To Cite:
Gholamkar
L, Mowlavi
A A, Sadeghi
M, Athari
M. Assessment of Mean Glandular Dose in Mammography System with Different Anode-Filter Combinations Using MCNP Code,
Iran J Radiol.
2016
; 13(4):e36484.
doi: 10.5812/iranjradiol.36484.
1.
Ma AK, Darambara DG, Stewart A, Gunn S, Bullard E. Mean glandular dose estimation using MCNPX for a digital breast tomosynthesis system with tungsten/aluminum and tungsten/aluminum+silver x-ray anode-filter combinations. Med Phys. 2008; 35(12): 5278-89[DOI][PubMed]
2.
Dance DR. Monte Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose. Phys Med Biol. 1990; 35(9): 1211-9[PubMed]
3.
Nigapruke K, Puwanich P, Phaisangittisakul N, Youngdee W. Monte Carlo simulation of average glandular dose and an investigation of influencing factors. J Radiat Res. 2010; 51(4): 441-8[PubMed]
4.
Baptista M,
Di Maria S,
Oliveira N,
Matela N,
Janeiro L,
Almeida P,
et al.
Image quality and dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: A Monte Carlo study. Radiat Phys Chem. 2014; 104: 158-62
5.
Choi YN,
Kim HJ,
Park HS,
Lee CL,
Cho HM,
Lee SW,
et al.
The effect of magnification on the image quality and the radiation dose in X-ray digital mammography: a Monte Carlo simulation study. J Korean Phys Soc. 2010; 57(3): 494-500
6.
Baldelli P, Phelan N, Egan G. Investigation of the effect of anode/filter materials on the dose and image quality of a digital mammography system based on an amorphous selenium flat panel detector. Br J Radiol. 2010; 83(988): 290-5[DOI][PubMed]
7.
Dance DR, Thilander AK, Sandborg M, Skinner CL, Castellano IA, Carlsson GA. Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. Br J Radiol. 2000; 73(874): 1056-67[DOI][PubMed]
9.
Bernhardt P, Mertelmeier T, Hoheisel M. X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study. Med Phys. 2006; 33(11): 4337-49[DOI][PubMed]
10.
Pelowitz D. MCNP-A general Monte Carlo N-particle transport code. Version 2.6.0. 2008;
11.
Hammerstein GR, Miller DW, White DR, Masterson ME, Woodard HQ, Laughlin JS. Absorbed radiation dose in mammography. Radiology. 1979; 130(2): 485-91[DOI][PubMed]
12. Tissue substitutes in radiation dosimetry and measurement ICRU Report 44. 1989;
13.
Hubbell JH, Seltzer SM. Tables of X-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass energy-absorption coefficients 1 keV to 20 MeV for elements Z= 1 to 92 and 48 additional substances of dosimetric interest. 1995;
14.
Berger M, Hubblle H. XCOM version 3.1. 1999;
15.
Ma AK, Alghamdi A. Development of a realistic computational breast phantom for dosimetric simulations. Nucl Sci Thech. 2011; 2: 147-52
16.
Boone JM. Glandular breast dose for monoenergetic and high-energy X-ray beams: Monte Carlo assessment. Radiology. 1999; 213(1): 23-37[DOI][PubMed]
Readers' Comments