HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Suleiman, O. H. Articles by Houn, F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Suleiman, O. H. Articles by Houn, F.

Mammography in the 1990s: The United States and Canada

¹ U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-240), Division of Mammography Quality and Radiation Programs, 1350 Piccard Dr, Rockville, MD 20850 (O.H.S., D.C.S., J.L.M., F.H.)
² Consumer and Clinical Radiation Hazards Division, Radiation Protection Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (G.R.S.).

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Figure 1. Mean glandular radiation dose and phantom image scores by survey year. Phantom image scores without artifact subtraction are reported. The following phantoms were used: in 1985, Radiation Measurements, Inc (RMI) 152 (4.7 cm) with "C" insert; in 1988, RMI 156 (4.2 cm) with "C" insert; 1992 to present, RMI 156 with "D" insert.

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Figure 2a. (a) Distribution of mean glandular radiation doses at U.S. mammography facilities. (b) Distribution of mean glandular radiation doses at Canadian mammography facilities.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Figure 2b. (a) Distribution of mean glandular radiation doses at U.S. mammography facilities. (b) Distribution of mean glandular radiation doses at Canadian mammography facilities.

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Figure 3a. (a) Distribution of mammographic phantom image scores at U.S. mammography facilities. The protocol used to score phantom images in 1992 did not include artifact subtraction. The corresponding 1997 scores were recalculated without artifact subtraction to allow comparison. (b) Distribution of mammographic phantom image scores at Canadian facilities. Phantom images were scored by using the same protocol applied in the 1992 NEXT mammography survey (ie, without artifact subtraction).

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Figure 3b. (a) Distribution of mammographic phantom image scores at U.S. mammography facilities. The protocol used to score phantom images in 1992 did not include artifact subtraction. The corresponding 1997 scores were recalculated without artifact subtraction to allow comparison. (b) Distribution of mammographic phantom image scores at Canadian facilities. Phantom images were scored by using the same protocol applied in the 1992 NEXT mammography survey (ie, without artifact subtraction).

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Figure 4a. (a) Distribution of phantom image optical densities at U.S. mammography facilities. (b) Distribution of phantom image optical densities at Canadian mammography facilities.

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Figure 4b. (a) Distribution of phantom image optical densities at U.S. mammography facilities. (b) Distribution of phantom image optical densities at Canadian mammography facilities.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Figure 5a. (a) Distribution of standard cycle processing speeds at U.S. mammography facilities. (b) Distribution of standard cycle processing speeds at Canadian mammography facilities.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Figure 5b. (a) Distribution of standard cycle processing speeds at U.S. mammography facilities. (b) Distribution of standard cycle processing speeds at Canadian mammography facilities.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Figure 6a. Distribution of darkroom fog levels at (a) U.S. facilities and (b) Canadian facilites.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Figure 6b. Distribution of darkroom fog levels at (a) U.S. facilities and (b) Canadian facilites.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Figure 7. Mean exposure times for mammographic phantom imaging in the United States by survey year. Data points from the Canadian study are also shown. Data values reflect the exposure times for imaging a 4.2-cm equivalent phantom. The mean exposure times are on the left axis, and the percentage of facilities that had mean exposure times longer than 1 second are on the right axis.