Image quality control and dosimetry for digital mammography, using the Normi Mam Digital phantom
Vol 4, Issue 1, 2021
VIEWS - 4829 (Abstract) 3212 (PDF)
Abstract
In Costa Rica, there is no explicit recommendation from the competent authorities for the use of a specific phantom, so experts must explore what suppliers offer, among which the Normi Mam Digital phantom from PTW stands out. This article presents the results of the dosimetry and image quality control applied to the Normi Mam Digital phantom to validate it as equipment that complies with the recommendations of the Human Health Series No. 17. The results obtained were satisfactory, proving that the equipment complies with the tolerances recommended by international health bodies.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. World Health Organization (WHO). Cáncer de mama: Prevención y control (Spanish) [Breast cancer: Prevention and control] [Internet]. 2015. Available from: http://www.who.int/topics/cancer/breastcancer/en/.
2. Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Cáncer de mama en las Américas (Spanish) [Breast cancer in the Americas] [Internet]. 2014. Available from: https://www.paho.org/es/temas/cancer-mama.
3. Harvey J, Gard C, Miglioretti D, et al. Reported mammographic density: Film-Screen versus digital acquisition. Radiology 2013; 266(3): 752–758. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12120221.
4. International Atomic Energy Agency. Human health series no. 17. Quality assurance programme for digital mammography. 2011. Available from: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1482_web.pdf.
5. González-Robledo L, González-Robledo MC, Nigenda G, et al. Acciones gubernamentales para la detección temprana del cáncer de mama en América Latina. Retos a futuro (Spanish) [Governmental actions for early detection of breast cancer in Latin America. Challenges for the future]. Salud Pública México 2010; 52(6). doi: 10.1590/S0036-36342010000600009.
6. Chiarelli AM, Edwards SA, Prummel MA, et al. Digital compared with screen-film mammography: Performance measures in concurrent cohorts within an organized breast screening program. Radiology 2013; 268(3): 684–693. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13122567.
7. Kanal M, Krupinski E, Berns E, et al. ACR-AAPM-SIIM practice parameter for determinants of image quality in digital mammography. Journal of Digital Imaging 2013; 26: 10–25. doi: 10.1007/s10278-012-9521-3.
8. Dance DR, Young KC, Van Engen RE. Further factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Physics in Medicine and Biology 2009; 54(14): 4361–4372. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/14/002.
9. De las Herras H, Shofer F, Tiller B, et al. A phantom using titanium and Landolt rings for image quality evaluation in mammography. Physics in Medicine and Biology 2013; 58(8): 17–30. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/8/L17.
10. Huda W, Sajewicz AM, Ogden KM, et al. How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography? Academic Radiology 2002; 9: 764–772.
11. International Atomic Energy Agency. Human health series no. 2. Quality assurance programme for screen film mammography [Internet]. 2009. Available from: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publica-tions/PDF/Pub1381_web.pdf.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24294/irr.v4i1.1731
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.