Analysing Average Glandular Dose: A Comprehensive Study Comparing Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Full-Field Digital Mammography in Oman
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Full-field Digital Mammography (FFDM) is essential for the early detection of breast cancer. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) has improved cancer diagnosis and reduced false positives in mammography. This study evaluated DRLs for FFDM and DBT at various ranges of Compressed Breast Thickness (CBT).
Material and methods: We evaluated the parameters like Average Glandular Dose (AGD), kVp, mAs, Entrance Surface Dose (ESD), and CBT in a retrospective analysis of FFDM and DBT. We computed the mean, median, range, and 75th percentile for Craniocaudal (CC) and Mediolateral Oblique (MLO) views at various breast thicknesses.
Results: The DRLs were 0.70 mGy to 2.55 mGy for FFDM and 0.94 mGy to 3.67 mGy for DBT for breast thickness in the range from 20 mm to 89 mm.
Conclusion: This analysis revealed that DRLs were significantly lower than international benchmarks. Mammography radiation dose optimisation enhances diagnostic accuracy and patient safety.
Article Details
Copyright (c) 2025 Al-Maymani N, et al.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Marinovich ML, Hunter KE, Macaskill P, Houssami N. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis or mammography: a meta-analysis of cancer detection and recall. JNCI Cancer Spectrum. 2018;110(9):942-949. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djy121
Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, Durand MA, Plecha DM, Greenberg JS, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014;311(24):2499-2507. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.6095
Gennaro G, Bernardi D, Houssami N. Radiation dose with digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography: per-view analysis. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(2):573-581. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5024-4
Asbeutah AM, AlMajran AA, Brindhaban A, Asbeutah SA. Comparison of radiation doses between diagnostic full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a clinical study. J Med Radiat Sci. 2020;67(3):185-192. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.405
Vañó E, Miller DL, Martin CJ, Rehani MM, Kang K, Rosenstein M, Ortiz-López P, Mattsson S, Padovani R, Rogers A. ICRP publication 135: diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. Ann ICRP. 2017;46(1):1-144. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146645317717209
Boone JM. Glandular breast dose for monoenergetic and high-energy X-ray beams: Monte Carlo assessment. Radiology. 1999;213(1):23-37. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.213.1.r99oc3923
Liu Q, Suleiman ME, McEntee MF, Soh BP. Diagnostic reference levels in digital mammography: a systematic review. J Radiol Prot. 2022;42(1):011503. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6498/ac4214
Suleiman M, Brennan P, McEntee M. Mean glandular dose in digital mammography: a dose calculation method comparison. J Med Imaging. 2017;4(1):013502. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.4.1.013502
Acho S, Boonzaier W, Nel I. Exposure parameters of mammograms with and without mass lesions from a South African breast care centre. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2017;177(3):348-355. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncx053
Boone JM. Molybdenum, rhodium, and tungsten anode spectral models using interpolating polynomials with application to mammography. Med Phys. 1997;24(12):1863-74. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598100
Boone JM. Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for arbitrary x-ray spectra in mammography: Computer-fit values of Monte Carlo derived data. Med Phys. 2022;29(5):869-875. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1472499
Samara ET, Tsapaki V, Sramek D. Dose management software implementation in mammography. Phys Med. 2019;68:88-95. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.11.008
Østerås BH, Skaane P, Gullien R, Martinsen ACT. Average glandular dose in paired digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis acquisitions in a population-based screening program: effects of measuring breast density, air kerma, and beam quality. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(3):035006. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aaa614
Parmaksız A, Ataç GK, Bulur E, İnal T, Alhan A. Average glandular doses and national diagnostic reference levels in mammography examinations in Turkey. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2020;190(1):100-107. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncaa080
Sulieman A, Serhan O, Al-Mohammed HI, Mahmoud MZ, Alkhorayef M, Alonazi B, Manssor E, Yousef A. Estimation of cancer risks during mammography procedure in Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2018;26(6):1107-1111. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2018.10.005
Suleiman M, McEntee M, Cartwright L, Diffey J, Brennan P. Diagnostic reference levels for digital mammography in New South Wales. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2016;61(1):48-57. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12540
Mohd Norsuddin N, Segar S, Ravintaran R, Mohd Zain N, Abdul Karim MK. Local diagnostic reference levels for full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia. Healthcare (Basel). 2022;10(10):1917. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10101917
Abdulwahid Noor K, Mohd Norsuddin N, Abdul Karim MK, Che Isa IN, Alshamsi W. Estimating local diagnostic reference levels for mammography in Dubai. Diagnostics. 2024;14(1):8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14010008
Physica Medica. Physica Medica: European Journal of Medical Physics. 2024. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.104230
Vañó E, Miller DL, Martin CJ, Rehani MM, Kang K, Rosenstein M, Ortiz-López P, Mattsson S, Padovani R, Rogers A. ICRP publication 135: diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. Ann ICRP. 2017;46(1):1-144. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146645317717209
Movik E, Dalsbø TK, Fagelund BC, Friberg EG, Håheim LL, Skår Å. Digital breast tomosynthesis with Hologic 3D mammography Selenia Dimensions system for use in breast cancer screening: A single technology assessment. Knowledge Centre for the Health Services at The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH). 2017. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29553669/
van Engen R, van Woudenberg S, Bosmans H, Young M, Thijssen K. European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening. 2006. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233412600_The_European_protocol_for_the_quality_control_of_the_physical_and_technical_aspects_of_mammography_screening
van Engen R, van Woudenberg S, Bosmans H, Young M, Thijssen K. European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening chapter, 2b digital mammography. 2017.
van Engen RE, Bosmans H, Bouwman RW, Dance DR. Protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of digital breast tomosynthesis systems, version 1.03. 2018.
Dzidzornu EA, Suleiman ME, Tsapaki V, Samara ET, Sramek D. Mammography diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) in Ghana. Radiography (Lond). 2021;27(2):611-616. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2020.11.022
Mohd Norsuddin N, Segar S, Ravintaran R, Mohd Zain N, Abdul Karim MK. Local diagnostic reference levels for full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia. Healthcare (Basel). 2022;10(10):1917. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10101917