BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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

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



View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Characteristic curves for the imaging system when using Fuji UM-MA HC, Fuji AD-M and Kodak min-R 2000 films. For all curves a log10(relative exposure) of zero corresponds to that required for an optical density (OD) of 1.6.

 


View larger version (25K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Gradient of the characteristic curves for the Kodak min-R 2000, Fuji AD-M and Fuji UM-MA HC imaging systems against optical density (OD).

 


View larger version (27K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. Gradient of the characteristic curves for the Kodak min-R 2000, Fuji AD-M and Fuji UM-MA HC imaging systems plotted against log10(relative exposure). For all curves a log10(relative exposure) of zero corresponds to that required for an optical density of 1.6.

 


View larger version (31K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 4. Histogram showing the distribution of lower dynamic range. The latitude available from mid to low OD (Llower) with each film type is indicated.

 


View larger version (22K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 5. Overall diagnostic value of mammograms produced with Fuji AD-M and Fuji UM-MA HC films.

 


View larger version (24K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 6. Relationship between breast composition and whether the Fuji AD-M mammograms appeared better than the Fuji UM-MA HC mammograms. (Data normalized and plotted as percentages.)

 


View larger version (41K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 7. Relationship between minimum optical density (OD) in the main breast region of interest (ROI) and the radiologists' opinion of glandular tissue density. The error-bars represent two standard errors of the mean.

 




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