Skip to main content
Full paper

Implications of using high contrast mammography X-ray film–screen combinations


The objective of this study was to determine the implications of using Fuji AD-M and Kodak min-R 2000, two high contrast X-ray film types developed for mammography. Evaluation of the Fuji AD-M film was divided into two parts. The first part was a contralateral comparison between mammograms using Fuji AD-M and Fuji UM-MA HC film–screen combinations. Fuji AD-M contrast was about 25% higher than that of Fuji UM-MA HC. The effect of increased contrast on image quality was investigated by visually grading the quality of information in different parts of each mammogram. Fuji AD-M film was generally judged to be better for overall diagnosis. However, 2.3% of mammograms produced using Fuji AD-M film were not acceptable and might have led to a technical recall of the patient. In the second part of this study, sets of mammograms from women attending mobile screening units were reviewed. One unit used Fuji AD-M film and the other used Kodak min-R 2000 film. Both samples of mammograms were digitized and analysed. The average film gradients between an optical density (OD) of 0.25 and 2.00 above base plus fog were 4.38 for Fuji AD-M film and 3.77 for Kodak min-R 2000 film. The main breast regions of the mammograms were judged to be satisfactorily displayed when breast tissues were above ODs of approximately 0.6 for Fuji AD-M film and 0.8 for Kodak min-R 2000 film.


  • 1 Young KC, Ramsdale ML, Rust A. The performance of mammographic equipment in the UK breast screening programme in 1998/99. Sheffield: NHSBSP Publication No 45, 2000. Google Scholar

  • 2 Meeson S, Young KC, Ramsdale ML, Wallis MG, Cooke J. Analysis of optical density and contrast in mammograms. Br J Radiol 1999;72:670–7. Link ISIGoogle Scholar

  • 3 Russ JC. The image processing handbook (2nd edn). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc., 1995. Google Scholar

  • 4 NHS Guidelines on quality assurance visits. Sheffield: NHSBSP Publication No 40, 1998. Google Scholar

  • 5 Young KC, King S, Meeson S, Ramsdale ML, Cooke J, Wallis MG. Auditing the image quality ofmammograms. Radiat Prot Dosim 2000;90:279–82. Crossref ISIGoogle Scholar

  • 6 Meeson S, Young KC, Cooke J. Skin edge perception in mammograms: a study of two film screen combinations. Br J Radiol 2000;73:370–5. Link ISIGoogle Scholar

  • 7 Young KC, Ramsdale ML, Rust A. Mammographic dose and image quality in the UK breast screening programme. Sheffield: NHSBSP Publication No 35, 1995. Google Scholar

  • 8 Bijkerk KR, Siekman KW, Hendriks JHCL, Rijken HJTM, Thijssen MAO. Prevention of glandular tissue under-exposure in mammographic screening. Radiology 1998. Imaging, Science & Oncology. Programme & abstracts supplement to Br J Radiol 1998;71:90 (Poster 0301). Google Scholar

  • 9 European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. Brussels: EUR16260EN CEC, 1996. Google Scholar

Volume 74, Issue 885September 2001
Pages: 779-879

© The British Institute of Radiology


  • ReceivedJune 15,2000
  • RevisedDecember 15,2000
  • AcceptedJanuary 31,2001
  • Published onlineMarch 05,2014


The work of the National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography is funded by the National Co-ordinating Office of the NHS Breast Screening Programme.