Reconstruction of absorbed doses to fibroglandular tissue of the breast of women undergoing mammography (1960 to the Present)

Radiation Research

Volumn 177, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 98-108

  Thierry Chef, Isabelle ^a   Simon, Steven L ^b   Weinstock, Robert M ^c   Kwon, Deukwoo ^b   Linet, Martha S ^b  

^a INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER   (France)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; EUROPE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; NORTH AMERICA; POPULATION EXPOSURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIATION ABSORPTION; RADIATION DOSE; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; THICKNESS; UNITED STATES; X RAY; CONNECTIVE TISSUE; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; MAMMARY GLAND; ORGANS AT RISK; RADIATION EXPOSURE; REVIEW;

CONNECTIVE TISSUE; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMARY GLANDS, HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; ORGANS AT RISK; RADIATION DOSAGE;

EID: 84255168463     PISSN: 00337587     EISSN: 19385404     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1667/RR2241.1     Document Type: Article

References (124)

1. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151:727-42.
2. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans - ionizing radiation, part 1 : X- and gamma (c)- radiation, and neutrons. Volume 75. Lyon: IARC Press; 2000.
3. Land CE, Tokunaga M, Koyama K, Soda M, Preston DL, Nishimori I, et al. Incidence of female breast cancer among atomic bomb survivors, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1950-1990. Radiat Res 2003; 160:707-17. (Pubitemid 37521714)
4. Pukkala E, Kesminiene A, Poliakov S, Ryzhov A, Drozdovitch V, Kovgan L, et al. Breast cancer in Belarus and Ukraine after the Chernobyl accident. Int J Cancer 2006; 119:651-8. (Pubitemid 43955720)
5. Fundamental quantities and units for ionizing radiation. Report 60. Bethesda (MD): International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 1998.
6. Patient dosimetry for x rays used in medical imaging. Report 74. Bethesda (MD): International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; 2005.
7. Boone JM. Glandular breast dose for monoenergetic and highenergy X-ray beams: Monte Carlo assessment. Radiology 1999; 213:23-37. (Pubitemid 29470402)
8. Chevalier M, Moran P, Ten JI, Fernandez JM, Capeda T, Vano E. Patient dose in digital mammography. Med Phys 2004; 31:2471-9. (Pubitemid 39287861)
9. Monticciolo DL, Sprawls P, Kruse BD, Peterson JE. Optimization of radiation dose and image quality in mammography. A clinical evaluation of rhodium versus molybdenium. South Med J 1996; 89:391-4. (Pubitemid 26112331)
10. Palmer RC, Egan RL, Tanner BK, Barnette PA. Absorbed dose in mammography using three tungsten and three molybdenum target tubes. Radiology 1971; 101:697-9.
11. Wu X, Gingold EL, Barnes GT, Tucker DM. Normalized average glandular dose in molybdenum target-rhodium filter and rhodium target-rhodium filter mammography. Radiology 1994; 193:83-9. (Pubitemid 24298004)
12. Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG, Jong RA. Technical developments in mammography. Health Phys 2008; 95:599-611.
13. Trout ED. The life history of an x-ray beam. Radiol Technol 1963; 35:161-70.
14. Gilbertson JD, Randall MG, Fingerhut AG. Evaluation of roentgen exposure in mammography. I. six views. Radiology 1970; 95:383-94.
15. Maudal S. Iron filters as a mean of reducing the dose in roentgen examination of the female breast. Acta Radiol Ther Phys Biol 1968; 7:238-40.
16. Lee KH, Kandaiya S. Estimation of breast radiation dose in a mammographic system. Appl Radiat Isot 1996; 47:361-3. (Pubitemid 26109474)
17. Rosenstein M, Andersen LW, Warner GG. Handbook of glandular tissue doses in mammography. FDA Report 85-8239. Rockville (MD) US Department of Health and Human Services; 1985
18. Gentry JR, DeWerd LA. TLD measurements of in vivo mammographic exposures and the calculated mean glandular dose across the United States. Med Phys 1996; 23:899-903. (Pubitemid 26192509)
