Comparison between Recorded and Measured Radiation Doses in Diagnostic Full-field Digital Mammography: A Phantom Study

Abstract

Objectives: There are concerns regarding the difference between directly recorded and measured entrance skin dose (ESD) and average glandular dose (AGD) in full-field digital mammography (FFDM). The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of different exposure parameters on ESD and AGD recorded directly and measured from an FFDM unit using a phantom. Material and Methods: The ESD and AGD of 27 FFDM (craniocaudal [CC] projection) images of tissue-equivalent phantoms were acquired using a general electric (GE Senographe Essential) FFDM unit. The phantoms were used to simulate three different breast thicknesses and compositions. Tube potential, tube load, and target/ filter combinations also were recorded directly from the FFDM unit. Results: The mean differences between the directly recorded and measured ESD and AGD were 0.23 and 0.080, respectively. The 95% confidence intervals for ESD and AGD were 0.1–0.36 and 0.04–0.10, respectively. Results of paired t-test showed statistically significant difference between the directly recorded and measured ESD (P = .001) and AGD (P < .001). A positive and significant correlation was noted between the directly recorded and measured ESD (r = 0.85, P < .001) and AGD (r = 0.91, P < .001). Conclusion: This observation confirms that we can use the directly recorded doses obtained from an FFDM for quality control program.

An evaluation of the present status of quality assurance program implementation in digital mammography facilities in a developing country

“…The wide distribution and moderately right-skewed distribution in the box plots of HVL, D G , SNR, and CNR (figures 3-6) contrast with the narrowed distribution previously reported [16,25], and this could be attributable to the intermittent QAP/QC evaluation reported in this work, which increases the probability to cross the threshold of out-of-tolerance values [3,9,16,34,36]. However, the average HVL [25,37] and D G [8,16,17,37] results obtained agreed with those previously reported.…”