|
|
||||||||
Radiology, Vol 179, 143-148, Copyright © 1991 by Radiological Society of North America
ARTICLES |
X Wu, GT Barnes and DM Tucker
Department of Radiology, University of Alabama Hospitals and Clinics, Birmingham 35233.
The average glandular tissue dose in mammography is generally determined from published tables with knowledge of the breast entrance skin exposure, x-ray tube target material, beam quality (half-value layer [HVL]), breast thickness, and breast composition. Using a carefully designed and experimentally validated Monte Carlo simulation, the authors found that average glandular dose also depends on x-ray tube voltage and, to a lesser extent, on x-ray tube voltage waveform. For currently employed molybdenum target-molybdenum filter source assemblies, a difference in dose of 10% or more is possible in estimating the average glandular dose obtained with different x-ray tube voltages but with the same HVL. Presented are normalized average glandular tissue doses in units of radiation absorbed dose per unit entrance skin exposure for different tube voltages and tube voltage waveforms as well as for different breast thicknesses and compositions and beam filtrations.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
D. Bor, S. Tukel, T. Olgar, T. Toklu, E. Aydin, and O. Akyol INVESTIGATION OF MEAN GLANDULAR DOSE VERSUS COMPRESSED BREAST THICKNESS RELATIONSHIP FOR MAMMOGRAPHY Radiat Prot Dosimetry, April 16, 2008; (2008) ncn140v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
I. Sechopoulos, S. Suryanarayanan, S. Vedantham, C. J. D'Orsi, and A. Karellas Radiation Dose to Organs and Tissues from Mammography: Monte Carlo and Phantom Study Radiology, December 4, 2007; (2007) 2462070256. [Abstract] [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
K.-H. Ng, N. Jamal, and L. DeWerd Global quality control perspective for the physical and technical aspects of screen-film mammography--image quality and radiation dose Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2006; 121(4): 445 - 451. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. J. Khoury, V. S. Barros, and C. Lopes Evaluation of patient dose for mammography in Pernambuco, Brazil Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 20, 2005; 115(1-4): 337 - 339. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. K. Nishino, X. Wu, and R. F. Johnson Jr. Thickness of Molybdenum Filter and Squared Contrast-to-Noise Ratio per Dose for Digital Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2005; 185(4): 960 - 963. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. R. Dance, R. A. Hunt, P. R. Bakic, A. D. A. Maidment, M. Sandborg, G. Ullman, and G. Alm Carlsson Breast dosimetry using high-resolution voxel phantoms Radiat Prot Dosimetry, May 17, 2005; 114(1-3): 359 - 363. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H M Warren-Forward and L Duggan Towards in vivo TLD dosimetry in mammography Br. J. Radiol., May 1, 2004; 77(917): 426 - 432. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N Jamal, K-H Ng, and D McLean A study of mean glandular dose during diagnostic mammography in Malaysia and some of the factors affecting it Br. J. Radiol., April 1, 2003; 76(904): 238 - 245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. L. Fricke, L. F. Donnelly, D. P. Frush, T. Yoshizumi, V. Varchena, S. A. Poe, and J. Lucaya In-Plane Bismuth Breast Shields for Pediatric CT: Effects on Radiation Dose and Image Quality Using Experimental and Clinical Data Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2003; 180(2): 407 - 411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. R. Guest, M. A. Helvie, H.-P. Chan, L. M. Hadjiiski, J. E. Bailey, and M. A. Roubidoux Adverse Effects of Increased Body Weight on Quantitative Measures of Mammographic Image Quality Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2000; 175(3): 805 - 810. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Kimme-Smith New Digital Mammography Systems May Require Different X-ray Spectra and, Therefore, More General Normalized Glandular Dose Values Radiology, October 1, 1999; 213(1): 7 - 10. [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
J. M. Boone Glandular Breast Dose for Monoenergetic and High-Energy X-ray Beams: Monte Carlo Assessment Radiology, October 1, 1999; 213(1): 23 - 37. [Abstract] [Full Text] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |