184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32143121)
1. Characterization of the imaging settings in screening mammography using a tracking and reporting system: A multi-center and multi-vendor analysis.
Barufaldi B; Zuckerman SP; Medeiros RB; Maidment AD; Schiabel H
Phys Med; 2020 Mar; 71():137-149. PubMed ID: 32143121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Average glandular dose in paired digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis acquisitions in a population based screening program: effects of measuring breast density, air kerma and beam quality.
Østerås BH; Skaane P; Gullien R; Martinsen ACT
Phys Med Biol; 2018 Jan; 63(3):035006. PubMed ID: 29311416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Radiation exposure of digital breast tomosynthesis using an antiscatter grid compared with full-field digital mammography.
Paulis LE; Lobbes MB; Lalji UC; Gelissen N; Bouwman RW; Wildberger JE; Jeukens CR
Invest Radiol; 2015 Oct; 50(10):679-85. PubMed ID: 26011823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography.
James JR; Pavlicek W; Hanson JA; Boltz TF; Patel BK
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb; 208(2):362-372. PubMed ID: 28112559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of radiation doses between diagnostic full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a clinical study.
Asbeutah AM; AlMajran AA; Brindhaban A; Asbeutah SA
J Med Radiat Sci; 2020 Sep; 67(3):185-192. PubMed ID: 32495513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluation of average glandular dose and investigation of the relationship with compressed breast thickness in dual energy contrast enhanced digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Fusco R; Raiano N; Raiano C; Maio F; Vallone P; Mattace Raso M; Setola SV; Granata V; Rubulotta MR; Barretta ML; Petrosino T; Petrillo A
Eur J Radiol; 2020 May; 126():108912. PubMed ID: 32151787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Quantitative analysis of radiation dosage and image quality between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with two-dimensional synthetic mammography and full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
Choi Y; Woo OH; Shin HS; Cho KR; Seo BK; Choi GY
Clin Imaging; 2019; 55():12-17. PubMed ID: 30703693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 'In vivo' average glandular dose evaluation: one-to-one comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography.
Cavagnetto F; Taccini G; Rosasco R; Bampi R; Calabrese M; Tagliafico A
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Nov; 157(1):53-61. PubMed ID: 23734057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Evaluation of average glandular dose (AGD) in screening and diagnostic digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) towards establishing a reference dose range band (DRB): a developing country experience.
Jeyasugiththan J; Maheshika Bandara BGU; Wickramarathna SHD; Thenuwara H; Satharasinghe D; Pallewatte AS; Hettiarachchi P
J Radiol Prot; 2023 Jul; 43(3):. PubMed ID: 37463573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.
Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR
Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):334-40. PubMed ID: 12674233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Design and implementation of a radiation dose tracking and reporting system for mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Barufaldi B; Schiabel H; Maidment ADA
Phys Med; 2019 Feb; 58():131-140. PubMed ID: 30824144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. INSTITUTIONAL BREAST DOSES IN DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY.
Lekatou A; Metaxas V; Messaris G; Antzele P; Tzavellas G; Panayiotakis G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2019 Dec; 185(2):239-251. PubMed ID: 30753684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography.
Svahn TM; Houssami N; Sechopoulos I; Mattsson S
Breast; 2015 Apr; 24(2):93-9. PubMed ID: 25554018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization.
Feng SS; Sechopoulos I
Radiology; 2012 Apr; 263(1):35-42. PubMed ID: 22332070
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial.
Hendrick RE; Pisano ED; Averbukh A; Moran C; Berns EA; Yaffe MJ; Herman B; Acharyya S; Gatsonis C
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Feb; 194(2):362-9. PubMed ID: 20093597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Single Center Evaluation of Comparative Breast Radiation dose of Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM), Digital Mammography (DM) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT).
Bicchierai G; Busoni S; Tortoli P; Bettarini S; Naro FD; De Benedetto D; Savi E; Bellini C; Miele V; Nori J
Acad Radiol; 2022 Sep; 29(9):1342-1349. PubMed ID: 35065889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
Olgar T; Kahn T; Gosch D
Rofo; 2012 Oct; 184(10):911-8. PubMed ID: 22711250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The effect of different exposure parameters on radiation dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: A phantom study.
Asbeutah AM; Brindhaban A; AlMajran AA; Asbeutah SA
Radiography (Lond); 2020 Aug; 26(3):e129-e133. PubMed ID: 32052759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of phantom and patient data.
Bouwman RW; van Engen RE; Young KC; den Heeten GJ; Broeders MJ; Schopphoven S; Jeukens CR; Veldkamp WJ; Dance DR
Phys Med Biol; 2015 Oct; 60(20):7893-907. PubMed ID: 26407015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Audit of data from examination image headers collected for quality assurance in the ECOG-ACRIN EA1151 tomosynthesis mammographic imaging screening trial (TMIST).
Maki AK; Mawdsley GE; Mainprize JG; Pisano E; Shen SZ; Alonzo-Proulx O; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2023 Dec; 50(12):7427-7440. PubMed ID: 37824821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
