Kenneth C Young1,2, Jennifer M Oduko1. 1. 1 National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography, Medical Physics Department, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK. 2. 2 Physics Department, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review the radiation doses received by women attending the UK breast-screening programme between 2010 and 2012. To compare doses with previous years and to quantify the impact on dose of changing from analogue to digital imaging and to analyse doses by type of imaging system. METHODS: Measurements of doses to samples of about 50-100 women attending for screening were collected across the whole of the UK breast-screening programme. RESULTS: Data were collected for 87,122 exposures, using 449 X-ray sets, for 25,408 women. The average mean glandular dose (MGD) was 1.79 mGy for mediolateral oblique images and 1.58 mGy for craniocaudal images. The average MGD per two-view examination was 4.01 mGy for film-screen imaging and 3.03 mGy for direct digital radiography (DR) and 4.69 mGy for computed radiography. CONCLUSION: The MGD to women attending breast screening has been reduced on average by about 25% where DR systems have replaced film-screen systems. The dose reduction was greatest for breasts with the largest compressed thickness. There are large variations in dose between the different models of DR system provided by different manufacturers. There should be further work to ensure that all DR systems are operated at the optimal dose level to ensure the best cancer detection while balancing the detriment caused by using radiation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Changes in the radiation dose in breast screening over time have been determined. Specifically, the impact on radiation dose of introducing different types of DR and computed radiography system into breast screening has been quantified.
OBJECTIVES: To review the radiation doses received by women attending the UK breast-screening programme between 2010 and 2012. To compare doses with previous years and to quantify the impact on dose of changing from analogue to digital imaging and to analyse doses by type of imaging system. METHODS: Measurements of doses to samples of about 50-100 women attending for screening were collected across the whole of the UK breast-screening programme. RESULTS: Data were collected for 87,122 exposures, using 449 X-ray sets, for 25,408 women. The average mean glandular dose (MGD) was 1.79 mGy for mediolateral oblique images and 1.58 mGy for craniocaudal images. The average MGD per two-view examination was 4.01 mGy for film-screen imaging and 3.03 mGy for direct digital radiography (DR) and 4.69 mGy for computed radiography. CONCLUSION: The MGD to women attending breast screening has been reduced on average by about 25% where DR systems have replaced film-screen systems. The dose reduction was greatest for breasts with the largest compressed thickness. There are large variations in dose between the different models of DR system provided by different manufacturers. There should be further work to ensure that all DR systems are operated at the optimal dose level to ensure the best cancer detection while balancing the detriment caused by using radiation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Changes in the radiation dose in breast screening over time have been determined. Specifically, the impact on radiation dose of introducing different types of DR and computed radiography system into breast screening has been quantified.
Authors: D R Dance; R A Hunt; P R Bakic; A D A Maidment; M Sandborg; G Ullman; G Alm Carlsson Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2005 Impact factor: 0.972
Authors: Lore Timmermans; An De Hauwere; Klaus Bacher; Hilde Bosmans; Kim Lemmens; Luc Bleyen; Erik Van Limbergen; Patrick Martens; Andre Van Steen; Griet Mortier; Koen Van Herck; Hubert Thierens Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lucy M Warren; Alistair Mackenzie; Julie Cooke; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; Matthew G Wallis; Dev P Chakraborty; David R Dance; Hilde Bosmans; Kenneth C Young Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Alejandro Rodríguez-Ruiz; Steve Si Jia Feng; Jan van Zelst; Suzan Vreemann; Jessica Rice Mann; Carl Joseph D'Orsi; Ioannis Sechopoulos Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: D G Evans; S Thomas; J Caunt; A Burch; A R Brentnall; L Roberts; A Howell; M Wilson; R Fox; S Hillier; D M Sibbering; S Moss; M G Wallis; D M Eccles; S Duffy Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2019-01