the necessity for extra flat field corrections in quality control of digital mammography. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Digital Mammography:475–481

  23. Young KC, Cook JJH, Oduko JM (2006) Use of the European Protocol to Optimise a Digital Mammography System. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Digital Mammography:362–369

  24. ICRP 60 (1991) 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 21:1–3

    Google Scholar 

  25. Smans K, Bosmans H, Xiao M, Carton AK, Marchal G (2006) Towards a proposition of diagnostic (dose) reference level for mammographic acquisitions in breast screening measurements in Belgium. Rad Prot Dosim 117(1–3):321–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Young KC, Burch A, Oduko JM (2005) Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 2001 and 2002. Br J Radiol 78:207–218

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Burgess AE, Jacobson FL, Judy PF (2001) Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med Phys 28:419–437

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was performed in the frame of a multi-centre project within the activities of the SENTINEL project. The SENTINEL project, contract FP6-012909, was partially supported and has received funding from the EC-Euratom Sixth Framework Programme. We are grateful to Sabine Deprez for the preliminary study that correlated CDMAM reading and SDNR measurements and to Dr. Thomas Mertelmeier (Siemens, Erlangen) and Markku Tapiovaara (STUK) for discussing the results of our experiments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. STUK-Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, P.O. Box 14, 00881, Helsinki, Finland

    Paula Toroi

  2. Department of Radiology, Leuven University Centre of Medical Physics in Radiology, University Hospitals, Leuven, Belgium

    Paula Toroi, Federica Zanca, Chantal van Ongeval, Guy Marchal & Hilde Bosmans

  3. National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, GU2 7XX, UK

    Kenneth C. Young

Authors
  1. Paula Toroi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Federica Zanca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kenneth C. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chantal van Ongeval
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Guy Marchal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hilde Bosmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paula Toroi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Toroi, P., Zanca, F., Young, K.C. et al. Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system. Eur Radiol 17, 2368–2375 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0574-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0574-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation