Journal of the Korean Physical Society

, Volume 71, Issue 8, pp 510–515 | Cite as

Feasibility study on an integrated AEC-grid device for the optimization of image quality and exposure dose in mammography

  • Kyo-Tae Kim
  • Ryang-Young Yun
  • Moo-Jae Han
  • Ye-Ji Heo
  • Yong-Keun Song
  • Sung-Wook Heo
  • Kyeong-Min Oh
  • Sung-Kwang Park
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

Currently, in the radiation diagnosis field, mammography is used for the early detection of breast cancer. In addition, studies are being conducted on a grid to produce high-quality images. Although the grid ratio of the grid, which affects the scattering removal rate, must be increased to improve image quality, it increases the total exposure dose. While the use of automatic exposure control is recommended to minimize this problem, existing mammography equipment, unlike general radiography equipment, is mounted on the back of a detector. Therefore, the device is greatly affected by the detector and supporting device, and it is difficult to control the exposure dose. Accordingly, in this research, an integrated AEC-grid device that simultaneously performs AEC and grid functions was used to minimize the unnecessary exposure dose while removing scattering, thereby realizing superior image quality.

Keywords

Mammography FLUKA Automatic exposure control Anti-scattering grid 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    E. Salvagnini, H. Bosmans, L. Struelens and N. W. Marshall, Med. Phys. 42, 7 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    C. Reis, A. Pascoal, T. Sakellaris and M. Koutalonis, Insights Imaging 4, 5 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Y. Zhou, A. Scott II, J. Allahverdian and S. Frankel, J. X-ray Sci. Tech. 22, 3 (2014).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    J. T. Bushberg, J. A. Seibert, E. M. Leidholdt Jr. and J. M. Boone, Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 30, 12 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Y. K. Song, J. I. Shin, S. H. Cho, S. H. Yoo, I. S. Cho, E. H. Kim, S. Y. Choi, K. M. Oh and W. Y. Jung, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 67, 1 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    I. Csete, L. Buermann, I. Gomola and R. Girzikowsky, Metrologia Tech. Suppl. 50, 06008 (2013).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    X. Liu, G. J. Ma, G. Sun, Y. P. Duan and S. H. Liu, Applied Sur. Sci. 258, 3 (2011).ADSGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Zhang, B. Yang, J. Chu and T. G. Nieh, Scripta Materialia 54, 7 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    R. Fahrig, J. G. Mainprize and N. Robert, Med. Phys. 21, 8 (1994).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    H-M. Lee, J. Yoon and H-J. Kim, Korean Soc. Radiol. Sci. 37, 3 (2014).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Physical Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kyo-Tae Kim
    • 1
  • Ryang-Young Yun
    • 1
  • Moo-Jae Han
    • 1
  • Ye-Ji Heo
    • 1
  • Yong-Keun Song
    • 2
  • Sung-Wook Heo
    • 2
  • Kyeong-Min Oh
    • 3
  • Sung-Kwang Park
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Biomedical EngineeringInje UniversityGimhaeKorea
  2. 2.Medical Physics Research Team, Division of Heavy Ion Clinical ResearchKorea Institute of Radiological and Medical SciencesSeoulKorea
  3. 3.Radiation Equipment Research DivisionKorea Atomic Energy Research InstituteJeongeupKorea
  4. 4.Department of Radiation Oncology, Busan Paik HospitalInje UniversityBusanKorea

Personalised recommendations