19. Hendee WR. History and status of x-ray mammography. Health Phys 1995; 69:636-48.
20. Heggie JCP. Survey of doses in screening mammography. Austral Phys Eng Sci Med 1996; 19:207-16. (Pubitemid 126733683)
21. Law J. The development of mammography. Phys Med Biol 2006; 51:R155-67. (Pubitemid 43958613)
22. Dance DR, Skinner CL, Alm Carlsson G. Breast dosimetry. Appl Radiat Isot 1999; 50:185-203. (Pubitemid 29049000)
23. Hammerstein GR, Miller DW, White DR, Masterson ME, Woodard HQ, Laughlin JS. Absorbed radiation dose in mammography. Radiology 1979; 130:485-91. (Pubitemid 9070569)
24. Woodward HQ, White DR. The composition of body tissues. Br J Radiol 1986; 59:1209-19.
25. Klein R, Aichinger H, Dierker J, Jansen JT, Joite-Barfuss S, Sabel M, et al. Determination of average glandular dose with modern mammography units for two large groups of patients. Phys Med Biol 1997; 42:651-71. (Pubitemid 27195899)
26. Geise RA, Palchevsky A. Composition of mammographic phantom materials. Radiology 1996; 198:347-50. (Pubitemid 26036835)
27. Kruger RL, Schueler BA. A survey of clinical factors and patient dose in mammography. Med Phys 2001; 28:1449-54. (Pubitemid 32667286)
28. Yaffe MJ, Boone JM, Packard N, Onzo-Proulx O, Huang SY, Peressotti CL, et al. The myth of the 50-50 breast. Med Phys 2009; 36:5437-43.
29. Abramson RG, Mavi A, Cermik T, Basu S, Wehrli NE, Houseni M, et al. Age-related structural and functional changes in the breast: multimodality correlation with digital mammography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography. Semin Nucl Med 2007; 37:146-53. (Pubitemid 46517467)
30. Bulling SM, Nicoll JJ. Level and distribution of the radiation dose to the population from a mammography screening programme in New Zealand. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1995; 57:455-8.
31. Young KC, Ramsdale ML, Rust A, Cooke J. Effect of automatic kV selection on dose and contrast for a mammographic X-ray system. Br J Radiol 1997; 70:1036-42. (Pubitemid 27464205)
32. Thilander-Klang AC, Ackerholm PH, Berlin IC, Bjurstam NG, Mattsson SL, Mansson LG, et al. Influence of anode-filter combinations on image quality and radiation dose in 965 women undergoing mammography. Radiology 1997; 203:348-54. (Pubitemid 27176204)
33. Young KC, Burch A. Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 1997 and 1998. Br J Radiol 2000; 73:278-87. (Pubitemid 30192800)
34. 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. (Pubitemid 28243073)
35. Funke M. Magnification survey and spot view mammography with a new microfocus X-ray unit: detail resolution and radiation exposure. Eur Radiol 1998; 8:386-90. (Pubitemid 128546242)
36. Leitz W, Jönsson H. Patient dose levels from X-ray examinations in Sweden (synthesis of results from Public Medical Service 1999). SSI Report 2001 01 Stockholm: Swedish Radiation Protection Authority; 2001.
37. Moran P, Chevalier M, Vaño E. Comparative study of dose values and image quality in mammography in the area of Madrid. Br J Radiol 1994; 67:556-63. (Pubitemid 24170746)
38. Moran P, Chevalier M, Pombar M, Lobato R, Vaño E. Breast doses from patients and from a standard phantom: analysis of differences. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2000; 90:117-21.
39. Warren RM, Duffy S. A comparison of the effectiveness of 28 kV (grid) versus 25 kV (no grid) mammographic techniques for breast screening. Br J Radiol 1997; 70:1022-7. (Pubitemid 27464203)
40. Young KC, Ramsdale ML, Bignell F. Review of dosimetric methods for mammography in the UK breast screening programme. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1998; 80:183-6. (Pubitemid 29015519)
41. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L, editors. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2006
42. Baker LH. Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project: fiveyear summary report. CA Cancer J Clin 1982; 32:194-225. (Pubitemid 12062706)
43. Salomon A. Beitrage zur phatologic und klinic der mammakarzinoms. Arch Klin Chir 1913; 101:573-668.
44. Wolfe JN. Developments in mammography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1976; 124:312-23.
45. Leborgne R. Diagnostic of tumors in the breast by simple roentgenography. Calcification in carcinomas. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther 1951; 65:1-11.
46. Egan RL. Mammography. Am J Surg 1963; 106:421-9.
47. Gershon-Cohen J, Berger SM, Delpino L. Mammography: Some remarks on techniques. Radiol Clin North Am 1965; 3:389-401.
48. Gilbertson JD, Randall MG, Fingerhut AG. Evaluation of roentgen exposure in mammography. II. Four views. Radiology 1970; 97:641-8.
49. Palmer RC, Egan RL, Barrett BS. Preliminary evaluation of absorbed dose in mammography. Six views. Radiology 1970; 95:395-7.
50. Ostrum BJ, Becker W, Isard HJ. Low-dose mammography. Radiology 1973; 109:323-6.
51. Rothenberg LN, Kirch RLA, Snyder RE. Patient exposures from film and xeroradiographic mammographic techniques. Radiology 1975; 117:701-3.
52. Snyder RE, Masterson ME, Kirch RLA, Rothenberg LN, Hammerstein GR, Laughlin JS. Image quality control and radiation exposure in mammography. In: Logan WW, editor. Breast carcinoma, the radiologist's expanded view. New York: John Wiley & Sons 1977 167-76.
53. Conway BJ, McCrohan JL, Rueter FG, Suleiman OH. Mammography in the eighties. Radiology 1990; 177:335-9. (Pubitemid 20374845)
54. Rueter FG, Conway BJ, McCrohan JL, Slayton OH, Suleiman OH. Assessment of skin entrance kerma in the United States: the nationwide evaluation of X-ray trends (NEXT). Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1992; 43:71-3.
55. Conway BJ, Suleiman OH, Rueter FG, Anstonsen RG, Slayton RJ. National survey of mammographic facilities in 1985, 1988 and 1992. Radiology 1994; 191:323-30. (Pubitemid 24141028)
56. Suleiman OH, Spelic DC, McCrohan JL, Symonds GR, Houn F. Mammography in the 1990s: the United States and Canada. Radiology 1999; 210:345-51. (Pubitemid 29055299)
57. Suleiman OH, Stern SH, Spelic DC. Patient dosimetry activities in the United States: the nationwide evaluation of X-ray trends (NEXT) and tissue dose handbooks. Appl Radiat Isot 1999; 50:247-59. (Pubitemid 29049004)
58. Spelic D, Kaczmarek R, Hilohi M, Belella S. United States radiological health activities: inspection results of mammography facilities. Biomed Imaging Interv J 2007; 3:e35.
59. Mammography - a user's guide. NCRP Report 85. Bethesda (MD): National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 1987.
60. A guide to mammography and other breast imaging procedures. NCRP Report 149. Bethesda (MD): National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2004.
61. Moran P, Chevalier M, Ten JI, Fernandez Soto JM, Vaño E. A survey of patient dose and clinical factors in a full-field digital mammography system. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005; 114:375-9. (Pubitemid 40883713)
62. Bor D, Tukel S, Olgar T, Aydin E. Variations in breast doses for an automatic mammography unit. Diagn Interv Radiol 2008; 14:122-6.
63. Oliveira LC, Dias TK, Lopes RT, Kodlulovich S. Evaluation of the entrance surface air kerma in mammographic examinations in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2009; 133:136-43.
64. Beaumont MA, Zhang W, Balding DJ. Approximate Bayesian computation in population genetics. Genetics 2002; 162:2025-35. (Pubitemid 36114682)
65. European protocol for dosimetry in mammography. Report EUR 16263. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 1998.
66. Stanton L, Villafana T, Day JL, Lightfoot DA. Dosage evaluation in mammography. Radiology 1984; 150:577-84. (Pubitemid 14224599)
67. Wu X, Barnes GT, Tucker DM. Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography. Radiology 1991; 179:143-8.
68. Zoetelief J, Jansen JTM. Calculation of air kerma to average glandular tissue dose conversion factors for mammography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1995; 57:397-400.
69. Catalogue of diagnostic X-ray spectra and other data. York, UK: Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine; 1997.
70. Boone JM, Fewell TR, Jennings RJ. Molybdenum, rhodium, and tungsten anode spectral models using interpolating polynomials with application to mammography. Med Phys 1997; 24:1863-74. (Pubitemid 28013501)
71. Gros CM. Methodology. J Radiol Electrol Med Nucl 1967; 48:638-55.
72. Whall MA, Roberts PJ. Radiation dose in relation to compressed breast thickness for screening mammography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1992; 43:253-5.
73. Jamal N. A study of mean glandular dose during diagnostic mammography in Malaysia and some of the factors affecting it. Br J Radiol 2003; 76:238-45. (Pubitemid 36582068)
74. Tsapaki V, Tsalafoutas IA, I, Poga V, Louizi A, Kottou S, Koulentianos E. Investigation of breast dose in five screening mammography centers in Greece. J Radiol Prot 2008; 28:337-46.
75. Stanton L, Lightfoot DA. The selection of optimum mammography technic. Radiology 1964; 83:442-54.
76. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. New York: United Nations 1977.
77. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138:168-75. (Pubitemid 36231622)
78. Stomper PC, D'Souza DJ, DiNitto PA, Arredondo MA. Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms in 1353 women 25-79 years old. Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167:1261-5. (Pubitemid 26376247)
79. Minagi H, Tennant JC, Youker JE. Coning and breast compression. An aid in mammographic diagnosis. Radiology 1968; 91:379-81.
80. Young KC. Radiation doses in the UK trial of breast screening in women aged 40-48 years. Br J Radiol 2002; 75:362-70. (Pubitemid 35282588)
81. McParland BJ. Image quality and dose in film-screen magnification mammography. Br J Radiol 2000; 73:1068-77.
82. Dance DR, Thilander AK, Sandborg M, Skinner CL, Castellano IA, Carlsson GA. Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. Br J Radiol 2000; 73:1056-67.
83. Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Funke M, Grabbe E. Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications. Eur Radiol 2002; 12:2188-91. (Pubitemid 36940311)
84. 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. Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194:362-9.
85. Bailar JC III. Mammography: a contrary view. Ann Intern Med 1976; 84:77-84.
86. Muntz EP, Wikinson E, George FW. Mammography at reduced doses : Present performance and future possibilities. Am J Roentgenol 1980; 134:741-7. (Pubitemid 10095902)
87. Hricak H, Brenner DJ, Adelstein SJ, Frush DP, Hall EJ, Howell RW, et al. Managing radiation use in medical imaging: a multifaceted challenge. Radiology 2011; 258:889-905.
88. Gershon-Cohen J. Breast roentgenology. historical review. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1961; 86:879-83.
89. Wolfe JN, McCaughey RS, Lewicki AM, Kalayjian BS. Radiographic examination of the breast. J Mich State Med Soc 1963; 62:374-9.
90. Egan RL. Experience with mammography in a tumor institution. Evaluation of 1,000 studies. Radiology 1960; 75:894-900.
91. Gershon-Cohen J, Boreadis Borden AG. Detection of unsuspected breast cancer by mammography. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1964; 114:782-93.
92. Gershon-Cohen J, Hermel MB. Modalities in breast cancer detection: Xeroradiography, mammography, thermography and mammometry. Cancer 1969; 24:1226-30.
93. Moss NH, Gershon-Cohen J. Breast cancer management improved by mammography. Acta Unio Int Contra Cancrum 1964; 20:1849-50.
94. Wolfe JN. Xerography of the breast. Radiology 1968; 91:231-40.
95. Hranitzky EB, Shalek RJ. Skin doses from glass and beryllium window x-ray tubes in mammography. Radiology 1967; 88:668-71.
96. Egan RL. Mammography. Springfield (IL): Charles C Thomas 1964
97. Stanton L, Lightfoot DA, Boyle JJ, Cullinan JE. Physical aspects of breast radiography. Radiology 1963; 81:1-16.
98. Wolfe JN. Mammography: Report on its use in women with breasts abnormal and normal on physical examination. Radiology 1964; 83:244-54.
99. Price JL, Butler PD. The reduction of radiation and exposure time in mammography. Br J Radiol 1970; 43:251-5.
100. Jensen JE, Butler PF. Breast exposure: nationwide trends; a mammographic quality assurance program - results to date. Radiol Technol 1978; 50:251-7. (Pubitemid 9144739)
101. Sickles EA, Doi K, Genant HK. Magnification film mammography: image quality and clinical studies. Radiology 1977; 125:69-76. (Pubitemid 8213528)
102. Wootton P. Mammographic exposures at the breast cancer detection demonstration project screening centers. Am J Roentgenol 1976; 127:531-3.
103. Jans RG. A federal/State quality assurance program in mammography. In: Logan WW, editor. Breast carcinoma, the radiologist's expanded view. New York: John Wiley & Sons 1977. p. 121-7.
104. Miller DW. Center for Radiologic Physics: mammography review procedures and results. In: Logan WW, editor. Breast carcinoma, the radiologist's expanded view. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1977. p. 129-33.
105. Iskwi AP, Ritchie JH, Gefter IM, Moore RS, Rainbow AJ. Use of a breast phantom to improve image quality and patient exposure in Ontario mammography facilities. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1993; 49:203-6. (Pubitemid 23331369)
106. Zoetelief J, Broerse JJ, Thijssen MAO. A Dutch protocol for quality control in mammography screening: dosimetric aspects. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1992; 43:261-4.
107. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Nationwide evaluation of X-ray trends - 1992 mammography X-ray data. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services 1995.
108. Helvie MA, Chan HP, Adler DD, Boyd PG. Breast thickness in routine mammograms: effect on image quality and radiation dose. Am J Radiol 1994; 163:1371-4.
109. Schubauer-Berigan MK. Mammography dose in relation to body mass index, race, and menopausal status. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2002; 98:425-32. (Pubitemid 34692813)
110. Gonzalez L, Vaño E, Oliete S, Manrique J, Hernaez JM, Lahuerta J, et al. Report of an image quality and dose audit according to Directive 97/43/Euratom at Spanish private radiodiagnostics facilities. Br J Radiol 1999; 72:186-92. (Pubitemid 29095065)
111. Servomaa A, Rannikko S, Parviainen T, Holmberg P, Kuus E, Muursepp T, et al. Quality control and patient dose from x ray examinations in some hospitals in Estonia. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1995; 57:297-300.
112. Olerud HM, Olsen JH, Widmark A, Fosmark H. A Norwegian survey of image quality, doses and film processing in mammography, with reference to two technical phantoms. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1996; 67:199-210. (Pubitemid 26394853)
113. Faulkner K, Law J, Robson KJ. Assessment of mean glandular dose in mammography. Br J Radiol 1995; 68:877-81.
114. Young KC, Ramsdale ML. Image quality and dose measurement phantoms in the UK breast screening programme. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1993; 49:175-7. (Pubitemid 23331360)
115. Aroua A, Vader JP, Valley JF. A survey on exposure by diagnostic and interventional radiology in Switzerland in 1998. Lausanne: Institut Universitaire de Radiophysique Appliquée 2000.
116. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Nationwide evaluation of X-ray trends - 25 years. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2003.
117. Warren-Forward HM, Duggan L. Towards in vivo TLD dosimetry in mammography. Br J Radiol 2004; 77:426-32. (Pubitemid 38714352)
118. Gennaro G, Baldelli P, Taibi A, Di Maggio C, Gambaccini M. Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: an Italian survey. Eur Radiol 2004; 14:645-52. (Pubitemid 38444578)
119. Haus AG. Historical technical developments in mammography. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2002; 1:119-26. (Pubitemid 36554424)
120. Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, Deurenberg JJ, Beekman M, Visser R, et al. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a populationbased screening program. Radiology 2009; 253:353-8.
121. Sala M, Comas M, Macia F, Martinez J, Casamitjana M, Castells X. Implementation of digital mammography in a populationbased breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection. Radiology 2009; 252:31-9.
122. Mammography. NCRP Report 66. Bethesda (MD): National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 1980.
123. Eklund S, Thilander A, Leitz W, Mattsson S. The impact of anatomic variations on absorbed radiation doses in mammography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1993; 49:167-70. (Pubitemid 23331358)
124. Jacobson DR. Mammography radiation dose and image quality. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1998; 80:295-7. (Pubitemid 29015543)