iaea human health series publications - SEDIM

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ROI for value AChestwall6 cmROI for values B and CFIG. 24. ROIs in the image of the weekly QC test object used to calculate the SDNR.(16) Record the outcome of the test on the daily and weekly checklist (Chart 1 in Annex I).7.2.3.4. Interpretation of results and conclusionsThe tolerances for imaging the weekly QC test object are given in Table 7. In addition to the tolerancesspecified in Table 7:(1) There should be no blotches or regions of altered texture appearance.(2) There should be no observable lines or structural artefacts.(3) There should be no ‘bright’ or ‘dark’ pixels evident.60
TABLE 7. TOLERANCES FOR IMAGING WEEKLY QC TEST OBJECTParametermAsAcceptable tolerance with respect to baseline values±10% aMean pixel value (MPV) ±10%Signal difference to noise ratio (SDNR) ±10%CR systems: Exposure index (EI)Fuji, Philips and Konica (S#)Agfa (SAL/SALlog/PVIlog)Carestream (EI)±10%±5%/±430/±580±40 unitsaProvided that the anode/filter and kV used are identical.7.2.3.5. Recommendations and corrective actionsIf any value of mAs, MPV, SDNR or, in the case of CR systems, EI is outside the tolerances or isunacceptable, the tests should be repeated. If the results remain unacceptable, it may be appropriate to contact theresponsible medical physicist for further advice on implementing the recommendations listed below:(1) Ensure that the correct image type (‘raw’ or ‘for processing’) is used for signal measurements. Also check tosee if service adjustment, ambient or detector temperature, recalibration of the detector system or softwarechanges might be responsible for the readings appearing outside the tolerances. If no service adjustment hasoccurred, and if any of the values are still outside the tolerances on a repeat test, contact the authorized servicerepresentative.(2) If it is found that during repeated exposures with the same phantom in place (e.g. in step 6 in Section 7.2.3.3)the mAs varies excessively because the kV, target or filter has switched, the system may be operating at a‘switching point’. Under these circumstances, to facilitate consistency testing, the medical physicist mayadvise adding a thin slab (5–10 mm) of PMMA so that the AEC operates at a different point.(3) If any artefacts are visible that might mimic or obscure anatomic information, or if any patterns are seen, arecalibration or flat fielding of the digital detector may be needed for DX systems. The compression plate andall accessible surfaces that are in the imaging field should be cleaned to remove any debris or extraneousmaterial (for CR systems, see also Section 7.1.4). After this has been done, repeat the test. If artefacts persist,contact the authorized service representative.7.2.3.6. Time frame for corrective actionImmediately: If this test fails, do not image patients until corrective action has been taken.61
Page 1 and 2:
X raysdel matrixCs scintillatorLine
Page 3 and 4:
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMMEFOR DIGI
Page 5 and 6:
IAEA HUMAN HEALTH SERIES No. 17QUAL
Page 7 and 8:
FOREWORDThe application of radiatio
Page 14:
An effective QA programme is necess
Page 17 and 18:
The Integrating the Healthcare Ente
Page 21 and 22: technology. Systems containing othe
Page 23 and 24: X raysTop electrodea-Se layerCharge
Page 25 and 26: dose received by inhomogeneous real
Page 27 and 28: 2.3.8.1. Soft copy displayFlat pane
Page 29 and 30: 3. ELEMENTS OF HIGH QUALITY MAMMOGR
Page 31: — The ability to mask edges of ma
Page 34 and 35: Disposal orsaleNew facility(start h
Page 36 and 37: 4.2.3. Radiographer (mammography te
Page 38 and 39: 5.2.2. Electronic versus geometric
Page 40 and 41: To allow full utilization of the di
Page 42 and 43: 5.7. ARTEFACTSWhile the incidence o
Page 44 and 45: FIG. 10. Detector crystallization.
