BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Meeson, S
Right arrow Articles by Ramsdale, M L
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Meeson, S
Right arrow Articles by Ramsdale, M L
British Journal of Radiology 74 (2001),825-835 © 2001 The British Institute of Radiology

Full paper

Implications of using high contrast mammography X-ray film–screen combinations

S Meeson, PhD1, K C Young, PhD1, A Rust, MSc2, M G Wallis, FRCR3, J Cooke, MRCP, FRCR4 and M L Ramsdale, MSc2

1National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography and 2Regional Radiation Protection Service, Department of Medical Physics, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford GU2 7XX, 3Warwickshire, Solihull & Coventry Breast Screening Centre, Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital, Stoney Stanton Road, Coventry CV1 4FH and 4Jarvis Breast Screening Centre, 60 Stoughton Road, Guildford GU1 1LJ, UK

The objective of this study was to determine the implications of using Fuji AD-M and Kodak min-R 2000, two high contrast X-ray film types developed for mammography. Evaluation of the Fuji AD-M film was divided into two parts. The first part was a contralateral comparison between mammograms using Fuji AD-M and Fuji UM-MA HC film–screen combinations. Fuji AD-M contrast was about 25% higher than that of Fuji UM-MA HC. The effect of increased contrast on image quality was investigated by visually grading the quality of information in different parts of each mammogram. Fuji AD-M film was generally judged to be better for overall diagnosis. However, 2.3% of mammograms produced using Fuji AD-M film were not acceptable and might have led to a technical recall of the patient. In the second part of this study, sets of mammograms from women attending mobile screening units were reviewed. One unit used Fuji AD-M film and the other used Kodak min-R 2000 film. Both samples of mammograms were digitized and analysed. The average film gradients between an optical density (OD) of 0.25 and 2.00 above base plus fog were 4.38 for Fuji AD-M film and 3.77 for Kodak min-R 2000 film. The main breast regions of the mammograms were judged to be satisfactorily displayed when breast tissues were above ODs of approximately 0.6 for Fuji AD-M film and 0.8 for Kodak min-R 2000 film.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2001 by the British Institute of Radiology.