Congress:
EuroSafe Imaging 2017
Keywords:
Radiation safety, Physics, Diagnostic procedure, Mammography, Breast, Action 3 - Image quality assessment based on clinical indications, Action 2 - Clinical diagnostic reference levels (DRLs), Action 4 - Quality of radiological equipment, Action 3 - Optimisation, diagnostic reference levels, image quality, Image verification, Quality assurance
Authors:
I. Fitton, A. Noël
DOI:
10.1594/esi2017/ESI-0019
References
1Niklason LT.,
Christian BT.,
Niklason LE.,
et al.
Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging.
Radiology 1997; Nov.
205(2):399-406.
2Diekmann F.,
Bick U.
Breast tomosynthesis.
Seminars in Ultrasound,
CT,
and MRI.
2011; 32(4):281-287.
3Gilbert FJ.,
Tucker L.,
Gillan MG.,
et al.
The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme-a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone.
Health Technol Assess. 2015 Jan;19(4):i-xxv,
1-136.
4Greenberg JS., Javitt MC,
Katzen J,
et al.
Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Sep;203(3):687-93.
5Nelson JS,
Wells JR.,
Baker JA.,
et al.
How does C-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM? Med.
Phys.
2016 May; 43(5):2538-2547.
6Ikejimba LC.,
Glick SJ.,
Choudhury KR.
Et al.
Assessing task performance in FFDM,
DBT,
and synthetic mammography using uniform and anthropomorphic physical phantoms.
Med.
Phys.
2016 Oct;43(10):5593.
7Fezzani KL.,
Sage J.,
Fitton I.,
et al.
Digital breast tomosynthesis: dose and image quality characterization.
Phys.
Med.
2016 Sep;32(3):276.