Trends in patient dose and compression force for digital (DR) mammography systems over an eleven-year period.
Breast screening
Compression force
Digital mammography
Mean glandular dose
Patient dose audit
Journal
Physical and engineering sciences in medicine
ISSN: 2662-4737
Titre abrégé: Phys Eng Sci Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101760671
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Nov 2023
29 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
06
09
2023
accepted:
15
11
2023
medline:
29
11
2023
pubmed:
29
11
2023
entrez:
29
11
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
This study evaluated trends in patient dose and compression force for screening digital (DR) mammography systems. The results of five audits (carried out in 2011, 2014, 2018, 2020 and 2022) were compared. For every audit, anonymised screening examinations from each system consisting of the standard craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views of both breasts were analysed. Exposure parameters were extracted from the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) header and the mean glandular dose (MGD) for each image was calculated. Trends in the distribution of MGD, compressed breast thickness, compression force and compression force per radiographer were investigated. The mean MGD per image (and mean compressed breast thickness) was 1.20 mGy (58 mm), 1.53 mGy (59 mm), 1.83 mGy (61 mm), 1.94 mGy (60 mm) and 2.11 mGy (61 mm) for 2011, 2014, 2018, 2020 and 2022 respectively. The mean (and standard deviation) compression force was 114 (32) N, 112 (29) N, 108 (27) N, 104 (24) N and 100 (23) N for 2011, 2014, 2018, 2020 and 2022 respectively. The mean MGD per image has increased over time but remains below internationally established Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs). This increase is primarily due to a change in the distribution of the different manufacturers and digital detector technologies, rather than an increase in the dose of the individual systems over time. The mean compression force has decreased over time in response to client feedback surveys. The standard deviation has also reduced, indicating more consistent application of force.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38019445
doi: 10.1007/s13246-023-01357-x
pii: 10.1007/s13246-023-01357-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine.
Références
Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Bouvard V, Bianchini F, Straif K (2015) Breast-Cancer screening — viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Eng J Med 372:2353–2358. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr1504363
doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1504363
McGuire A, Brown JAL, Malone C, McLaughlin R, Kerin MJ (2015) Effects of Age on the detection and management of Breast Cancer. Cancers 7:908–929. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers7020815
doi: 10.3390/cancers7020815
pubmed: 26010605
pmcid: 4491690
Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, Jong RA, Hislop G, Chiarelli A, Minkin S, Yaffe MJ (2007) Mammographic density and the risk and detection of Breast Cancer. N Eng J Med 356:227–236. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa062790
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa062790
Beckett JR, Kotre CJ (2000) Dosimetric implications of age related glandular changes in screening mammography. Phys Med Biol 45:801–813. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/45/3/316
doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/45/3/316
pubmed: 10730972
Suleiman ME, Brennan PC, Ekpo E, Kench P, McEntee MF (2018) Integrating mammographic breast density in glandular dose calculation. Br J Radiol 91:20180032. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20180032
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20180032
pubmed: 29400552
pmcid: 6190790
Public Health England. National Diagnostic Reference Levels (NDRLs) 2022 [Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/diagnostic-radiology-national-diagnostic-reference-levels-ndrls/ndrl#national-drls-for-screening-mammography
Mercer CE, Szczepura K, Kelly J, Millington SR, Denton ERE, Borgen R, Hilton B, Hogg P (2015) A 6-year study of mammographic compression force: practitioner variability within and between screening sites. Radiography 21:68–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2014.07.004
doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2014.07.004
Whelehan P, Evans A, Wells M, Macgillivray S (2013) The effect of mammography pain on repeat participation in Breast cancer screening: a systematic review. Breast 22:389–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2013.03.003
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2013.03.003
pubmed: 23541681
Mercer CE, Hogg P, Lawson R, Diffey J, Denton ER (2013) Practitioner compression force variability in mammography: a preliminary study. Br J Radiol 86:20110596. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20110596
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20110596
pubmed: 23385990
pmcid: 3608044
Robson KJ (2001) A parametric method for determining mammographic X-ray tube output and half value layer. Br J Radiol 74:335–340. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.74.880.740335
doi: 10.1259/bjr.74.880.740335
pubmed: 11387152
Dance D (1990) Monte-Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose. Phys Med Biol 35:1211. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/35/9/002
doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/35/9/002
pubmed: 2236205
Dance D, Skinner C, Young K, Beckett J, Kotre C (2000) Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 45:3225. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/45/11/308
doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/45/11/308
pubmed: 11098900
Dance D, Young K, Van Engen R (2009) Further factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol 54:4361. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/54/14/002
doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/14/002
pubmed: 19550001
Breastscreen Australia (2022) Breastscreen Australia National Accreditation standards. Department of Health, Australia
Heggie JCP, Barnes P, Cartwright L, Diffey J, Tse J, Herley J, McLean ID, Thomson FJ, Grewal RK, Collins LT (2017) Position paper: recommendations for a digital mammography quality assurance program V4.0. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 40:491–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-017-0583-x
doi: 10.1007/s13246-017-0583-x
pubmed: 28914430
de Groot JE, Broeders MJM, Branderhorst W, den Heeten GJ, Grimbergen CA (2013) A novel approach to mammographic breast compression: improved standardization and reduced discomfort by controlling pressure instead of force. Med Phys 40:081901. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4812418
doi: 10.1118/1.4812418
pubmed: 23927315
Poulos A, McLean D (2004) The application of breast compression in mammography: a new perspective. Radiography 10:131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2004.02.012
doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2004.02.012
Waade GG, Moshina N, Sebuødegård S, Hogg P, Hofvind S (2017) Compression forces used in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Br J Radiol 90 https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160770
Murphy F, Nightingale J, Hogg P, Robinson L, Seddon D, Mackay S (2015) Compression force behaviours: an exploration of the beliefs and values influencing the application of breast compression during screening mammography. Radiography 21:30–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2014.05.009
doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2014.05.009
Dance DR, Hunt R, Bakic P, Maidment A, Sandborg M, Ullman G, Alm Carlsson G (2005) Breast dosimetry using high-resolution voxel phantoms. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 114:359–363. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nch510
doi: 10.1093/rpd/nch510
pubmed: 15933137
Suleiman ME, McEntee MF, Cartwright L, Diffey J, Brennan PC (2017) Diagnostic reference levels for digital mammography in New South Wales. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 61:48–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12540
doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.12540
pubmed: 27714925