1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.2912177
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/35/6/10.1118/1.2912177
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/35/6/10.1118/1.2912177

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Schematic side view of a 5 cm phantom with a 2 cm signal block at the center, two 1 cm blank blocks, and two 0.5 cm skins on the surface.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Image of a phantom showing the calcification (left) and mass equivalent step wedges (the fiber-like objects were not used in this study). The chest wall edge of the phantom is the left edge of the image. The ROIs shown are used for signal and noise calculations (see text).

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Mean glandular dose, for each of the breast types studied, delivered by each FFDM system using the AEC mode that automatically selects the greatest number of acquisition parameters. Doses for the Senographe 2000D are those delivered using the Standard AOP mode. For the Senoscan, the doses are those delivered using the manual technique resulting in the highest FOM value for that breast type.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Normalized signal values for each of the four steps of the microcalcification stepwedge in the 7 cm 50/50 phantom, for the W/Rh target/filter combination of the Novation. The superposition of the four step curves demonstrates that the shape of the FOM curves vs kVp is independent of step height.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Normalized signal values for all four steps of the microcalcification stepwedge in the 3 cm 30/70 phantom, for the three target/filter combinations of the Senographe 2000D. The superposition, for a given combination, of the four step curves demonstrates that the measurement of relative target/filter performance is independent of step height.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Contrast vs kVp, 5 cm 50/50, target/filter combinations resulting in the greatest FOM value.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

vs kVp, 5 cm 50/50, target/filter combinations resulting in the greatest FOM value.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

SNR vs kVp, 5 cm 50/50, target/filter combinations resulting in the greatest FOM value.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

FOM vs kVp, GE 50/50, all available target/filter combinations.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

FOM vs kVp, Siemens 50/50, all available target/filter combinations.

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

FOM vs kVp, Hologic 50/50, all available target/filter combinations.

Image of FIG. 12.
FIG. 12.

FOM vs kVp, Fischer 50/50, all available target/filter combinations.

Image of FIG. 13.
FIG. 13.

FOM vs kVp, Fuji 50/50, all available target/filter combinations.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

FFDM units tested. Also listed are the available targets, filters, and the range of kVp values tested along with the corresponding HVLs. kVp is in units of kV and HVL in mm of Al.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Summary of exposure parameters resulting in the highest FOM value for each FFDM system, for each of the nine breast types tested. Parameters are in the form target/filter/kVp/HVL, with kVp in kV and HVL in mm Al.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/35/6/10.1118/1.2912177
2008-05-20
2014-04-25
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/35/6/10.1118/1.2912177
10.1118/1.2912177
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM