AVERAGE GLANDULAR DOSE (AGD) EVALUATION FOR DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY (PATIENT & PHANTOM BASED STUDY, SOUTH PUNJAB- PAKISTAN)
Abstract
Background: AGD evaluation for patient undergoing mammography is vital due to potential risk of radiation induced carcinogenesis as breast is radiosensitive organ.
Objective: The purpose of study is to evaluate AGD using standard phantoms & patient exposure parameters of women undergoing digital mammography visiting at the institute having catchment area of South Punjab region.
Methods: AGD was determined for 230 views (CC & MLO) using patient exposure parameters by the method described in IAEA TRS-457. The incident air kerma, Kair was obtained at defined reference point with detector (Piranha, Model: 657) for mostly used kVp & target filter combination (W/Rh). The dose conversion factors were taken according to breast thickness measured HVL & estimated breast glandularity. The phantom based AGD was determined for ACR Phantom (4.2 cm) & PMMA phantom (3.5 to 6.5 cm) using measured Kair & dose conversion factors (given in European guideline & equipment manual).
Results: The average calculated AGD was found 1.27-mGy & 1.63-mGy for CC & MLO views having average CBT 5.34-cm & 5.93-cm respectively of women undergoing digital mammography at the institute. The calculated AGD for PMMA (4.5-cm) & ACR phantom (4.2-cm) was found 1.07-mGy/view & 1.01- mGy/view respectively.
Conclusion: Calculated AGD using patient exposure parameters and standard phantoms falls within accepted dose criteria (< 3 mGy/view).
Keywords: Average Glandular Dose, Half Value Layer, Cranio Caudal view, Medio-Lateral Oblique, Compressed Breast Thickness.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
References:
RMK MA, England A, McEntee MF, Mercer CE, Tootell A, Hogg P. Effective lifetime radiation risk for a number of national mammography screening programmes. Radiography. 2018;24(3):240-6.
Suleiman ME, Brennan PC, Ekpo E, Kench P, McEntee MF. Integrating mammographic breast density in glandular dose calculation. Br J Radiol. 2018;91(1085):20180032.
Sosu E, Boadu M, Mensah S. Determination of dose delivery accuracy and image quality in full-Field digital mammography. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences. 2018;11(3):232-6.
Mukhtar R, Hussain M, Mukhtar MA, Ali SM. Breast metastasis from medullary carcinoma of thyroid: A case report with literature view. JPMA The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association. 2020;70(11):2051-3.
Xiang D, Jin W, Yang CY, Zhou XF, Wei C, Cao XJ, et al. Investigation of mean glandular dose in diagnostic mammography in China. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences. 2014;27(5):396-9.
Ha NT, Thuan ND, Van NT. A study of mean glandular dose during diagnostic mammography in hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam. The Third International Conference on the Development of Biomedical Engineering in Vietnam: Springer; 2010. p. 263-5.
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY. Dosimetry in Diagnostic Radiology: An International Code of Practice, IAEA Technical Reports Series No. 457.
Digital Mammography QC Manual. Revised 2nd Edition May 2020. American College of Radiology.
European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth Edition, .
Quality Control Manual DM. Selenia Dimensions System (Hologic),. Revision 005, November 2015 (Appendix C)
Sulieman A, Serhan O, Al-Mohammed HI, Mahmoud MZ, Alkhorayef M, Alonazi B, et al. Estimation of cancer risks during mammography procedure in Saudi Arabia. Saudi journal of biological sciences. 2019;26(6):1107-11.
Behrouzkia Z, Zeinali A, Mohammady MH, Jabbari N. An investigation of mean glandular dose from routine mammography in Urmia, Northwestern Iran and the factors affecting it. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology. 2012;4(18):3348-53.
Oh KK, Hur J, Kim EK, Choo SS. Dosimetric evaluation of the mean glandular dose for mammography in Korean women: a preliminary report. Yonsei medical journal. 2003;44(5):863-8.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
© Copyright PJR 2008- |