Abstract
A comparison, in terms of the optimal energy that maximizes the image quality between
digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM) was performed in a
MAMMOMAT Inspiration system (Siemens) based on amorphous selenium flat panel detector.
In this paper we measured the image quality by the signal difference-to-noise ratio
(SDNR), and the patient risk by the mean glandular dose (MGD). Using these quantities
we compared the optimal voltage that maximizes the image quality both in breast tomosynthesis
and standard mammography acquisition mode. The comparison for the two acquisition
modes was performed for a W/Rh anode filter combinations by using a 4.5 cm tissue equivalent mammography phantom. Moreover, in order to check if the used
equipment was quantum noise limited, the relation of the relative noise with respect
to the detector dose was evaluated. Results showed that in the tomosynthesis acquisition
mode the optimal voltage is 28 kV, whereas in standard mammography the optimal voltage is 30 kV. The automatic exposure control (AEC) of the system selects 28 kV as optimal voltage both for DBT and DM. Monte Carlo simulations showed a qualitative
agreement with the AEC selection system, since an optimal monochromatic energy of
20 keV was found both for DBT and DM. Moreover, the check about the noise showed that
the system is not completely quantum noise limited, and this issue could explain the
experimental slight difference in terms of optimal voltage between DBT and DM. According
to these results, the use of higher voltage settings is not justified for the improvement
of the image quality during a DBT examination.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Physica Medica: European Journal of Medical PhysicsAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings.Eur Radiol. 2008; 18: 2817-2825
- Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization.Radiology. 2012; 263: 35-42
- X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study.Med Phys. 2006; 33: 4337-4349
- Tissue simulation and phantom technology. 2014 ([accessed 15.01.14])
- 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. 2000; 73: 1056-1067
TLD material specification. THERMO SCIENTIFIC web site. http://thermoscientific.com.
- Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography.Med Phys. 2008; 36: 2414-2423
- A Monte Carlo study of the influence of focal spot size, intensity distribution, breast thickness and magnification on spatial resolution of an a-Se digital mammography system using the generalized MTF.Phys Med Eur J Med Phys. 2014; 30: 286-295
- MCNPX user's manual version 2.7.0.Los Alamos National Security, 2011
- Image quality simulation in X-ray mammography.Il Nuovo Cimento B. 2009; 124: 205-222
- An alternative method for noise analysis using pixel variance as part of quality control procedures on digital mammography systems.Phys Med Biol. 2009; 54: 6809-6822
http://https://w9.siemens.com [accessed January 2014].
Taibi A. Personal communication; 2014.
- Anatomical complexity in breast parenchyma and its implications for optimal breast imaging strategies.Med Phys. March 2012; 39
Article info
Publication history
Published online: March 07, 2014
Accepted:
February 13,
2014
Received in revised form:
February 9,
2014
Received:
November 29,
2013
Identification
Copyright
© 2014 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
