Literature DB >> 21988547

Reconstruction of absorbed doses to fibroglandular tissue of the breast of women undergoing mammography (1960 to the present).

Isabelle Thierry-Chef1, Steven L Simon, Robert M Weinstock, Deukwoo Kwon, Martha S Linet.   

Abstract

The assessment of potential benefits versus harms from mammographic examinations as described in the controversial breast cancer screening recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Task Force included limited consideration of absorbed dose to the fibroglandular tissue of the breast (glandular tissue dose), the tissue at risk for breast cancer. Epidemiological studies on cancer risks associated with diagnostic radiological examinations often lack accurate information on glandular tissue dose, and there is a clear need for better estimates of these doses. Our objective was to develop a quantitative summary of glandular tissue doses from mammography by considering sources of variation over time in key parameters, including imaging protocols, X-ray target materials, voltage, filtration, incident air kerma, compressed breast thickness, and breast composition. We estimated the minimum, maximum and mean values for glandular tissue dose for populations of exposed women within 5-year periods from 1960 to the present, with the minimum to maximum range likely including 90% to 95% of the entirety of the dose range from mammography in North America and Europe. Glandular tissue dose from a single view in mammography is presently about 2 mGy, about one-sixth the dose in the 1960s. The ratio of our estimates of maximum to minimum glandular tissue doses for average-size breasts was about 100 in the 1960s compared to a ratio of about 5 in recent years. Findings from our analysis provide quantitative information on glandular tissue doses from mammographic examinations that can be used in epidemiological studies of breast cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21988547      PMCID: PMC3876279          DOI: 10.1667/rr2241.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiat Res        ISSN: 0033-7587            Impact factor:   2.841


  94 in total

1.  Report of an image quality and dose audit according to directive 97/43/Euratom at Spanish private radiodiagnostics facilities.

Authors:  L González; E Vañó; S Oliete; J Manrique; J M Hernáez; J Lahuerta; J Ruiz
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 1997 and 1998.

Authors:  K C Young; A Burch
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications.

Authors:  K-P Hermann; S Obenauer; M Funke; E H Grabbe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-04-18       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  The development of mammography.

Authors:  J Law
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2006-06-20       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Patient dosimetry for x rays used in medical imaging.

Authors: 
Journal:  J ICRU       Date:  2005-12

6.  Breast exposure: nationwide trends; a mammographic quality assurance program--results to date.

Authors:  J E Jensen; P F Butler
Journal:  Radiol Technol       Date:  1978 Nov-Dec

7.  Coning and breast compression. An aid in mammographic diagnosis.

Authors:  H Minagi; J C Tennant; J E Youker
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1968-08       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Normalized average glandular dose in molybdenum target-rhodium filter and rhodium target-rhodium filter mammography.

Authors:  X Wu; E L Gingold; G T Barnes; D M Tucker
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Dosage evaluation in mammography.

Authors:  L Stanton; T Villafana; J L Day; D A Lightfoot
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1984-02       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  United States radiological health activities: inspection results of mammography facilities.

Authors:  Dc Spelic; Rv Kaczmarek; M Hilohi; S Belella
Journal:  Biomed Imaging Interv J       Date:  2007-04-01
View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Cancer risks associated with external radiation from diagnostic imaging procedures.

Authors:  Martha S Linet; Thomas L Slovis; Donald L Miller; Ruth Kleinerman; Choonsik Lee; Preetha Rajaraman; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2012-02-03       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 2.  European trends in radiology: investigating factors affecting the number of examinations and the effective dose.

Authors:  Hamidreza Masjedi; Mohammad Hosein Zare; Neda Keshavarz Siahpoush; Seid Kazem Razavi-Ratki; Fatemeh Alavi; Masoud Shabani
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 3.469

3.  A prospective study of medical diagnostic radiography and risk of thyroid cancer.

Authors:  Gila Neta; Preetha Rajaraman; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Michele M Doody; Bruce H Alexander; Dale Preston; Steven L Simon; Dunstana Melo; Jeremy Miller; D Michal Freedman; Martha S Linet; Alice J Sigurdson
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2013-03-25       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 4.  Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

Authors:  Michelle T Le; Carmel E Mothersill; Colin B Seymour; Fiona E McNeill
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Thyroid Radiation Dose to Patients from Diagnostic Radiology Procedures over Eight Decades: 1930-2010.

Authors:  Lienard A Chang; Donald L Miller; Choonsik Lee; Dunstana R Melo; Daphnée Villoing; Vladimir Drozdovitch; Isabelle Thierry-Chef; Sarah J Winters; Michael Labrake; Charles F Myers; Hyeyeun Lim; Cari M Kitahara; Martha S Linet; Steven L Simon
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.316

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.