JHSM
Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine

Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine (JHSM) is an unbiased, peer-reviewed, and open access international medical journal. The Journal publishes interesting clinical and experimental research conducted in all fields of medicine, interesting case reports, and clinical images, invited reviews, editorials, letters, comments, and related knowledge.

ISSN: Active
eISSN: 2636-8579
Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License.
EndNote Style

Submit Manuscript

Index
Original Article
Evaluation of the relationship between digital mammography radiation dose and patient age, breast volume and density
Abstract
Aims: To determine the average radiation dose values in patients who underwent routine screening mammography in our hospital, establish the relationship between breast density and volume, and investigate other factors affecting radiation dose.
Methods: Screening bilateral mammography was retrospectively evaluated within the specified period of 2 months. Patient age, breast density ratio, mammographic size of the breast, calculated breast volume, tube voltage, current, exposure time (ms), compression force (kg), compression thickness (mm), and radiation dose (mGy) given in each projection were recorded separately for each patient. According to the BI-RADS, breast densities classified as types A-B were considered non-dense, while types C-D were considered dense breasts. The 75th percentile dose value (mGy) was chosen as the cutoff for high dose group. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine the factors affecting radiation dose.
Results: 1720 mammograms from 430 patients were studied. 276 (64.2%) breasts were non-dense, while 154 (35.8%) breasts were dense. The mean total breast volume was 595±334 ml, compression thickness was 36.5±12.0 mm, and radiation dose was 2.04±0.75 mGy. There was a negative correlation between radiation dose and age (r=-0.330, p<0.001), while a positive correlation was found between radiation dose and breast volume (r=0.514, p<0.001), kV (r=0.608, p<0.001), mAs (r=0.912, p<0.001), exposure time (r=0.820, p<0.001), compression thickness (r=0.629, p<0.001) and strength (r=0.084, p<0.001). In the regression analysis conducted excluding technical parameters, age, breast volume, density, and compression thickness all influence radiation dose, with compression thickness having the greatest effect, followed by breast volume, age, and finally breast density.
Conclusion: The most important factors influencing radiation dose are technical parameters such as tube voltage, current and exposure time. However, apart from technical parameters, compressed breast thickness is the most affecting factor, followed by breast volume, age, and least of all, breast density, in affecting radiation dose.

Keywords : Mammography, breast, radiation dosage, diagnostic imaging, breast density, diagnostic screening programs

