Background: Different computational methods have been used for the prediction of X-ray spectra and beam quality in diagnostic radiology. The purpose of this study was to compare X-ray beam qualities based on half-value layers (HVLs) determined through measurements and computational model estimations. Methods: The HVL estimations calculated by IPEM78 (Spectrum Processor of the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine’s Report 78) and SpekCalc software were compared with those determined through measurements. In this study, the HVLs of both Philips (Phil) (Philips Healthcare, Best, NL) and General Electric Company (GE) (GE Global Research, Niskayuna, US) diagnostic range X-ray machines (50 kVp to 125 kVp) were evaluated. Results: In the HVL estimations, SpekCalc and IPEM78 showed maximum differences of 10% and 9%, respectively, compared with direct measurements. Both models provided means and SDs of HVLs that were within 5% of the HVL measurements of GE and Phil machines. Conclusion: Both computational models provide an alternative method for estimating the HVL of diagnostic range X-ray. These models are user-friendly in predicting HVLs, which are used to characterise the quality of the X-ray beam, and these models provide predictions almost instantly compared with experimental measurements.

Background: Different target-filter combinations in computed radiography have different impacts on the dose and image quality in digital radiography. This study aims to evaluate the mean glandular dose (MGD) and modulation transfer function (MTF) of various target-filter combinations by investigating the signal intensities of X-ray beams. Methods: General Electric (GE) Senographe DMR Plus mammography unit was used for MGD and MTF evaluation. The measured MGD was compared with the dose reference level (DRL), whereas the MTF was evaluated using ImageJ 1.46o software. A modified Mammography Accreditation Phantom RMI 156 was exposed using different target-filter combinations of molybdenum-molybdenum (Mo-Mo), molybdenum-rhodium (Mo-Rh) and rhodium-rhodium (Rh-Rh) at two different tube voltages, 26 kV and 32 kV with 50 mAs. Results: In the MGD evaluations, all target-filters gave an MGD value of < 1.5 mGy. The one-way ANOVA test showed a highly significant interaction between the MGD and the kilovoltage and target-filter material used (26 kV: F (2,12) = 49,234, P = 0.001;32 kV: F (2,12) = 89,972, P = 0.001). A Tukey post-hoc test revealed that the MGD for 26 kV and 32 kV was highly affected by the target-filter combinations. The test of homogeneity of variances indicates that the MGD varies significantly for 26 kV and 32 kV images (0.045 and 0.030 (P < 0.05), respectively). However, the one-way ANOVA for the MTF shows that no significant difference exists between the target-filter combinations used with 26 kV and 32 kV images either in parallel or perpendicular to the chest wall side F (2,189) = 0.26, P > 0.05). Conclusions: Higher tube voltage and atomic number target-filter yield higher MGD values. However, the MTF is independent of the X-ray energy and the type of target-filter combinations used.
Mammography ; Radiography