FIG. 45. A TG18-QC test pattern displayed demonstrating several problems. First, the resolution elements in the centre and cornersof the pattern are not clearly resolved. Second, the 95% and 5% contrast boxes (arrows) are not visible. Finally, the letters spelling‘QUALITY CONT’ are not visible in all three of the boxes near the bottom of the pattern. The monitor requires adjustment of itslook-up table to better meet the DICOM part 14 GSDF.148
REFERENCES[1] TABAR, L., et al., Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20 year follow up before and afterintroduction of screening, Lancet 361 (2003) 1405–1410.[2] WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention Vol. 7: Breast Cancer Screening,(INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER, Ed.), IARC Press, Lyon (2002).[3] PISANO, E.T., et al., Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening, New Engl. J.Med. 353 (2005) 1–11.[4] AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, Mammography Quality Control Manual, ACR, Reston, VA (1999).[5] EUREF, European Protocol for the Quality Control of the Physical and Technical Aspects of Mammography Screening,European Commission, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (2005).[6] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Control de Calidad en Mamograpfia, IAEA-TECDOC-1517, IAEA,Vienna (2006).[7] SOCIEDAD ESPAÑOLA DE FÍSICA MÉDICA-SOCIEDAD ESPAÑOLA DE PROTECCIÓN RADIOLÓGICA, ProtocoloEspañol de Control de Calidad en Radiodiagnóstico (Aspectos Técnicos). Edicomplet, 2nd edn, Madrid (2002).[8] EUROPEAN COMMISSION, European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening, 4th edn, Europeagainst Cancer, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg (2006).[9] McLEAN, I.D., HEGGIE, J.C.P., HERLEY, J., THOMSON, F.J., GREWAL, R.K., Interim recommendations for a digitalmammography quality assurance program, Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 30 (2007) 65–100.[10] YAFFE, M., MAWDSLEY, G., BLOOMQUIST, A., “A harmonized quality control program for digital mammography”, DigitalMammography, Springer, Berlin (2006) 585–592,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11783237_79[11] SOCIEDAD ESPAÑOLA DE FÍSICA MÉDICA-SOCIEDAD ESPAÑOLA DE PROTECCIÓN RADIOLÓGICA, Protocolo decontrol de calidad en mamographia digital, SEPR, Madrid (2008).[12] NHS BREAST SCREENING PROGRAMME, Commissioning and routine testing of full field digital mammography systems,NHS Cancer Screening Programme Rep. NHSBSP Equipment report 0604, NHSBSP, Sheffield (2006).[13] NHS BREAST SCREENING PROGRAMME, Routine control tests for full field digital mammography systems, NationalBreast Screening Programme Rep. NHSBSP Equipment Report 0702, NHSBSP, Sheffield (2007),www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk[14] PEDERSEN, K., LANDMARK, I.D., Trial of a proposed protocol for constancy control of digital mammography systems, Med.Phys. 36 (2009) 5537–5546.[15] LEWIN, J.M., HENDRICK, R.E., D’ORSI, C.J., Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-filmmammography for cancer detection: Results of 4,945 paired examinations, Radiology 218 (2001) 873–880.[16] SKAANE, P., YOUNG, K., Population-based mammography screening: Comparison of screen-film and full-field digitalmammography with soft-copy reading: The Oslo I study, Radiology 229 (2003) 877–884.[17] PAQUELET, J.R., HENDRICK, R.E., Lesion size inaccuracies in digital mammography, Am. J. Roentgenol. 194 (2010)W115–118.[18] WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, Guidelines for Health Care Equipment Donations, Rep. WHO/ARA/97.3, WHO,Geneva (2000),http://www.who.int/hac/techguidance/pht/en/1_equipment%20donationbuletin82WHO.pdf[19] INTEGRATING THE HEALTHCARE ENTERPRISE (IHE), http://www.ihe.net[20] SKAANE, P., SKJENNALD, A., Population-based Mammography Screening: Comparison of Screen-Film and Full-FieldDigital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading: Randomized Trial in a Population-based Screening Program — Oslo II StudyRadiology 232 (2004) 197–204.[21] SKAANE, P., YOUNG, K., SKJENNALD, A., Population-based Mammography Screening: Comparison of Screen-Film andFull-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading — Oslo I Study Radiology 229 (2003) 877–884.[22] DICOM STANDARD, Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM),http://medical.nema.org[23] AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICISTS IN MEDICINE, An Exposure Indicator for Digital Radiography: Report ofAAPM Task Group 116, AAPM Rep. 116, New York (2009),http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/RPT_116.pdf[24] CRAWFORD, M.K., BRIXNER, L.H., Photostimulable phosphors for X-ray imaging: Applications and mechanism,J. Luminescence 48, 49 (1991) 37–42.[25] TAKAHASHI, K., MIYAHARA, J., SHIBAHARA, Y., Photostimulated luminescence (PSL) and color centers inBaFX:Eu2 + (X=Cl), J. Electrochem. Soc 132 (1985) 1492–1494.[26] ROWLANDS, J.A., The physics of computed radiography, Phys. Med. Biol. 47 (2002) R123–R165.[27] SAMEI, E., et al., Performance evaluation of computed radiography systems, Medical Physics 28 (2001) 361–371.[28] LEE, D.L., “Stability, dark current, noise, and performance optimization of selenium detectors”, Proceedings of SPIE(Proc. Conf. 2006), International Society for Optical Engineering, SPIE, Bellingham, WA (2006).149
Change language