Literature DB >> 24311702

The risk of radiation-induced breast cancers due to biennial mammographic screening in women aged 50-69 years is minimal.

Ingrid Helen Ryste Hauge1, Kristin Pedersen2, Hilde Merete Olerud3, Eli Olaug Hole4, Solveig Hofvind5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The main aim of mammographic screening is to reduce the mortality from breast cancer. However, use of ionizing radiation is considered a potential harm due to the possible risk of inducing cancer in healthy women.
PURPOSE: To estimate the potential number of radiation-induced breast cancers, radiation-induced breast cancer deaths, and lives saved due to implementation of organized mammographic screening as performed in Norway.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used a previously published excess absolute risk model which assumes a linear no-threshold dose-response. The estimates were calculated for 100,000 women aged 50-69 years, a screening interval of 2 years, and with an assumed follow-up until the age of 85 or 105 years. Radiation doses of 0.7, 2.5, and 5.7 mGy per screening examination, a latency time of 5 or 10 years, and a dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor (DDREF) of 1 or 2 were applied.
RESULTS: The total lifetime risk of radiation-induced breast cancers per 100,000 women was 10 (95% CI: 4-25) if the women were followed from the ages of 50 to 85 years, for a dose of 2.5 mGy, a latency time of 10 years, and a DDREF of 1. For the same parameter values the number of radiation-induced breast cancer death was 1 (95% CI: 0-2). The assumed number of lives saved is approximately 350.
CONCLUSION: The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer and breast cancer death due to mammographic screening is minimal. Women should not be discouraged from attending screening due to fear of radiation-induced breast cancer death. © The Foundation Acta Radiologica 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast; adults; mammography; radiation effect; radiation safety; screening

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24311702     DOI: 10.1177/0284185113514051

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Radiol        ISSN: 0284-1851            Impact factor:   1.990


  11 in total

1.  Radiation risk of breast screening in England with digital mammography.

Authors:  Lucy M Warren; David R Dance; Kenneth C Young
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  T M Svahn; N Houssami; I Sechopoulos; S Mattsson
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2014-12-29       Impact factor: 4.380

3.  The Effect of Breast Size and Density in Turkish Women on Radiation Dose in Full-Field Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Ayşegül İdil Soylu; Mesut Öztürk; Ahmet Veysel Polat
Journal:  Eur J Breast Health       Date:  2021-10-04

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.  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
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 2.754

6.  Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.

Authors:  Francesco Sardanelli; Hildegunn S Aase; Marina Álvarez; Edward Azavedo; Henk J Baarslag; Corinne Balleyguier; Pascal A Baltzer; Vanesa Beslagic; Ulrich Bick; Dragana Bogdanovic-Stojanovic; Ruta Briediene; Boris Brkljacic; Julia Camps Herrero; Catherine Colin; Eleanor Cornford; Jan Danes; Gérard de Geer; Gul Esen; Andrew Evans; Michael H Fuchsjaeger; Fiona J Gilbert; Oswald Graf; Gormlaith Hargaden; Thomas H Helbich; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Valentin Ivanov; Ásbjörn Jónsson; Christiane K Kuhl; Eugenia C Lisencu; Elzbieta Luczynska; Ritse M Mann; Jose C Marques; Laura Martincich; Margarete Mortier; Markus Müller-Schimpfle; Katalin Ormandi; Pietro Panizza; Federica Pediconi; Ruud M Pijnappel; Katja Pinker; Tarja Rissanen; Natalia Rotaru; Gianni Saguatti; Tamar Sella; Jana Slobodníková; Maret Talk; Patrice Taourel; Rubina M Trimboli; Ilse Vejborg; Athina Vourtsis; Gabor Forrai
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-11-02       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women.

Authors:  Francesco Sardanelli; Eva M Fallenberg; Paola Clauser; Rubina M Trimboli; Julia Camps-Herrero; Thomas H Helbich; Gabor Forrai
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2016-11-16

8.  Comparison of a personalized breast dosimetry method with standard dosimetry protocols.

Authors:  Elisabeth Salomon; Peter Homolka; Friedrich Semturs; Michael Figl; Michael Gruber; Johann Hummel
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-04-10       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Estimation of cancer risks during mammography procedure in Saudi Arabia.

Authors:  A Sulieman; O Serhan; H I Al-Mohammed; M Z Mahmoud; M Alkhorayef; B Alonazi; E Manssor; A Yousef
Journal:  Saudi J Biol Sci       Date:  2018-10-04       Impact factor: 4.219

Review 10.  Advanced Approaches to Breast Cancer Classification and Diagnosis.

Authors:  M Zubair; S Wang; N Ali
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 5.988

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.