European Radiology

, Volume 16, Issue 11, pp 2559–2566

Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography



The study purpose was the comparison between doses delivered by a full-field digital mammography system and a screen/film mammography unit, both using the same type of X-ray tube. Exposure parameters and breast thickness were collected for 300 screen/film (GE Senographe DMR) and 296 digital mammograms (GE Senographe 2000D). The entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) was calculated from anode/filter combination, kVp and mAs values and breast thickness, by simulating spectra through a program based on a catalogue of experimental X-ray spectra. The average glandular dose (AGD) was also computed. Results showed an overall reduction of average glandular dose by 27% of digital over screen/film mammography. The dose saving was about 15% for thin and thick breasts, while it was between 30% and 40% for intermediate thicknesses. Full-field digital mammography dose reduction is allowed by wider dynamic range and higher efficiency of digital detector, which can be exposed at higher energy spectra than screen/film mammography, and by the separation between acquisition and displaying processes.


Mammography Digital mammography Dosimetry in mammography Average glandular dose 


  1. 1.
    Vedantham S, Karellas A, Suryanarayanan S, Albagli D, Han S, Tkaczyk EJ, Landberg CE, Opsahl-Ong B, Granfors PR, Levis I, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE (2000) Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. Med Phys 27:558–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Muller S (1999) Full-field digital mammography designed as a complete system. Eur J Radiol 31:25–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S (2004) Physical characteristics of a full-field digital mammography system. Nucl Instr Meth A 533:560–570CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Noel A, Thibault F (2004) Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges. Eur Radiol 14:1990–1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mahesh M (2004) Digital mammography: an overview. Radiographics 24:1747–1760PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spahn M (2005) Flat detectors and their clinical applications. Eur Radiol 15:1934–1947PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lewin J, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ, Isaac PK, Moss LJ, Karellas A, Sisney GA, Kuni CC, Cutter GR (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873–888PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E (2002) Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 12:1697–1702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A (2003) Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading-Oslo I study. Radiology 229:877–884PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Skaane P, Skjennald (2004) A Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program-The Oslo II study. Radiology 232:197–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cole E, Pisano ED, Brown M, Kuzmiak C, Braeuning P, Kim HH, Jong R, Walsh R (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan digital mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol 11:879–886PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Suddhasatta A, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D’Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner M, for the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR (2002) Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice. Med Phys 29:830–834PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR (2003) Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose. Med Phys 30:334–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Grabbe E (2003) Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an antropomorphic breast phantom study. Br J Radiol 76:478–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gennaro G, Baldelli P, Taibi A, di Maggio C, Gambaccini M (2004) Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: an Italian survey. Eur Radiol 14:645–652PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chevalier M, Moran P, Yen JI, Soto JMF, Cepeda T, Vaño E (2004) Patient dose in digital mammography. Med Phys 31:2471–2479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Young KC, Ramsdale ML, Bignell F (1998) Review of dosimetric methods for mammography in the UK breast Screening Programme. Rad Prot Dosim 80:186–193Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaulkner K, Cranley K (1995) An investigation into variations in the estimation of mean glandular dose in mammography. Rad Prot Dosim 57:405–407Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jacobson DR (1998) Mammography radiation dose and image quality. Rad Prot Dosim 80:293–297Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morán P, Chevalier M, Pombar M, Lobato R, Vaño E (2000) Breast doses from patients and from standard phantom: analysis of differences. Rad Prot Dosim 90:117–121Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klein R, Aichinger H, Dierker J, Jansen JTM, Joite-Barfuss S, Säbel M, Schultz-Wendtland R, Zoetelief J (1997) Determination of average glandular dose with modern mammography units for two large groups of patients. Phys Med Biol 42:651–671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burch A, Goodman DA (1998) A pilot survey of radiation doses received in the United Kingdom Breast Screening Programme. Br J Radiol 71:517–527PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kruger RL, Schueler BA (2001) A survey of clinical factors and patient dose in mammography. Med Phys 28:1449–1454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rosemberg RD, Kelsey CA, Williamson MR, Houston JD (2001) Computer-based collection of mammographic exposure data for quality assurance and dosimetry. Med Phys 28:1546–1551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Young KC (2002) Radiation doses in the UK trial of breast screening in women aged 40–48 years. Br J Radiol 75:362–370PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    European guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening, 3rd edn (2001) European Commission, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Engen R, Young KC, Bosmans H, Thijssen M (2003) Addendum on digital mammography, version 1.0, Nov 2003; addendum to chapter 3 of the European guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening, 3rd edn, 2001:
