A review about Radiometric Survey in Mammography (RSM) in terms of regulatory documents, recommendations, radiation meters, besides field and laboratories practices shows that there is not many specific information about how these radiation area monitoring tests shall be performed. A search on the website of the most known manufacturers of radiation meters was made, but only one fully comply the requirements for RSM application. Tests with four laboratorial reference chambers, but none specific to RSM, were made submitting them to ISO N 20, 25 and 30 calibration setup (Based on document ISO 4037-1:1996) and their behavior in terms of HVL's and air kerma rate measurements was compared to endorse some evaluations. The result of this work suggests that some RSM performed in Brazil, with nonspecific chambers and calibration can have underestimation of until 60% in those measurements, once a lack of specific information and specific calibration services in this country contributes for this scenario.

The objective of this work was to study the responses of the different luminance meters for a range of applications, with the purpose of quality control in radiodiagnosis (170 a 3500 cd/m2 with white light source). Materials and methods: Were evaluated the calibration factors of 48 luminance meters, distributed in 10 different models for the point of 1000 cd/m2 in 5500K. Results: The sample mean values of Piranha - 657 light probe, Ray Safe - Xi and X2 and Unfors - Light-O-Meter P10 meters, presented greater accuracy (spectral sensitivity f1 < 3% and total error fges < 7,5%, according to the classification of DIN 5032-7 standard) and the sample of Fluke/Nuclear of Associates - 07-621 presented a difference of 34.6% in relation to the reference value with statistical significance. Conclusion: This study showed that for 48 equipments studied, the mean values of the calibration factors of 6 of the 10 models evaluated (which represents 62.4% of the total number of the sample) are convergent to the corrected reference value and/or within the range of ± 4.5% of uncertainty.

Evaluate the performance of the monitors used for diagnosis based on the parameters defined by AAMP. Materials and Methods: Using calibrated instrumentation traceable to NIST and RBC, were evaluated in 15 monitors, according to the procedures described in AAMP's report 03 and the Spanish protocol in the following parameters: the general aspects of image quality, geometric distortion, screen reflection and room illumination, luminance response, luminance dependence, spatial and low contrast resolution, noise, internal reflection blanking and screen chromaticity. Results: 100% compliance for geometric distortion tests and 0% compliance for the luminance dependence test. Conclusions: There are nonspecific monitors for diagnosis being used for these purposes, without routinely checking tests, in rooms with high illumination and dirt on the screens and the non-implementation or inadequacy of acceptance and quality control tests. The monitors declared by the manufacturers as diagnostic specific on average showed a higher compliance rate