Page 46 and 47: FIG. 13. A more subtle example of a
Page 48 and 49: FIG. 16. An example of poor collima
Page 51 and 52: 7. RADIOGRAPHER’S QUALITY CONTROL
Page 53 and 54: 7.1. DAILY TESTS7.1.1. Monitor insp
Page 55 and 56: 7.1.3. Daily flat field phantom ima
Page 57 and 58: 7.1.4. Visual inspection for artefa
Page 59 and 60: 7.1.5. Laser printer sensitometry7.
Page 61 and 62: 7.1.6. Image plate erasure (CR syst
Page 63 and 64: FIG. 19. Modified TG18-QC pattern w
Page 65 and 66: FIG. 21. Radiologist workstation wi
Page 67 and 68: 7.2.1.6. Time frame for corrective
Page 69 and 70: 7.2.3. Weekly quality control test
Page 71: Note: It is not necessary to view t
Page 75 and 76: 7.2.4.4. Interpretation of results
Page 77 and 78: 7.3.1.5. Recommendations and correc
Page 79 and 80: artefacts are typically best seen w
Page 81 and 82: 7.3.3.5. Recommendations and correc
Page 83 and 84: 7.4.1.3. Methodology(1) Annotate th
Page 85 and 86: RECORD OF DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY REPEA
Page 87 and 88: (3) Including examinations of at le
Page 89 and 90: 7.5. SEMI-ANNUAL TESTS7.5.1. Comput
Page 91 and 92: 8. MEDICAL PHYSICIST’S QUALITY CO
Page 93 and 94: 8.1. NOTE ON IMAGE NAMING CONVENTIO
Page 95 and 96: (16) On any randomly selected patie
Page 97 and 98: FIG. 30. Positioning of bathroom sc
Page 99 and 100: (6) The target, filter, kV, grid, d
Page 101 and 102: (2) Stack the 20 and 25 mm PMMA sla
Page 103 and 104: TABLE 13. ACCEPTABLE AND ACHIEVABLE
Page 105 and 106: 8.5. DETECTOR PERFORMANCE8.5.1. Bas
Page 107 and 108: 8.5.2. Detector response and noise8
Page 109 and 110: the service engineer responsible fo
Page 111 and 112: (13) Using the annotation tool on t
Page 113 and 114: Breast supportPMMA slabBreast suppo
Page 115 and 116: (10) Place the thinner test object
Page 117 and 118: 8.6. EVALUATION OF SYSTEM RESOLUTIO
Page 119 and 120: TABLE 17. ACCEPTABLE FREQUENCIES AT
Page 121 and 122: 8.7. X RAY EQUIPMENT CHARACTERISTIC
Page 123 and 124:
8.7.2. Incident air kerma at the en
Page 125 and 126:
8.8. DOSIMETRY8.8.1. Mean glandular
Page 127 and 128:
TABLE 21. ACCEPTABLE AND ACHIEVABLE
Page 129 and 130:
FIG. 34. Suggested layout for ruler
Page 131 and 132:
8.10. IMAGE DISPLAY QUALITYThe accu
Page 133 and 134:
FIG. 35. Modified TG18-QC test patt
Page 135 and 136:
8.10.1.5. Interpretation of results
Page 137 and 138:
8.10.2. Monitor luminance response
Page 139 and 140:
TABLE 22. MONITOR PERFORMANCE TOLER
Page 141 and 142:
FIG. 38. Measurement of illuminatio
Page 143 and 144:
8.11. LASER PRINTER8.11.1. Laser pr
Page 145 and 146:
8.11.1.5. Recommendations and corre
Page 147:
8.12.1.4. Interpretation of results
Page 150 and 151:
iopsies are performed, a sink is of
Page 152 and 153:
Appendix IISPECIFICATIONS OF TEST E
Page 154 and 155:
TABLE 24. SPECIFICATIONS OF TEST EQ
Page 156 and 157:
FIG. 40. Image acquired with a unif
Page 158 and 159:
FIG. 43. The left hand image is par
Page 160 and 161:
FIG. 45. A TG18-QC test pattern dis
Page 162 and 163:
[29] ALSAGER, A., YOUNG, K.C., ODUK
Page 165 and 166:
Annex IRADIOGRAPHER DATA COLLECTION
Page 167 and 168:
Chart 2 — DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY (DM
Page 169 and 170:
Chart 4 LASER PRINTER SENSITOMETRY
Page 171 and 172:
Chart 6 — WEEKLY DISPLAY MONITOR
Page 173 and 174:
Chart 7(b) WEEKLY QC TEST OBJECT:
Page 175 and 176:
Chart 9 — SAFETY AND FUNCTION CHE
Page 177 and 178:
Chart 11 — LASER PRINTER ARTEFACT
Page 179 and 180:
Chart 13(a) — RECORD OF DIGITAL M
Page 181 and 182:
Chart 14 — CR PLATE SENSITIVITY M
Page 183 and 184:
Annex IIITHE MAMMOGRAPHY EXTRACTThe
Page 185 and 186:
GLOSSARYair kerma. The energy depos
Page 187 and 188:
image quality. The overall merit of
Page 189:
CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW
show all

iaea human health series publications - SEDIM

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?