Establishing a national diagnostic dose reference level in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in Jordan with emphasis on breast density

IF 2.8 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
R. Alrousan , M. Alakhras , K. Alzyoud
{"title":"Establishing a national diagnostic dose reference level in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in Jordan with emphasis on breast density","authors":"R. Alrousan ,&nbsp;M. Alakhras ,&nbsp;K. Alzyoud","doi":"10.1016/j.radi.2025.103131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) are one of the most important radiation protection methods in medical imaging to help optimize radiation exposure during imaging procedures. The study aimed to establish national DRL for digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in Jordan, considering variations in compressed breast thickness (CBT) and breast density.</div></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><div>The exposure parameters, average glandular dose (AGD), CBT, breast density, and viewing projection were extracted. The mean, median, 75th, and 95th percentiles were obtained for the AGD distribution of each projection for DM and DBT at three CBT ranges and two density categories. The difference in AGD between DM and DBT was determined.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The proposed national DRLs in Jordan for DM in CC view were 2.29, 1.78, and 2.40 mGy, while for MLO view were 1.17, 1.47, and 2.02 mGy at CBT ranges of 4–39, 40–59, 60–99 mm, respectively. For DBT in CC view, the DRLs were 2.17, 2.69, and 3.52 mGy, while in MLO view, the DRLs were 2.29, 2.67, and 3.49 mGy for the respective CBT ranges. The overall AGD of DBT was significantly higher compared to DM (P &lt; 0.05). The AGD of high-density breasts was higher than low-density breasts for both DM and DBT (P &lt; 0.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The proposed national DRLs in Jordan were higher than those reported in the literature, with AGD higher for DBT than that of DM.</div></div><div><h3>Implications for practice</h3><div>Although the DRLs in Jordan remain below the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported DRL, the fact that they exceed the previously established DRLs indicates a need for rigorous calibration and dose optimization methods to minimize unnecessary exposures, particularly in hospitals where the DRLs were near the DRLs set by the IAEA.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47416,"journal":{"name":"Radiography","volume":"31 6","pages":"Article 103131"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078817425002755","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) are one of the most important radiation protection methods in medical imaging to help optimize radiation exposure during imaging procedures. The study aimed to establish national DRL for digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in Jordan, considering variations in compressed breast thickness (CBT) and breast density.

Methodology

The exposure parameters, average glandular dose (AGD), CBT, breast density, and viewing projection were extracted. The mean, median, 75th, and 95th percentiles were obtained for the AGD distribution of each projection for DM and DBT at three CBT ranges and two density categories. The difference in AGD between DM and DBT was determined.

Results

The proposed national DRLs in Jordan for DM in CC view were 2.29, 1.78, and 2.40 mGy, while for MLO view were 1.17, 1.47, and 2.02 mGy at CBT ranges of 4–39, 40–59, 60–99 mm, respectively. For DBT in CC view, the DRLs were 2.17, 2.69, and 3.52 mGy, while in MLO view, the DRLs were 2.29, 2.67, and 3.49 mGy for the respective CBT ranges. The overall AGD of DBT was significantly higher compared to DM (P < 0.05). The AGD of high-density breasts was higher than low-density breasts for both DM and DBT (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

The proposed national DRLs in Jordan were higher than those reported in the literature, with AGD higher for DBT than that of DM.

Implications for practice

Although the DRLs in Jordan remain below the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported DRL, the fact that they exceed the previously established DRLs indicates a need for rigorous calibration and dose optimization methods to minimize unnecessary exposures, particularly in hospitals where the DRLs were near the DRLs set by the IAEA.
在约旦建立数字乳房x线照相术和数字乳房断层合成术的国家诊断剂量参考水平,重点是乳房密度
诊断参考水平(DRLs)是医学成像中最重要的辐射防护方法之一,有助于优化成像过程中的辐射暴露。该研究旨在考虑到压缩乳房厚度(CBT)和乳房密度的变化,在约旦建立数字乳房x线摄影(DM)和数字乳房断层合成(DBT)的国家DRL。方法提取暴露参数、平均腺剂量(AGD)、CBT、乳腺密度、观影。在三个CBT范围和两个密度类别中,分别获得DM和DBT每个投影的AGD分布的平均值、中位数、第75和第95百分位。测定DM和DBT的AGD差异。结果在4 - 39,40 - 59,60 - 99mm的CBT范围内,约旦CC视图DM的建议国家DRLs分别为2.29,1.78和2.40 mGy, MLO视图的建议国家DRLs分别为1.17,1.47和2.02 mGy。CC视角下DBT的DRLs分别为2.17、2.69和3.52 mGy, MLO视角下DBT的DRLs分别为2.29、2.67和3.49 mGy。DBT组总体AGD显著高于DM组(P < 0.05)。无论DM还是DBT,高密度乳腺的AGD均高于低密度乳腺(P < 0.001)。结论约旦建议的国家DRL高于文献报道,DBT的AGD高于dm。实践意义尽管约旦的DRL仍低于国际原子能机构(IAEA)报告的DRL,但它们超过了先前确定的DRL这一事实表明,需要严格的校准和剂量优化方法,以尽量减少不必要的照射。特别是在距离原子能机构确定的最远距离很近的医院。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Radiography
Radiography RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
34.60%
发文量
169
审稿时长
63 days
期刊介绍: Radiography is an International, English language, peer-reviewed journal of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy. Radiography is the official professional journal of the College of Radiographers and is published quarterly. Radiography aims to publish the highest quality material, both clinical and scientific, on all aspects of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy and oncology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信