Literature DB >> 20736332

Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies.

R Edward Hendrick1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare radiation doses and lifetime attributable risks (LARs) of radiation-induced cancer incidence and mortality from breast imaging studies involving the use of ionizing radiation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Recent literature on radiation doses from radiologic procedures and organ doses from nuclear medicine procedures, along with Biologic Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII age-dependent risk data, is used to estimate LARs of radiation-induced cancer incidence and mortality from breast imaging studies involving ionizing radiation, including screen-film mammography, digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, dedicated breast computed tomography, breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI), and positron emission mammography (PEM).
RESULTS: Two-view digital mammography and screen-film mammography involve average mean glandular radiation doses of 3.7 and 4.7 mGy, respectively. According to BEIR VII data, these studies are associated, respectively, with LARs of fatal breast cancer of 1.3 and 1.7 cases per 100,000 women aged 40 years at exposure and less than one case per one million women aged 80 years at exposure. Annual screening digital or screen-film mammography performed in women aged 40-80 years is associated with an LAR of fatal breast cancer of 20-25 cases in 100,000. A single BSGI study involving a label-recommended dose of 740-1100 MBq (20-30 mCi) of technetium 99m-sestamibi is estimated to involve an LAR of fatal cancer that is 20-30 times that of digital mammography in women aged 40 years. A single PEM study involving a labeled dose of 370 MBq (10 mCi) of fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose is estimated to involve an LAR of fatal cancer that is 23 times higher than that of digital mammography in women aged 40 years.
CONCLUSION: A single BSGI or PEM study is associated with a fatal radiation-induced cancer risk higher than or comparable to that of annual screening mammography in women aged 40-80 years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20736332     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10100570

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  56 in total

1.  Simulation study comparing high-purity germanium and cadmium zinc telluride detectors for breast imaging.

Authors:  D L Campbell; T E Peterson
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  The importance of standardized interpretation of molecular breast imaging with dedicated gamma cameras.

Authors:  Orazio Schillaci
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas; Gopal R Vijayaraghavan; Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Imaging of Her2-targeted magnetic nanoparticles for breast cancer detection: comparison of SQUID-detected magnetic relaxometry and MRI.

Authors:  Natalie L Adolphi; Kimberly S Butler; Debbie M Lovato; T E Tessier; Jason E Trujillo; Helen J Hathaway; Danielle L Fegan; Todd C Monson; Tyler E Stevens; Dale L Huber; Jaivijay Ramu; Michelle L Milne; Stephen A Altobelli; Howard C Bryant; Richard S Larson; Edward R Flynn
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2012 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.161

5.  Clinical utility of positron emission mammography.

Authors:  Shannon B Glass; Zeeshan A Shah
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2013-07

6.  Characterization of the homogeneous tissue mixture approximation in breast imaging dosimetry.

Authors:  Ioannis Sechopoulos; Kristina Bliznakova; Xulei Qin; Baowei Fei; Steve Si Jia Feng
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 7.  Use of Breast-Specific PET Scanners and Comparison with MR Imaging.

Authors:  Deepa Narayanan; Wendie A Berg
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 2.266

8.  VPAC1 receptors for imaging breast cancer: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Mathew L Thakur; Kaijun Zhang; Adam Berger; Barbara Cavanaugh; Sung Kim; Chaitra Channappa; Andrea J Frangos; Eric Wickstrom; Charles M Intenzo
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-05-07       Impact factor: 10.057

9.  Diagnostic workup and costs of a single supplemental molecular breast imaging screen of mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Amy Lynn Conners; Katie N Jones; Michael K O'Connor; James P Moriarty; Judy C Boughey; Deborah J Rhodes
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Mammography Screening - as of 2013.

Authors:  S Heywang-Koebrunner; K Bock; W Heindel; G Hecht; L Regitz-Jedermann; A Hacker; V Kaeaeb-Sanyal
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 2.915

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.