Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 17 Sayı: 4 Sayfa Aralığı: 29 - 33 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.6285 İndeks Tarihi: 25-01-2022

The Effect of Breast Size and Density in Turkish Women on Radiation Dose in Full-Field Digital Mammography

Öz:
Objective: The purpose of this study was to look into the relationship between breast size and mammographic breast density in women and breast radiation dose on full-field digital mammography (FFDM), as well as the factors that influence radiation dose. Materials and Methods: The study included a total of 2,060 FFDM images from 515 consecutive participants. The participants were divided into two groups: those exposed to high doses (>3 mGy) and those exposed to low doses (<3 mGy). Moreover, the researchers analyzed the relationship between mean glandular dose (MGD) of the breast and patient age, compressed breast thickness, compression force, mammographic breast composition, and mammographic breast size. Results: The mean mammographic breast volume was 936.2 ± 425.2 (114.5–3,018) mL, and the mean compressed breast tissue thickness was 56.75 ± 10.44 mm. Moreover, the mean MGD in the high-dose group was 3.51 ± 0.48 mGy and 1.92 ± 0.56 mGy in the low-dose group. The high-dose group had greater breast thickness, diameters, volume, compression pressure, and surgical rate. However, the high-dose group was younger and had less dense breasts. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the most important predictors of dose determination were breast thickness [odds ratio (OR): 1.178, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.156–1.200, p<0.001], history of previous surgery (OR: 2.210, 95% CI: 1.417–3.447, p<0.001), compression force (OR: 1.008, 95% CI: 1.004–1.013, p<0.001), and breast density (OR: 1.873, 95% CI: 1.359–2.580, p<0.001). Conclusion: Women with larger breast volumes are subjected to higher doses of radiation. Therefore, breast-screening programs can be individualized to young women with larger breast volumes and women who have had breast-conserving surgery
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • National Research Council (US) Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Level of Ionizing Radiation. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. Washington: National Academies Press; 2006. p. 406. [Crossref]
  • Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Cullings HM, Fujita S, Funamoto S, et al. Effect of recent changes in atomic bomb survivor dosimetry on cancer mortality risk estimates. Radiat Res 2004; 162: 377-389. (PMID: 15447045) [Crossref]
  • Turkey cancer statistics. T.C. Ministry of Health, Public Health Agency of Turkey, Ankara 2016. Available at: https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/tr/kanseristatistikleri/yillar/2016-yili-turkiye-kanser-i-statistikleri.html [Crossref]
  • Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68: 394-424. (PMID: 30207593) [Crossref]
  • Migowski A. [Early detection of breast cancer and the interpretation of results of survival studies]. Cien Saude Coletiva 2015; 20: 1309. (PMID: 25923642) [Crossref]
  • Funke M. [Diagnostic imaging of breast cancer: an update.] Radiologe 2016; 56: 921-938. (PMID: 27600118) [Crossref]
  • Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, Evans P, Monsees B, Monticciolo D, et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7: 18-27. (PMID: 20129267) [Crossref]
  • Law J, Faulkner K, Young KC. Risk factors for induction of breast cancer by X-rays and their implications for breast screening. Br J Radiol 2007; 80: 261-266. (PMID: 17038413) [Crossref]
  • Boice JD. Cancer following medical irradiation. Cancer 1981; 47: 1081- 1090. (PMID: 7237365) [Crossref]
  • Radiology ACo. BI-RADS Mammography 2013-ACR BI-RADS Atlas, 5th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013 [Crossref]
  • Kalbhen C, McGill J, Fendley P, Corrigan K, Angelats J. Mamographic determination of breast volume: comparing different methods.AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999; 173: 1643-1649. (PMID: 10584814) [Crossref]
  • Rostas JW, Bhutiani N, Crigger M, Crawford SMW, Hollenbach RB, Heidrich SR, et al. Calculation of breast volumes from mammogram: comparison of four separate equations relative to mastectomy specimen volumes. J Surg Oncol 2018; 117: 1848-1853. (PMID: 29790170) [Crossref]
