AJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smathers, R. L.
Right arrow Articles by Wright, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smathers, R. L.
Right arrow Articles by Wright, A. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?

Radiation Dose Reduction for Augmentation Mammography

Ralph L. Smathers1, John M. Boone2, Lisa J. Lee1, Eric A. Berns3, Robert A. Miller4 and Allan M. Wright5

1 Mammography Specialists Medical Group, Inc., 14651 S Bascom Ave., Suite 210, Los Gatos, CA 95032.
2 Departments of Radiology and Biomedical Engineering, University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA.
3 Lynn Sage Breast Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL.
4 Queen of the Valley Hospital, Napa, CA.
5 Radiological Associates Medical Group of Santa Clara Valley, San Jose, CA.


Figure 1
View larger version (83K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 1A —45-year-old woman with breast implants who underwent screening mammography. Bilateral craniocaudal implant-full view.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (92K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 1B —45-year-old woman with breast implants who underwent screening mammography. Bilateral mediolateral oblique implant-full view.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (130K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 1C —45-year-old woman with breast implants who underwent screening mammography. Bilateral craniocaudal implant-displaced view.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (97K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 1D —45-year-old woman with breast implants who underwent screening mammography. Bilateral lateromedial implant-displaced view.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 2 —Graph of exponentially fitted curves shows relation for individual views of compressed breast thickness and mean glandular dose for four-view augmentation mammography in six groups. ID = implant-displaced view, IF = implant-full view, 100 = 100-speed film, 190 = 190-speed film, MoMo = molybdenum-molybdenum target-filter combination, MoRh = molybdenum-rhodium target-filter combination, RhRh = rhodium-rhodium target-filter combination. Mean glandular dose increases exponentially as breast thickness increases, especially for implant-displaced views. Molybdenum-molybdenum target-filter combinations have highest doses, and rhodium-rhodium have lowest. Mean glandular dose is 35% lower for 190-than for 100-speed film.

 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.