[Influence of Detector Radiation Damage on CR Mammography Quality Control].

Recently, radiation damage to the detector apparatus employed in computed radiography (CR) mammography has become problematic. The CR system and the imaging plate (IP) applied to quality control (QC) program were also used in clinical mammography in our hospital, and the IP to which radiation damage has occurred was used for approximately 5 years (approximately 13,000 exposures). We considered using previously acquired QC image data, which is stored in a server, to investigate the influence of radiation damage to an IP. The mammography unit employed in this study was a phase contrast mammography (PCM) Mermaid (KONICA MINOLTA) system. The QC image was made newly, and it was output in the film, and thereafter the optical density of the step-phantom image was measured. An input (digital value)-output (optical density) conversion curve was plotted using the obtained data. The digital values were then converted to optical density values using a reference optical density vs. digital value curve. When a high radiation dose was applied directly, radiation damage occurred at a position on the IP where no object was present. Daily QC for mammography is conducted using an American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom and acrylic disc, and an environmental background density measurement is performed as one of the management indexes. In this study, the radiation damage sustained by the acrylic disc was shown to differ from that of the background. Thus, it was revealed that QC results are influenced by radiation damage.

[Derivation of Conversion Formula of Image Quality Figure (IQFinv) Values by Old and New Analysis Software for Mammographic Contrast-detail Phantom].

PURPOSE: This study deals with the conversion of the image quality figure (IQFinv) values with CDMAM Analyser ver. 1 (old analysis software) used to analyse the images of CDMAM 3.4 phantom into the IQFinv values with a new analysis software, that is, CDMAM Analyser (ver. 2 and ver. 2.3), which is a software improved to be closer to human visual evaluation. METHODS: The IQFinv values were calculated using four mammography units and three analysis software. The IQFinv values using the old and new software were compared. RESULTS: The IQFinv values had no difference according to mammography units and beam quality. The conversion formula of IQFinv from CDMAM Analyser ver. 1 to CDMAM Analyser ver. 2 was derived. Furthermore, the conversion formula of IQFinv from CDMAM Analyser ver. 1 to CDMAM Analysis ver. 2.3 was also derived. CONCLUSION: Using each conversion formula, the IQFinv values using the old software can be converted to those using the new software. There was a slight difference between the IQFinv values using the new software.