Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Surgical Oncology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

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

Authors: Ji Eun Baek, Bong Joo Kang, Sung Hun Kim, Hyun Sil Lee

Published in: World Journal of Surgical Oncology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Relative to Western women, Korean women show several differences in breast-related characteristics, including higher rates of dense breasts and small breasts. We investigated how mammographic composition and breast size affect the glandular dose during full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in Korean women using a radiation dose management system.

Methods

From June 1 to June 30, 2015, 2120 FFDM images from 560 patients were acquired and mammographic breast composition and breast size were assessed. We analyzed the correlations of patient age, peak kilovoltage (kVp), current (mAs), compressed breast thickness, compression force, mammographic breast composition, and mammographic breast size with the mean glandular dose (MGD) of the breast using a radiation dose management system. The causes of increased radiation were investigated, among patients with radiation doses above the diagnostic reference level (4th quartile, ≥75%).

Results

The MGD per view of 2120 images was 1.81 ± 0.70 mGy. In multivariate linear regression analysis, age was negatively associated with MGD (p < 0.05). The mAs, kVp, compressed breast thickness, and mammographic breast size were positively associated with MGD (p < 0.05). The “dense” group had a significantly higher MGD than the “non-dense” group (p < 0.05). Patients with radiation dose values above the diagnostic reference value had large breasts of dense composition.

