Evaluation of the relationship between digital mammography radiation dose and patient age, breast volume and density

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 5, 954 - 961, 28.09.2023

Bünyamin Ece

https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1340385

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

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

Kaynakça

• Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394-424.
• Turkey cancer statistics. T.C. Ministry of Health, Public Health Agency of Turkey (Internet) (Cited:2023 June 20). Available from: https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/tr/kanseristatistikleri/yillar/2016-yili-turkiye-kanser-i-statistikleri.html
• Hu K, Ding P, Wu Y, Tian W, Pan T, Zhang S. Global patterns and trends in the breast cancer incidence and mortality according to sociodemographic indices: An observational study based on the global burden of diseases. BMJ Open. 2019;9(10):e028461.
• Henderson TO, Amsterdam A, Bhatia S, et al. Systematic review: Surveillance for breast cancer in women treated with chest radiation for childhood, adolescent, or young adult cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(7):444-455.
• Tamam N, Salah H, Rabbaa M, et al. Evaluation of patients radiation dose during mammography imaging procedure. Radiat Phys Chem. 2021;188:109680.
• Hendrick RE. Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies. Radiology. 2010;257(1):246-253.
• Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the society of breast imaging and the acr on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(1):18-27.
• Migowski A. Early detection of breast cancer and the interpretation of results of survival studies. Cien Saude Colet. 2015;20(4):1309.
• Linton OW, Mettler FA. National conference on dose reduction in CT, with an emphasis on pediatric patients. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181(2):321-329.
• Karavas E, Ece B, Aydın S, et al. Are we aware of radiation: A study about necessity of diagnostic X-ray exposure. World J Methodol. 2022;12(4):264-273.
• Boice JD. Cancer following medical irradiation. Cancer. 1981;47(5 S):1081-1090.
• The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2-4):1-332. doi:10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003
• Aro AR, De Koning HJ, Absetz P, Schreck M. Two distinct groups of non-attenders in an organized mammography screening program. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;70(2):145-153.
• Nguyen J V, Williams MB, Patrie JT, Harvey JA. Do women with dense breasts have higher radiation dose during screening mammography? Breast J. 2018;24(1):35-40.
• Howlander N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2016. Natl Cancer Institute. Published online 2019. (Internet) (Cited:2023 June 20). Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2012/
• Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG. Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. Radiology. 2011;258(1):98-105.
• Sulieman A, Serhan O, Al-Mohammed HI, et al. Estimation of cancer risks during mammography procedure in Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2019;26(6):1107-1111.
• 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.
• dos Reis CS, Fartaria MJ, Alves JHG, Pascoal A. Portuguese study of mean glandular dose in mammography and comparison with European references. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2018;179(4):391-399.
• Young KC, Oduko JM. Radiation doses received in the United Kingdom breast screening programme in 2010 to 2012. Br J Radiol. 2016;89(1058):20150831.
• Dzidzornu E, Angmorterh SK, Ofori-Manteaw BB, Aboagye S, Dzefi-Tettey K, Ofori EK. Mammography diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) in Ghana. Radiography. 2021;27(2):611-616.
• Kalbhen CL, McGill JJ, Fendley PM, Corrigan KW, Angelats J. Mammographic determination of breast volume: comparing different methods. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173(6):1643-1649.
• Rostas JW, Bhutiani N, Crigger M, et al. Calculation of breast volumes from mammogram: Comparison of four separate equations relative to mastectomy specimen volumes. J Surg Oncol. 2018;117(8):1848-1853.
• Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ, et al. American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: Objectives and methodology. Radiology. 2005;236(2):404-412.
• Baek JE, Kang BJ, Kim SH, Lee HS. Radiation dose affected by mammographic composition and breast size: First application of a radiation dose management system for full-field digital mammography in Korean women. World J Surg Oncol. 2017;15(1):38.
• Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A, et al. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology imaging network digital mammographic imaging screening trial. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(2):362-369.
• İdil Soylu A, Öztürk M, Polat AV. The effect of breast size and density in turkish women on radiation dose in full-field digital mammography. Eur J Breast Heal. 2021;17(4):315-321.
• Özdemir A. Clinical evaluation of breast dose and the factors affecting breast dose in screen-film mammography. Diagnostic Interv Radiol. 2007;13(3):134-139.
• Karabekmez LG, Ercan K. How does a woman’s reproductıve and breast-feedıng hıstory, weıght, heıght, body mass ındex, breast sıze and breast densıty affect the radıatıon dose she takes durıng mammography? Ankara Med J. 2022;(1):155-166.
• Raed RMK, England A, Mercer C, et al. Mathematical modelling of radiation-induced cancer risk from breast screening by mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2017;96:98-103.
• Van Der Waal D, Den Heeten GJ, Pijnappel RM, et al. Comparing visually assessed BI-RADS breast density and automated volumetric breast density software: a cross-sectional study in a breast cancer screening setting. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0136667.
• Gubern-Mérida A, Kallenberg M, Platel B, Mann RM, Martí R, Karssemeijer N. Volumetric breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms: A validation study. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):273-282.
• Gweon HM, Youk JH, Kim JA, Son EJ. Radiologist assessment of breast density by BI-RADS categories versus fully automated volumetric assessment. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(3):692-697.
• Brandt KR, Scott CG, Ma L, et al. Comparison of clinical and automated breast density measurements: implications for risk prediction and supplemental screening. Radiology. 2016;279(3):710-719.