Mammographic film-processor temperature, development time, and chemistry: effect on dose, contrast, and noise

Department of Radiological Sciences, Iris Cantor Mammography Screening Center, UCLA School of Medicine 90024-1721.

Six different combinations of film-processor temperature (33.3 degrees C, 35 degrees C), development time (22 sec, 44 sec), and chemistry (Du Pont medium contrast developer [MCD] and Kodak rapid process [RP] developer) were each evaluated by separate analyses with Hurter and Driffield curves, test images of plastic step wedges, noise variance analysis, and phantom images; each combination also was evaluated clinically. Du Pont MCD chemistry produced greater contrast than did Kodak RP chemistry. A change in temperature from 33.3 degrees C (92 degrees F) to 35 degrees C (95 degrees F) had the least effect on dose and image contrast. Temperatures of 36.7 degrees C (98 degrees F) and 38.3 degrees C (101 degrees F) also were tested with extended processing. The speed increased for 36.7 degrees C but decreased at 38.3 degrees C. Base plus fog increased, but contrast decreased for these higher temperatures. Increasing development time had the greatest effect on decreasing the dose required for equivalent film darkening when imaging BR12 breast equivalent test objects; ion chamber measurements showed a 32% reduction in dose when the development time was increased from 22 to 44 sec. Although noise variance doubled in images processed with the extended development time, diagnostic capability was not compromised. Extending the processing time for mammographic films was an effective method of dose reduction, whereas varying the processing temperature and chemicals had less effect on contrast and dose.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A D Dimakopoulou, I A Tsalafoutas, E K Georgiou, and E N Yakoumakis Image quality and breast dose of 24 screen-film combinations for mammography Br. J. Radiol., February 1, 2006; 79(938): 123 - 129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I A Tsalafoutas, A D Dimakopoulou, E D Koulentianos, A N Serefoglou, and E N Yakoumakis Variation of the sensitometric characteristics of seven mammographic films with processing conditions Br. J. Radiol., August 1, 2004; 77(920): 666 - 671. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. W. Bassett, D. M. Farria, S. Bansal, M. A. Farquhar, P. A. Wilcox, and S. A. Feig Reasons for Failure of a Mammography Unit at Clinical Image Review in the American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program Radiology, June 1, 2000; 215(3): 698 - 702. [Abstract] [Full Text]