Journal of Medical Systems

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 173–178 | Cite as

Radiation dose and risk in screening mammography

  • David F. Adcock
  • Duncan B. Howe
Articles
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

Screening mammography has not yet become a standard procedure. There are great variations in image quality and radiation dose. Mean glandular dose has become the most frequently used description of radiation dose in screening mammography. Because of the low energy x-ray beam required for the procedure, the use of mean glandular dose as the radiation exposure indicator may cause a misunderstanding of the dose-risk relationship and result in confusion about radiation exposure and the risk of induced neoplasm. Data are presented to show that increases in both maximum glandular dose and imparted energy are greater than the increases in mean glandular dose with comparable increases in breast thickness. In the future, an indication of total imparted energy should replace the use of mean glandular dose as the standard for describing radiation dose in screening mammography.

Keywords

Radiation Image Quality Radiation Dose Standard Procedure Radiation Exposure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gaikin, B.M., Feig, S.A., and Muir, H.D., The technical quality of mammography in centers participating in a regional breast cancer awareness program.Radiographics 8(1):133–145, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Research Council, Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations. The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. BEIR III. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Research Council, Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations. Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. BEIR V. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). 1988. Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation. Report E.88.IX.7 New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conway, B.J., McCrohan, J.L., Rueter, F.G., and Suleiman, O.H., Mammography in the eighties.Radiology 177:335–339, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kerr, G.D., Organ dose estimates for the Japanese atomic-bomb survivors.Health Phys. 37:487–508, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Preston, D.L., and Pierce, D.A., The effect of changes in dosimetry on cancer mortality risk estimates in the atomic bomb survivors.Rad. Res. 114:437–466, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shore, R.E., Hildreth, N., Woodard, E., Dvoretscky, P., Hempelmann, L., and Pasternack, B., Breast cancer among women given x-ray therapy for acute postpartum mastitis.JNCI 77:689–696, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sherman, G.J., Howe, G.R., Miller, A.B., and Rosenstein, M., Organ dose per unit exposure resulting from fluoroscopy for artificial pneumothorax.Health Phys. 35:259–269, 1978.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boice, J.D., Rosenstein, J., and Trout, E.D., Estimation of breast doses and breast cancer risk associated with repeated fluoroscopic chest examinations of women with tuberculosis.Rad. Res. 73:373–390, 1978.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boice, J.D., Monson, R.R., and Rosenstein, M., Cancer mortality in women after repeated fluoroscopic examinations of the chest.JNCI 66:863–867, 1981.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hrubec, Z., Boice, J.D., Monson, R.R., and Rosenstein, M., Breast cancer after multiple chest fluoroscopies: second follow-up of Massachusetts women with tuberculosis.Cancer Res. 49:229–234, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller, A.B., Howe, G.R., Sherman, G.J.,et al., Mortality from breast cancer after irradiation during fluoroscopic examinations in patients being treated for tuberculosis.N. Engl. J. Med. 321:1285–9, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gohagen, J.K., Darby, W.P., Spitznagel, E.L., and Monsees, B.S., Radiogenic breast cancer effects of mammographic screening.JNCI 77:71–76, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Institutes of Health, Ad Hoc Working Group. Report of the National Institutes of Health Ad Hoc Working Group to Develop Radioepidemiological Tables. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt Printing Office; 1985. [DHHS publication No. (NIH) 85-2748].Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prado, K.L., Rakowski, J.T., Barragan, F., and Vanek, K.N., Breast radiation dose in film/screen mammography.Health Phys. 55:81–83, 1988.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hammerstein, G.R., Miller, D.W., Whit, D.R., Masterson, M.E., Woodard, H.Q., and Laughline, J.S., Absorbed radiation dose in mammography.Radiology 130:485–491, 1979.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eddy, D.M., Hasselblad, V., McGivney, W., and Hendee, W., The value of mammography screening in women under age 50 years.JAMA 259:1512–1519, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • David F. Adcock
    • 1
  • Duncan B. Howe
    • 1
  1. 1.From the Department of RadiologyUniversity of South Carolina, School of MedicineColumbia

Personalised recommendations