  • Hauge IHR, Pedersen K, Olerud HM, Hole EO, Hofvind S. The risk of radiation-induced breast cancers due to biennial mammographic screening in women aged 50-69 years is minimal. Acta Radiol 2014; 55: 1174-1179. (PMID: 2431170) [Crossref]
  • Warren LM, Dance DR, Young KC. Radiation risk of breast screening in England with digital mammographyy Br. J. Radiol 2016; 89: 20150897 doi: 10.1259/bjr.20150897. (PMID: 27585843) [Crossref]
  • Mughal B, Muhammad N, Sharif M, Rehman A, Saba T. Removal of pectoral muscle based on topographic map and shape-shifting silhouette. BMC Cancer 2018; 18: 778. (PMID: 30068304) [Crossref]
  • 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 J Biol Sci 2019; 26: 1107-1111. [Crossref]
  • Baek JE, Kang BJ, Kim SH, Lee HS. Radiation dose affected by mammographic composition and breast size: first application of a radiation dose management system for full-field digital mammography in Korean women. World J Surg Oncol 2017; 15: 38 (PMID: 28153022) [Crossref]
  • International Commission on Radiological Protection. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007; 37: 1-332. (PMID: 18082557) [Crossref]
  • Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A, Moran C, Berns EA, Yaffe MJ, et al. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 362-369. (PMID: 20093597) [Crossref]
  • Food and Drug Administration Summary of Safety and Effectiveness. August, 2017 Available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/123081/download [Crossref]
  • European Commission. European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening. In: European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. EUREF Luxembourg: European Commission; 2006. [Crossref]
  • Gweon HM, Youk JH, Kim J-A, Son EJ. Radiologist assessment of breast density by BI-RADS categories versus fully automated volumetric assessment. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201: 692-697. (PMID: 23971465) [Crossref]
  • Brandt K, Scott C, Ma L, Mahmoudzadeh A, Jensen M, Whaley D, et al. Comparison of clinical and automated breast density measurements: implications for risk prediction and supplemental screening. Radiology 2016; 279: 710-719. (PMID: 26694052) [Crossref]
  • Van der Waal D, den Heeten G, Pijnappel R, Schuur K, Timmers JMH, Verbeek ALM, et al. Comparing visually assessed BI-RADS breast density and automated volumetric breast density software: a cross-sectional study in a breast cancer screening setting. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0136667. (PMID: 26335569) [Crossref]
  • Ko SY, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Moon HJ. Mammographic density estimation with automated volumetric breast density measurement. Korean J Radiol 2014; 15: 313-321. (PMID: 24843235) [Crossref]
  • Young KC, Oduko JM. Radiation doses received in the United Kingdom breast screening programme in 2010 to 2012. Br J Radiol 2016; 89: 20150831. (PMID: 26654386) [Crossref]
  • Ozdemir A. Clinical evaluation of breast dose and the factors affecting breast dose in screen-film mammography. Diagn Interv Radiol 2007; 13: 134-139. (PMID: 17846987) [Crossref]
  • Geeraertt N, Klausz R, Muller S, Bloch I, Bosmans H. Breast characteristics & dosimetric data in X-ray mammography A Large Sample Worldwide Survey IAEA 2012. International Conference on Radiation Protection in Medicine, Bonn, Germany. CN-192 (7) 2012. p. 15 [Crossref]
  • Branderhorst W, de Groot JE, Highnam R, Chan A, Bohm-Velez M, Broeders MJ, et al. Mammographic compression-a need for mechanical standardization. Eur J Radiol 2015; 84: 596-602. (PMID: 25596915) [Crossref]
  • Yaffe MJ. AAPM tutorial. Physics of mammography: image recording process. Radiographics 1990; 10: 341-363. (PMID: 2183301) [Crossref]
  • de Groot JE, Broeders MJ, Branderhorst W, den Heeten GJ, Grimbergen CA. A novel approach to mammographic breast compression: improved standardization and reduced discomfort by controlling pressure instead of force. Med Phys 2013; 40: 081901. (PMID: 23927315) [Crossref]
  • Chen B, Wang Y, Sun X, Guo W, Zhao M, Cui G, et al. Analysis of patient dose in full field digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 868-872. (PMID: 21397423) [Crossref]
