127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35527472)
1. DOSIMETRY IN DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS: COST-EFFICIENT APPROACH FOR THE SOUTH AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES.
Pirchio R; Pérez GN; Ratto SS; Stefanic AM
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2022 Jun; 198(7):393-404. PubMed ID: 35527472
[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. 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]
4. Dose assessment in contrast enhanced digital mammography using simple phantoms simulating standard model breasts.
Bouwman RW; van Engen RE; Young KC; Veldkamp WJ; Dance DR
Phys Med Biol; 2015 Jan; 60(1):N1-7. PubMed ID: 25500435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. [Evaluation of the Accuracy of the Displayed Average Glandular Dose in Mammography].
Kitano M; Tokorodani R; Yamada Y; Muto H
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2022 Nov; 78(11):1333-1340. PubMed ID: 36104224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Normalized glandular dose coefficients for digital breast tomosynthesis systems with a homogeneous breast model.
Sarno A; Tucciariello RM; Mettivier G; Del Sarto D; Fantacci ME; Russo P
Phys Med Biol; 2021 Mar; 66(6):065024. PubMed ID: 33535193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. '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]
16. Breast tomosynthesis: Dosimetry and image quality assessment on phantom.
Meyblum E; Gardavaud F; Dao TH; Fournier V; Beaussart P; Pigneur F; Baranes L; Rahmouni A; Luciani A
Diagn Interv Imaging; 2015 Sep; 96(9):931-9. PubMed ID: 25908324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Patient dose in digital mammography.
Chevalier M; Morán P; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Cepeda T; Vañó E
Med Phys; 2004 Sep; 31(9):2471-9. PubMed ID: 15487727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Dosimetry in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Evaluated by Monte Carlo Technique.
Alves MS; Belinato W; Santos WS; Galeano DC; Neves LP; Perini AP; N Souza D
Health Phys; 2021 Jul; 121(1):18-29. PubMed ID: 33867436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Determination of backscatter factors in breast tomosynthesis using MCNPX simulations and measurements.
Baptista M; Di Maria S; Figueira C; Orvalho L; Vaz P
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):325-30. PubMed ID: 25836681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
