Proposed DRLs for Mammography in Switzerland.

Diagnostic Reference Levels Mammography Radiation protection Switzerland

Journal

Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection
ISSN: 1361-6498
Titre abrégé: J Radiol Prot
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8809257

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 Mar 2024
Historique:
medline: 26 3 2024
pubmed: 26 3 2024
entrez: 26 3 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé


The aim of this study is to propose Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) values for mammography in Switzerland.
Methods:
For the data collection, a survey was conducted among a sufficient number of centres, including 5 University hospitals, several cantonal hospitals, and large private clinics, covering all linguistic regions of Switzerland to be representative of the clinical practice. The data gathered contained the mean glandular dose (MGD), the compressed breast thickness (CBT), the mammography model and the examination parameters for each acquisition. The data collected was sorted into the following categories: 2D or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) examination, craniocaudal (CC) or mediolateral oblique (MLO) projection, and 8 categories of compressed breast thickness (CBT) ranging from 20mm to 100mm in 10mm intervals.
Results:
24762 acquisitions acquired in 31 centres on 36 mammography units from 6 different manufacturers were collected. The analysis showed that the data reflects the practice in Switzerland.The results revealed that the MGD is larger for DBT than for 2D acquisitions for the same CBT. From 20-30mm to 90-100mm of CBT, the 75th percentile of the MGD values obtained increased from 0.81mGy to 2.55mGy for 2D CC acquisitions, from 0.83mGy to 2.96mGy for 2D MLO acquisitions, from 1.22mGy to 3.66mGy for DBT CC acquisitions and from 1.33mGy to 4.04mGy for DBT MLO acquisitions.
Conclusion:
The results of the survey allow us to propose Swiss DRLs for mammography according to the examination type (2D/DBT), projection (CC/MLO) and CBT. The proposed values are very satisfactory in comparison with other studies.&#xD.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38530290
doi: 10.1088/1361-6498/ad37c8
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Creative Commons Attribution license.

Auteurs

Laura Dupont (L)

Radiology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneve, SWITZERLAND.

Christoph Aberle (C)

Clinic of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, SWITZERLAND.

Diomidis Botsikas (D)

Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Geneva, SWITZERLAND.

Michael Ith (M)

Inselspital University Hospital Bern, Bern, Bern, SWITZERLAND.

Thiago Viana Miranda Lima (TVM)

Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, SWITZERLAND.

Roman Menz (R)

Basel Universtiy Hospital, Basel, SWITZERLAND.

Pascal Monnin (P)

Lausanne University Hospital Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne, Vaud, SWITZERLAND.

Pierre-Alexandre Poletti (PA)

Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Geneva, SWITZERLAND.

Stefano Presilla (S)

Medical Physics Unit, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Ospedale San Giovanni, Bellinzona, TI, SWITZERLAND.

Alexander Schegerer (A)

Hirslanden Klinik Hirslanden, Zurich, Zürich, SWITZERLAND.

Liana-Cristina Stoica (LC)

Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Geneva, SWITZERLAND.

Philipp Trueb (P)

Radiation Protection Division, Federal Office of Public Health, Bern, Bern, SWITZERLAND.

Marta Sans Merce (M)

Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Geneva, SWITZERLAND.

Classifications MeSH