Use of the European Protocol to Optimise a Digital Mammography System

  • Kenneth C. Young
  • James J. H. Cook
  • Jennifer M. Oduko
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4046)


An experimental method of determining the optimal beam qualities and doses for digital mammography systems is described, and applied to a CR system. The mean glandular dose (MGD) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were measured using phantoms. For each thickness of phantom a range of kV and target/filter combinations were tested. Optimal beam quality was defined as that giving a target CNR for the lowest MGD. The target CNR was that necessary to achieve at least the minimum standard of image quality defined in European Guidance. An inverse relationship between CNR and threshold contrast was confirmed over a range of thicknesses of PMMA and different beam qualities and doses. Optimisation indicated that relatively high energy beam qualities (e.g. 31 kV Rh/Rh) should be used with a greater detector dose to compensate for the lower contrast when compared to using lower energy X-rays. The results also indicate that current AEC designs that aim for a fixed detector dose are not optimal.


Beam Quality Digital Mammography Compute Radiography Threshold Contrast Automatic Exposure Control 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Van Engen, R., Young, K.C., Bosmans, H., Thijssen, M.: The European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening. Part B: Digital mammography. In: European Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening, 4th edn. European Commission, Luxembourg (2006), Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Young, K.C., Johnson, B., Bosmans, H., Van Engen, R.: Development of minimum standards for image quality and dose in digital mammography. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Digital Mammography, pp. 149–154 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bijkerk, K.R., Thijssen, M.A.O., Arnoldussen, Th.J.M.: Modification of the CDMAM contrast-detail phantom for image quality of Full Field Digital Mammography systems. In: Yaffe, M. (ed.) Proceedings of IWDM 2000, pp. 633–640. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dance, D.R., Skinner, C.L., Young, K.C., Beckett, J.R., Kotre, C.J.: Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys. Med. Biol. 45, 3225–3240 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Young, K.C., Cook, J.J.H., Oduko, J.M., Bosmans, H.: Comparison of software and human observers in reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems. In: Proc. SPIE Medical Imaging (in press, 2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Young, K.C., Oduko, J.M., Bosmans, H., Nijs, K., Martinez, L.: Optimal beam quality selection in digital mammography. Br. J. Radiol. (in press)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Young, K.C., Ramsdale, M.L., Rust, A., Cooke, J.: Effect of automatic kV selection on dose and contrast in mammography. Br. J. Radiol. 70, 1036–1042 (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Young, K.C., Burch, A., Oduko, J.M.: Radiation doses in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 2001 and 2002. Br. J. Radiol. 78, 207–218 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth C. Young
    • 1
  • James J. H. Cook
    • 1
  • Jennifer M. Oduko
    • 1
  1. 1.National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of MammographyRoyal Surrey County HospitalGuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations