Dosimetric evaluation of the mean glandular dose for mammography in Korean women: A preliminary report

Yonsei Medical Journal

Volumn 44, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 863-868

  Oh, Ki Keun ^a   Hur, Jin ^a   Kim, Eun Kyung ^a   Choo, Sung Sil ^a  

^a Yonsei University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Dosimetry; Mammography; Phantom; Radiation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DOSIMETRY; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGING SYSTEM; KOREA; MAMMOGRAPHY; POPULATION RESEARCH; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIATION ABSORPTION; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIOLOGY; RELIABILITY; THICKNESS;

EID: 0242407490     PISSN: 05135796     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2003.44.5.863     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Wu X, Barnes GT, Tucker DM. Spectral Dependence of Glandular Tissue Dose in Screen Film Mammography. Radiology 1991;179:143-8.
2. Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. The effects on populations of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 1980.
3. Feig SA, Ehrilch SM. Estimation of Radiation Risk from Screening Mammography: Recent Trends and Comparison with Expected Benefits. Radiology 1990;174:638-47.
4. Mettler FA, Upton AC, Kelsey CA, Ashby RN, Rosenberg RD, Linver MN. Benefits versus Risks from Mammography. Cancer 1996;77:903-9.
5. Rothenberg LN. Exposures and doses in mammography. In syllabus; A categorical course in physics. Technical aspects of breast imaging. 3rd ed. Radiol Soc North Am, Oak Brook, IL, USA 1994;113-9.
6. Mammography Quality Control Manual, ACR, February 1999.
7. Skubic SE. The effect of composition on absorbed dose and image contrast. Med Phys 1989;16:544-52.
8. Helvie MA, Chan HP, Adler DD, Boyd PG. Breast Thickness in Routine Mammograms: Effect on Image Quality and Radiation Dose. AJR 1994;163:1371-4.
9. Gentry JR, DeWerd LA. TLD measurement of in vivo mammographic exposures and the calculated mean glandular dose across the United States. Med Phys 1996;23:899-903.
10. Kruger RL, Schueler BA. A survey of clinical factors and patient dose in mammography. Med Phys 2001; 28:1449-54.
11. Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ. Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 2000;45:3225-40.
12. Burch A, Goodman DA. A pilot survey of radiation doses received in the United Kingdom Breast Screening Programme. Br J Radiol 1998;71:517-27.
13. Young KC. Radiation doses in the UK trial of breast screening in women aged 40-48 years. Br J Radiol 2002; 75:362-70.
14. Kim SH, Kim MH, Oh KK. Analysis and comparison of breast density according to age on mammogram between Korean and Western women. J Korean Radiol Soc 2000;42:1009-14.
15. Dance DR. Monte Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose. Phys Med Biol 1990;35:1211-9.