Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kimme-Smith, C
Right arrow Articles by Chow, S
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kimme-Smith, C
Right arrow Articles by Chow, S

Radiology, Vol 178, 387-391, Copyright © 1991 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Increased radiation dose at mammography due to prolonged exposure, delayed processing, and increased film darkening

C Kimme-Smith, LW Bassett, RH Gold and S Chow
Department of Radiological Sciences, UCLA Medical Center 90024-6916.

Four single-emulsion films introduced over the past 2 years--Du Pont Microvision, Fuji MiMa, Konica CM, and Eastman Kodak OM--were compared with Eastman Kodak OM SO-177 (Min-RE) film to evaluate their varying effects on mean glandular dose of reciprocity law failure due to prolonged exposure, delayed processing, and increased film darkening as a result of increased radiation exposure to improve penetration of glandular tissue. Exposures over 1.3 seconds led to increased radiation doses of 20%-30%. Delays in processing of 6 hours decreased processing speed by 11%-32% for all films except Du Pont Microvision. Optical density increases of 0.40 required 20%-30% more skin exposure for all five films. Optimal viewing densities were also evaluated and found to be different for each of the five films. Mammographers need to be aware of these differences in mammographic films to achieve maximum contrast at mammography.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
K J ROBSON
An investigation into the effects of suboptimal viewing conditions in screen-film mammography
Br. J. Radiol., March 1, 2008; 81(963): 219 - 231.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
A D Dimakopoulou, I A Tsalafoutas, E K Georgiou, and E N Yakoumakis
Image quality and breast dose of 24 screen-film combinations for mammography
Br. J. Radiol., February 1, 2006; 79(938): 123 - 129.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
I A Tsalafoutas, A D Dimakopoulou, E D Koulentianos, A N Serefoglou, and E N Yakoumakis
Variation of the sensitometric characteristics of seven mammographic films with processing conditions
Br. J. Radiol., August 1, 2004; 77(920): 666 - 671.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
M. N. Ayala, R. Michael, and P. G. Söderberg
Influence of Exposure Time for UV Radiation-Induced Cataract
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., October 1, 2000; 41(11): 3539 - 3543.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1991 by the Radiological Society of North America.