| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Full Paper |
1 National Co-ordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography, Medical Physics Department, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford GU2 7XX and 2 Breast Test Wales, 18 Cathedral Road, Cardiff CF11 9LH, UK
The mean glandular doses (MGD) to samples of women attending for mammographic screening are measured routinely at screening centres in the UK Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP). This paper reviews a large representative sample of dose measurements collected during screening in the NHSBSP in 2001 and 2002 for 53 218 films, using 290 X-ray sets, for 16 505 women. The average MGD was 2.23 mGy per oblique film and 1.96 mGy per craniocaudal film; similar to those found previously in the NHSBSP for the years 1997 and 1998. Increasing use of sophisticated units with automatic beam quality selection has reduced the radiation dose received by large breasts, with only 2% of oblique mammograms having doses in excess of 5 mGy. The increasing use of large format film has also reduced the doses to this sub-group. However the total dose per woman has increased due to the introduction of two view screening at every visit. The MGD to the standard breast was found to vary from 0.76 mGy to 2.29 mGy, with 97% of units below the recommended upper limit of 2 mGy, illustrating the benefit of strict quality control. A reduction in dose of 3% was observed between the age bands 50–54 years and 60–64 years. This study has confirmed that the proposed national diagnostic reference level (NDRL) of 3.5 mGy for 55 mm thick breasts is an appropriate value to identify systems giving unusually high doses, with just 3.5% of systems exceeding this level. In most cases these higher doses were explained by the design of one particular make of X-ray set and its mode of operation. Average doses for oblique views of average sized breasts were fairly well correlated with the dose to the standard breast, and typically 42% higher. This highlights the need for a revised definition of the standard breast used in the UK to better reflect the exposure factors and doses received in clinical practice.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  A. Berrington de Gonzalez, C. D. Berg, K. Visvanathan, and M. Robson Estimated Risk of Radiation-Induced Breast Cancer From Mammographic Screening for Young BRCA Mutation Carriers J Natl Cancer Inst, February 4, 2009; 101(3): 205 - 209. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. C. Oeffinger, J. S. Ford, C. S. Moskowitz, L. R. Diller, M. M. Hudson, J. F. Chou, S. M. Smith, A. C. Mertens, T. O. Henderson, D. L. Friedman, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Practices Among Women Previously Treated With Chest Radiation for a Childhood Cancer JAMA, January 28, 2009; 301(4): 404 - 414. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. J. Taylor and R. E. Taylor Surveillance for Breast Cancer After Childhood Cancer JAMA, January 28, 2009; 301(4): 435 - 436. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. A. Mettler Jr, W. Huda, T. T. Yoshizumi, and M. Mahesh Effective Doses in Radiology and Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine: A Catalog Radiology, July 1, 2008; 248(1): 254 - 263. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M ROBINSON and C J KOTRE Trends in compressed breast thickness and radiation dose in breast screening mammography Br. J. Radiol., March 1, 2008; 81(963): 214 - 218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T Svahn, B Hemdal, M Ruschin, D P Chakraborty, I Andersson, A Tingberg, and S Mattsson Dose reduction and its influence on diagnostic accuracy and radiation risk in digital mammography: an observer performance study using an anthropomorphic breast phantom Br. J. Radiol., July 1, 2007; 80(955): 557 - 562. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K Faulkner, S McCormack, and K Bennison A retrospective analysis of digital stereotaxis in breast screening Br. J. Radiol., July 1, 2007; 80(955): 563 - 568. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Law, K Faulkner, and K C Young Risk factors for induction of breast cancer by X-rays and their implications for breast screening Br. J. Radiol., April 1, 2007; 80(952): 261 - 266. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K.-H. Ng, N. Jamal, and L. DeWerd Global quality control perspective for the physical and technical aspects of screen-film mammography--image quality and radiation dose Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2006; 121(4): 445 - 451. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K C Young, J M Oduko, H Bosmans, K Nijs, and L Martinez Optimal beam quality selection in digital mammography Br. J. Radiol., December 1, 2006; 79(948): 981 - 990. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C J Whitaker, C M Kelly, K Faulkner, and E C Stamp Influence of menopausal status and use of hormone replacement therapy on radiation dose from mammography in routine breast screening. Br. J. Radiol., July 1, 2006; 79(943): 597 - 602. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K C YOUNG Recent developments in digital mammography Imaging, June 1, 2006; 18(2): 68 - 74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Law and K Faulkner Radiation benefit and risk at the assessment stage of the UK Breast Screening Programme. Br. J. Radiol., June 1, 2006; 79(942): 479 - 482. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
BJR Review of the Year - 2005. Br. J. Radiol., March 1, 2006; 79(939): 183 - 187. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Law Breast dose from magnification films in mammography Br. J. Radiol., September 1, 2005; 78(933): 816 - 820. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| BJR | DMFR | IMAGING | ALL BIR JOURNALS |