Conclusions

Among Korean women, patients with large and dense breasts should be more carefully managed to ensure that a constant radiation dose is maintained.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Linton OW, Mettler Jr FA. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements: national conference on dose reduction in CT, with an emphasis on pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:321–9.CrossRefPubMed Linton OW, Mettler Jr FA. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements: national conference on dose reduction in CT, with an emphasis on pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:321–9.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, Berdon WE. Estimates of the cancer risks from pediatric CT radiation are not merely theoretical: comment on “point/counterpoint: in x-ray computed tomography, technique factors should be selected appropriate to patient size. against the proposition”. Med Phys. 2001;28:2387–8.CrossRefPubMed Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, Berdon WE. Estimates of the cancer risks from pediatric CT radiation are not merely theoretical: comment on “point/counterpoint: in x-ray computed tomography, technique factors should be selected appropriate to patient size. against the proposition”. Med Phys. 2001;28:2387–8.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference National Research Council (US) Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Level of Ionizing Radiation. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. Washington: National Academies Press; 2006. p. 406. National Research Council (US) Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Level of Ionizing Radiation. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. Washington: National Academies Press; 2006. p. 406.
4.
go back to reference Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Cullings HM, Fujita S, Funamoto S, Kodama K. Effect of recent changes in atomic bomb survivor dosimetry on cancer mortality risk estimates. Radiat Res. 2004;162:377–89.CrossRefPubMed Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Cullings HM, Fujita S, Funamoto S, Kodama K. Effect of recent changes in atomic bomb survivor dosimetry on cancer mortality risk estimates. Radiat Res. 2004;162:377–89.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Preston DL, Ron E, Tokuoka S, Funamoto S, Nishi N, Soda M, Mabuchi K, Kodama K. Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958–1998. Radiat Res. 2007;168:1–64.CrossRefPubMed Preston DL, Ron E, Tokuoka S, Funamoto S, Nishi N, Soda M, Mabuchi K, Kodama K. Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958–1998. Radiat Res. 2007;168:1–64.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Preston DL, Shimizu Y, Pierce DA, Suyama A, Mabuchi K. Studies of mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 13: solid cancer and noncancer disease mortality: 1950–1997. Radiat Res. 2003;2012(178):AV146–72. Preston DL, Shimizu Y, Pierce DA, Suyama A, Mabuchi K. Studies of mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 13: solid cancer and noncancer disease mortality: 1950–1997. Radiat Res. 2003;2012(178):AV146–72.
7.
go back to reference Hendrick RE. Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies. Radiology. 2010;257:246–53.CrossRefPubMed Hendrick RE. Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies. Radiology. 2010;257:246–53.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG. Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. Radiology. 2011;258:98–105.CrossRefPubMed Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG. Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. Radiology. 2011;258:98–105.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Hauge IH, Pedersen K, Olerud HM, Hole EO, Hofvind S. The risk of radiation-induced breast cancers due to biennial mammographic screening in women aged 50-69 years is minimal. Acta Radiol. 2014;55:1174–9.CrossRefPubMed Hauge IH, Pedersen K, Olerud HM, Hole EO, Hofvind S. The risk of radiation-induced breast cancers due to biennial mammographic screening in women aged 50-69 years is minimal. Acta Radiol. 2014;55:1174–9.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Ko SY, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Moon HJ. Mammographic density estimation with automated volumetric breast density measurement. Korean J Radiol. 2014;15:313–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ko SY, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Moon HJ. Mammographic density estimation with automated volumetric breast density measurement. Korean J Radiol. 2014;15:313–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Kang BJ, Kim SH, Choi BG. Comparison of full-field digital mammography workstation and conventional picture archiving and communication system in image quality and diagnostic performance. Clin Imaging. 2011;35:336–40.CrossRefPubMed Kang BJ, Kim SH, Choi BG. Comparison of full-field digital mammography workstation and conventional picture archiving and communication system in image quality and diagnostic performance. Clin Imaging. 2011;35:336–40.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:177–82.CrossRefPubMed Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:177–82.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A, Moran C, Berns EA, Yaffe MJ, Herman B, Acharyya S, Gatsonis C. 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:362–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A, Moran C, Berns EA, Yaffe MJ, Herman B, Acharyya S, Gatsonis C. 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:362–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference International Commission on Radiological Protection. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37:1–332. International Commission on Radiological Protection. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37:1–332.
15.
go back to reference National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Report no. 160—ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States (2009). Bethesda: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2009. p. xv–387. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Report no. 160—ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States (2009). Bethesda: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2009. p. xv–387.
16.
go back to reference Bor D, Tukel S, Olgar T, Aydin E. Variations in breast doses for an automatic mammography unit. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2008;14:122–6.PubMed Bor D, Tukel S, Olgar T, Aydin E. Variations in breast doses for an automatic mammography unit. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2008;14:122–6.PubMed
17.
go back to reference Gentry JR, DeWerd LA. TLD measurements of in vivo mammographic exposures and the calculated mean glandular dose across the United States. Med Phys. 1996;23:899–903.CrossRefPubMed Gentry JR, DeWerd LA. TLD measurements of in vivo mammographic exposures and the calculated mean glandular dose across the United States. Med Phys. 1996;23:899–903.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Kruger RL, Schueler BA. A survey of clinical factors and patient dose in mammography. Med Phys. 2001;28:1449–54.CrossRefPubMed Kruger RL, Schueler BA. A survey of clinical factors and patient dose in mammography. Med Phys. 2001;28:1449–54.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Moran P, Chevalier M, Ten JI, Fernandez Soto JM, Vano E. A survey of patient dose and clinical factors in a full-field digital mammography system. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114:375–9.CrossRefPubMed Moran P, Chevalier M, Ten JI, Fernandez Soto JM, Vano E. A survey of patient dose and clinical factors in a full-field digital mammography system. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114:375–9.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Seo JM, Ko ES, Han B-K, Ko EY, Shin JH, Hahn SY. Automated volumetric breast density estimation: a comparison with visual assessment. Clin Radiol. 2013;68:690–5.CrossRefPubMed Seo JM, Ko ES, Han B-K, Ko EY, Shin JH, Hahn SY. Automated volumetric breast density estimation: a comparison with visual assessment. Clin Radiol. 2013;68:690–5.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15:1159–69.CrossRef McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15:1159–69.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Ozdemir A. Clinical evaluation of breast dose and the factors affecting breast dose in screen-film mammography. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2007;13:134–9.PubMed Ozdemir A. Clinical evaluation of breast dose and the factors affecting breast dose in screen-film mammography. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2007;13:134–9.PubMed
23.
go back to reference Lee HN, Sohn Y-M, Han KH. Comparison of mammographic density estimation by Volpara software with radiologists’ visual assessment: analysis of clinical–radiologic factors affecting discrepancy between them. Acta Radiol. 2014;56:1061–8.CrossRefPubMed Lee HN, Sohn Y-M, Han KH. Comparison of mammographic density estimation by Volpara software with radiologists’ visual assessment: analysis of clinical–radiologic factors affecting discrepancy between them. Acta Radiol. 2014;56:1061–8.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Gweon HM, Youk JH, Kim J-A, Son EJ. Radiologist assessment of breast density by BI-RADS categories versus fully automated volumetric assessment. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:692–7.CrossRef Gweon HM, Youk JH, Kim J-A, Son EJ. Radiologist assessment of breast density by BI-RADS categories versus fully automated volumetric assessment. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:692–7.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Brandt K, Scott C, Ma L, Mahmoudzadeh A, Jensen M, Whaley D, Wu F, Malkov S, Hruska C, Norman A, Heine J, Shepherd J, Pankratz VS, Kerlikowske K, Vachon C. Comparison of clinical and automated breast density measurements: implications for risk prediction and supplemental screening. Radiology. 2016;279:710–9.CrossRefPubMed Brandt K, Scott C, Ma L, Mahmoudzadeh A, Jensen M, Whaley D, Wu F, Malkov S, Hruska C, Norman A, Heine J, Shepherd J, Pankratz VS, Kerlikowske K, Vachon C. Comparison of clinical and automated breast density measurements: implications for risk prediction and supplemental screening. Radiology. 2016;279:710–9.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference van der Waal D, den Heeten G, Pijnappel R, Schuur K, Timmers JMH, Verbeek ALM, Broeders MJM. 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:e0136667.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral van der Waal D, den Heeten G, Pijnappel R, Schuur K, Timmers JMH, Verbeek ALM, Broeders MJM. 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:e0136667.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
go back to reference 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:e85952.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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:e85952.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference Hatziioannou KA, Psarrakos K, Molyvda-Athanasopoulou E, Kitis G, Papanastassiou E, Sofroniadis I, Kimoundri O. Dosimetric considerations in mammography. Eur Radiol. 2000;10:1193–6.CrossRefPubMed Hatziioannou KA, Psarrakos K, Molyvda-Athanasopoulou E, Kitis G, Papanastassiou E, Sofroniadis I, Kimoundri O. Dosimetric considerations in mammography. Eur Radiol. 2000;10:1193–6.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
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
Authors
Ji Eun Baek
Bong Joo Kang
Sung Hun Kim
Hyun Sil Lee
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7819
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-017-1107-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

World Journal of Surgical Oncology 1/2017 Go to the issue