» Articles » PMID: 36292364

Local Diagnostic Reference Levels for Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in a Tertiary Hospital in Malaysia

Overview
Specialty Health Services
Date 2022 Oct 27
PMID 36292364
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

A set of national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) was established in Malaysia for a range of breast thicknesses in 2013, but no updates for full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Due to the increasing number of DBTs used and concern over radiation exposure, this study aimed to explore and establish local diagnostic reference levels for FFDM and DBT in Malaysia health facilities at different compressed breast thickness (CBT) ranges. The CBT, kilovoltage peak (kVp), Entrance surface dose (ESD), and average glandular dose (AGD) were retrospectively extracted from the mammography Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) header. The 75th and 95th percentile values were obtained for the AGD distribution of each mammography projection for three sets of CBT range. The difference in AGD values between FFDM and DBT at three CBT ranges was determined. The DRLs for FFDM were 1.13 mGy, 1.52 mGy, and 2.87 mGy, while DBT were 1.18 mGy, 1.88 mGy, and 2.78 mGy at CBT ranges of 20−39 mm, 40−59 mm, and 60−99 mm, respectively. The AGD of DBT was significantly higher than FFDM for both mammographic views (p < 0.005). All three CBT groups showed a significant difference in AGD values for FFDM and DBT (p < 0.005). The local DRLs from this study were lower than the national DRLs, with the AGD of FFDM significantly lower than DBT.

Citing Articles

Lifetime Attributable Risk in Mammography Screenings in Dubai: The Influence of Breast Thickness and Age on Radiation Exposure.

Noor K, Norsuddin N, Isa I, Abdul Karim M Diagnostics (Basel). 2025; 15(1.

PMID: 39795611 PMC: 11720658. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics15010083.


National diagnostic reference levels for digital diagnostic and screening mammography in Uganda.

Odongo D, Musisi A, Okello R, Bongomin F, Erem G PLoS One. 2024; 19(8):e0294541.

PMID: 39208065 PMC: 11361431. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294541.


Screening Mammography Diagnostic Reference Level System According to Compressed Breast Thickness: Dubai Health.

Dalah E, Alkaabi M, Al-Awadhi H, Antony N J Imaging. 2024; 10(8).

PMID: 39194978 PMC: 11355625. DOI: 10.3390/jimaging10080188.


Service Quality and Related Factors in Primary Health Care Services: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Deger M, Issever H Healthcare (Basel). 2024; 12(10).

PMID: 38786377 PMC: 11121297. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12100965.


Demonstration of Japanese radiographic examination codes in establishing typical values for a wide variety of general radiography examinations.

Yagahara A, Ando D, Oda M Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):2249.

PMID: 38278840 PMC: 10817891. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-52294-y.


References
1.
Asbeutah A, AlMajran A, Brindhaban A, Asbeutah S . 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. PMC: 7476200. DOI: 10.1002/jmrs.405. View

2.
Kawaguchi A, Matsunaga Y, Otsuka T, Suzuki S . Patient investigation of average glandular dose and incident air kerma for digital mammography. Radiol Phys Technol. 2013; 7(1):102-8. DOI: 10.1007/s12194-013-0239-9. View

3.
Dance D . Monte Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose. Phys Med Biol. 1990; 35(9):1211-9. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/35/9/002. View

4.
Gilbert F, Tucker L, Young K . Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol. 2015; 71(2):141-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2015.11.008. View

5.
Feng S, Sechopoulos I . Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization. Radiology. 2012; 263(1):35-42. PMC: 3309800. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11111789. View