  • Broeders MJ, Ten Voorde M, Veldkamp WJ, van Engen RE, van Landsveld-Verhoeven C, Jong-Gunneman MN, et al. Comparison of a flexible versus a rigid breast compression paddle: pain experience, projected breast area, radiation dose and technical image quality. Eur Radiol 2015; 25: 821-829. (PMID: 25504427) [Crossref] Waade GG, Moshina N, Sebuødegård S, Hogg P, Hofvind S. Compression forces used in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Br J Radiol 2017; 90: 20160770. (PMID: 28102696) [Crossref]
  • Lau S, Abdul Aziz YF, Ng KH. Mammographic compression in Asian women. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0175781. (PMID: 28419125) [Crossref]
  • Couto LS, Freitas-Junior R, Correa RS, Peixoto JE, Almeida CD, Rodrigues DCN, et al. Mean glandular dose in digital mamography in women with breast implants. J Radiol Prot 2019; 39: 498-510. (PMID: 30812019) [Crossref]
  • Lewis JL, Tartter PI. The value of mammography within 1 year of conservative surgery for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19: 3218- 3222. (PMID: 22766990) [Crossref]
APA IDIL SOYLU A, Ozturk M, Polat A (2021). The Effect of Breast Size and Density in Turkish Women on Radiation Dose in Full-Field Digital Mammography. , 29 - 33. 10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.6285
Chicago IDIL SOYLU AYSEGÜL,Ozturk Mesut,Polat Ahmet Veysel The Effect of Breast Size and Density in Turkish Women on Radiation Dose in Full-Field Digital Mammography. (2021): 29 - 33. 10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.6285
MLA IDIL SOYLU AYSEGÜL,Ozturk Mesut,Polat Ahmet Veysel The Effect of Breast Size and Density in Turkish Women on Radiation Dose in Full-Field Digital Mammography. , 2021, ss.29 - 33. 10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.6285
AMA IDIL SOYLU A,Ozturk M,Polat A The Effect of Breast Size and Density in Turkish Women on Radiation Dose in Full-Field Digital Mammography. . 2021; 29 - 33. 10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.6285
Vancouver IDIL SOYLU A,Ozturk M,Polat A The Effect of Breast Size and Density in Turkish Women on Radiation Dose in Full-Field Digital Mammography. . 2021; 29 - 33. 10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.6285
IEEE IDIL SOYLU A,Ozturk M,Polat A "The Effect of Breast Size and Density in Turkish Women on Radiation Dose in Full-Field Digital Mammography." , ss.29 - 33, 2021. 10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.6285
ISNAD IDIL SOYLU, AYSEGÜL vd. "The Effect of Breast Size and Density in Turkish Women on Radiation Dose in Full-Field Digital Mammography". (2021), 29-33. https://doi.org/10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.6285
APA IDIL SOYLU A, Ozturk M, Polat A (2021). The Effect of Breast Size and Density in Turkish Women on Radiation Dose in Full-Field Digital Mammography. European Journal of Breast Health, 17(4), 29 - 33. 10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.6285
Chicago IDIL SOYLU AYSEGÜL,Ozturk Mesut,Polat Ahmet Veysel The Effect of Breast Size and Density in Turkish Women on Radiation Dose in Full-Field Digital Mammography. European Journal of Breast Health 17, no.4 (2021): 29 - 33. 10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.6285
MLA IDIL SOYLU AYSEGÜL,Ozturk Mesut,Polat Ahmet Veysel The Effect of Breast Size and Density in Turkish Women on Radiation Dose in Full-Field Digital Mammography. European Journal of Breast Health, vol.17, no.4, 2021, ss.29 - 33. 10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.6285
AMA IDIL SOYLU A,Ozturk M,Polat A The Effect of Breast Size and Density in Turkish Women on Radiation Dose in Full-Field Digital Mammography. European Journal of Breast Health. 2021; 17(4): 29 - 33. 10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.6285
Vancouver IDIL SOYLU A,Ozturk M,Polat A The Effect of Breast Size and Density in Turkish Women on Radiation Dose in Full-Field Digital Mammography. European Journal of Breast Health. 2021; 17(4): 29 - 33. 10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.6285
IEEE IDIL SOYLU A,Ozturk M,Polat A "The Effect of Breast Size and Density in Turkish Women on Radiation Dose in Full-Field Digital Mammography." European Journal of Breast Health, 17, ss.29 - 33, 2021. 10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.6285
ISNAD IDIL SOYLU, AYSEGÜL vd. "The Effect of Breast Size and Density in Turkish Women on Radiation Dose in Full-Field Digital Mammography". European Journal of Breast Health 17/4 (2021), 29-33. https://doi.org/10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.6285