Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wu, X
Right arrow Articles by Tucker, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wu, X
Right arrow Articles by Tucker, D.

Radiology, Vol 179, 143-148, Copyright © 1991 by Radiological Society of North America


ARTICLES

Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography

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:


Home page
Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
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]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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]


Home page
Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
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]


Home page
Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
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]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
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]


Home page
Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
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]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
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]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
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]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
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]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
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]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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
Copyright © 1991 by the Radiological Society of North America.