Download Article


1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A.Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidenceand mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CACancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394-424.
2. Turkey cancer statistics. T.C. Ministry of Health, Public HealthAgency of Turkey (Internet) (Cited:2023 June 20). Available from:https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/tr/kanseristatistikleri/yillar/2016-yili-turkiye-kanser-i-statistikleri.html
3. Hu K, Ding P, Wu Y, Tian W, Pan T, Zhang S. Global patterns andtrends in the breast cancer incidence and mortality according tosociodemographic indices: An observational study based on theglobal burden of diseases. BMJ Open. 2019;9(10):e028461.
4. Henderson TO, Amsterdam A, Bhatia S, et al. Systematic review:Surveillance for breast cancer in women treated with chestradiation for childhood, adolescent, or young adult cancer. AnnIntern Med. 2010;152(7):444-455.
5. Tamam N, Salah H, Rabbaa M, et al. Evaluation of patientsradiation dose during mammography imaging procedure. RadiatPhys Chem. 2021;188:109680.
6. Hendrick RE. Radiation doses and cancer risks from breastimaging studies. Radiology. 2010;257(1):246-253.
7. Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, et al. Breast cancer screeningwith imaging: recommendations from the society of breastimaging and the acr on the use of mammography, breast MRI,breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection ofclinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(1):18-27.
8. Migowski A. Early detection of breast cancer and the interpretationof results of survival studies. Cien Saude Colet. 2015;20(4):1309.
9. Linton OW, Mettler FA. National conference on dose reductionin CT, with an emphasis on pediatric patients. Am J Roentgenol.2003;181(2):321-329.
10. Karavas E, Ece B, Aydın S, et al. Are we aware of radiation: A studyabout necessity of diagnostic X-ray exposure. World J Methodol.2022;12(4):264-273.
11. Boice JD. Cancer following medical irradiation. Cancer. 1981;47(5S):1081-1090.
12. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commissionon Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP.2007;37(2-4):1-332. doi:10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003
13. Aro AR, De Koning HJ, Absetz P, Schreck M. Two distinct groupsof non-attenders in an organized mammography screeningprogram. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;70(2):145-153.
14. Nguyen J V, Williams MB, Patrie JT, Harvey JA. Do womenwith dense breasts have higher radiation dose during screeningmammography? Breast J. 2018;24(1):35-40.
15. Howlander N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. SEER CancerStatistics Review 1975-2016. Natl Cancer Institute. Publishedonline 2019. (Internet) (Cited:2023 June 20). Available from:http://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2012/
16. Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG. Risk of radiation-induced breast cancerfrom mammographic screening. Radiology. 2011;258(1):98-105.
17. Sulieman A, Serhan O, Al-Mohammed HI, et al. Estimation ofcancer risks during mammography procedure in Saudi Arabia.Saudi J Biol Sci. 2019;26(6):1107-1111.
18. Lekatou A, Metaxas V, Messaris G, Antzele P, Tzavellas G,Panayiotakis G. Institutional breast doses in digital mammography.Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2019;185(2):239-251.
19. dos Reis CS, Fartaria MJ, Alves JHG, Pascoal A. Portuguese studyof mean glandular dose in mammography and comparison withEuropean references. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2018;179(4):391-399.
20. Young KC, Oduko JM. Radiation doses received in the UnitedKingdom breast screening programme in 2010 to 2012. Br JRadiol. 2016;89(1058):20150831.
21. Dzidzornu E, Angmorterh SK, Ofori-Manteaw BB, Aboagye S,Dzefi-Tettey K, Ofori EK. Mammography diagnostic referencelevels (DRLs) in Ghana. Radiography. 2021;27(2):611-616.
22. Kalbhen CL, McGill JJ, Fendley PM, Corrigan KW, Angelats J.Mammographic determination of breast volume: comparingdifferent methods. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173(6):1643-1649.
23. Rostas JW, Bhutiani N, Crigger M, et al. Calculation of breastvolumes from mammogram: Comparison of four separateequations relative to mastectomy specimen volumes. J Surg Oncol.2018;117(8):1848-1853.
24. Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ, et al. American College ofRadiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imagingscreening trial: Objectives and methodology. Radiology.2005;236(2):404-412.
25. Baek JE, Kang BJ, Kim SH, Lee HS. Radiation dose affected bymammographic composition and breast size: First applicationof a radiation dose management system for full-field digitalmammography in Korean women. World J Surg Oncol.2017;15(1):38.
26. Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A, et al. Comparison ofacquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammographyand screen-film mammography in the American College ofRadiology imaging network digital mammographic imagingscreening trial. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(2):362-369.
27. İdil Soylu A, &Ouml;zt&uuml;rk M, Polat AV. The effect of breast size anddensity in turkish women on radiation dose in full-field digitalmammography. Eur J Breast Heal. 2021;17(4):315-321.
28. &Ouml;zdemir A. Clinical evaluation of breast dose and the factorsaffecting breast dose in screen-film mammography. DiagnosticInterv Radiol. 2007;13(3):134-139.
29. Karabekmez LG, Ercan K. How does a woman&rsquo;s reproductıve andbreast-feedıng hıstory, weıght, heıght, body mass ındex, breastsıze and breast densıty affect the radıatıon dose she takes durıngmammography? Ankara Med J. 2022;(1):155-166.
30. Raed RMK, England A, Mercer C, et al. Mathematical modellingof radiation-induced cancer risk from breast screening bymammography. Eur J Radiol. 2017;96:98-103.
31. Van Der Waal D, Den Heeten GJ, Pijnappel RM, et al. Comparingvisually assessed BI-RADS breast density and automatedvolumetric breast density software: a cross-sectional study in abreast cancer screening setting. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0136667.
32. Gubern-M&eacute;rida A, Kallenberg M, Platel B, Mann RM, Mart&iacute;R, Karssemeijer N. Volumetric breast density estimation fromfull-field digital mammograms: A validation study. PLoS One.2014;9(1):273-282.
33. Gweon HM, Youk JH, Kim JA, Son EJ. Radiologist assessmentof breast density by BI-RADS categories versus fully automatedvolumetric assessment. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(3):692-697.
34. Brandt KR, Scott CG, Ma L, et al. Comparison of clinicaland automated breast density measurements: implicationsfor risk prediction and supplemental screening. Radiology.2016;279(3):710-719.
Article available in :
Volume 6, Issue 5, 2023
Page : 954-961
https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1340385
Article Information
Received : 09 Ağu 2023
Accepted : 23 Ağu 2023
Published : 28 Eyl 2023
Corresponding Author :

Bünyamin Ece: Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Kastamonu University, Kastamonu, Turkiye

[email protected]
Citation : Ece B. Evaluation of the relationship between digital mammography radiation dose and patient age, breast volume and density. J Health Sci Med. 2023;6(5):954-961.

Read: 276
Cited: 0
Download : 323
_Footer