  29. 29.
    Heidsieck R (1996) Method of calibrating a radiological system and of measuring the equivalent thickness of an object, United States Patent, Number 5,528,649Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shramchenko N, Blin P, Mathey C, Klausz R (2004) Optimized exposure control in digital mammography. Proc SPIE Vol 5368:445–456ADSGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Klausz R, Shramchenko N (2005) Dose to population as a metric in the design of optimized exposure control in digital mammography. Rad Prot Dosim 114:369–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Desponds L, Klausz R (1994) Automatic estimation of breast composition with mammographic X-ray systems. Radiology 193(Suppl):200Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    X-ray tube assembly Maxiray 70 TH-F, GE Medical Systems Technical Publications 2219407–100, revision 0 (1998)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Senographe DMR+ Operator Manual, GE Medical Systems Technical Publications 2233530-100, revision 1 (1999)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Birch R, Marshall M (1979) Computation of bremsstrahlung X-ray spectra and comparison with spectra measured with a Ge(Li) detector. Phys Med Biol 24:505–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cranley K, Gilmore BJ, Fogarty GW, Desponds L (1997) IPEM report 78: Catalogue of diagnostic X-ray spectra and other data. (CD-ROM edition 1997) (electronic version prepared by D Sutton) The Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM),YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Berger MJ, Hubbel JH (1987) XCOM: photon cross sections on a personal computer, National Bureau of Standards Report NBSIR 87-3597Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ng KP, Kwork CS, Tang FH (2000) Monte Carlo simulation of X-ray spectra in mammography. Phys Med Biol 45:1309–1318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ay MR, Shahriari M, Sarkar S, Adib M, Zaidi H (2004) Monte Carlo simulation of X-ray spectra in diagnostic radiology and mammography using MCNP4C. Phys Med Biol 49:4897–4917PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wilkinson LE, Johnston PN, Heggie JC P (2001) A comparison of mammography spectral measurements with spectra produced using several different mathematical models. Phys Med Biol 46:1575–1589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Robson KJ (2001) A parametric method for determining mammographic X-ray tube output and half value layer. Br J Radiol 74:335–340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ (2000) Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 45:3225–3240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Beckett JR, Kotre CJ (2000) Dosimetric implication of age related glandular changes in screening mammography. Phys Med Biol 45:801–813PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE (2004) Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 230:29–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gingold EL, Wu X, Barnes GT (1995) Contrast and dose with Mo-Mo, Mo-Rh and Rh-Rh target-filter combinations in mammography. Radiology 195:639–644PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Young KC, Ramsdale ML, Rust A, Cooke J (1997) Effect of automatic selection on dose and contrast for a mammographic system. Br J Radiol 70:1036–1042PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dance DR, Thilander Klang A, Sandborg M, Skinner CL, Castellano Smith IA, Alm Carlsson G (2000) Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. Br J Radiol 73:1056–1067PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Huda W, Sajewitz AM, Ogden KM, Dance DR (2003) Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system. Med Phys 30:442–448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Flynn MJ, Dodge C, Peck DJ, Swinford A (2004) Optimal radiographic techniques for digital mammograms obtained by an amorphous selenium detector. Proc SPIE Vol 5030:147–156ADSGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fahrig R, Yaffe M (1994) Optimization of spectral shape in digital mammography: dependence on anode material, breast thickness and lesion type. Med Phys 21:1473–1481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fahrig R, Yaffe MJ (1994) A model for optimization of spectral shape in digital mammography. Med Phys 21:1463–1471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Fahrig R, Rowlands JA, Yaffe MJ (1996) X-ray imaging with amorphous selenium: optimal spectra for digital mammography. Med Phys 23:557–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kaufhold J, Thomas JA, Eberhard JW, Galbo CE, Gonzales Trotter DE (2002) A calibration approach to glandular tissue composition estimation in digital mammography. Med Phys 29:1867–1880PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Oncological and Surgical SciencesPadua UniversityPaduaItaly
  2. 2.Department of PhysicsINFN (National Institute of Nuclear Physics)PaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations