Links & Downloads
Res. Biomed. Eng. 2017; 33
10.1590/2446-4740.02117 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2446-4740.02117
Abstract:Introduction: Digital mammography present many advantages in comparison to conventional mammography, such as high dynamic range and the post-processing of acquired images. One problem is that protocols may not be optimized, resulting in higher absorbed doses to patients. The objective of this work is to evaluate image quality and to estimate mean glandular doses (MGD) in patients submitted to mammography examinations with three digital systems and one screen-film system in Recife, Brazil. Methods: To estimate the MGD, the parameters used to acquire images of 5475 patients, with ages between 40 and 64 years and compressed breasts between 2 and 9 cm, were registered. The MGD was calculated by multiplying the incident air kerma with conversion coefficients depending on the anode/filter, breast glandularity and half-value layer. The image quality evaluation of the digital systems was made using objective and subjective European criteria. Results: The results showed MGDs in the range of 0.4-10.3 mGy and the higher values were observed with digital systems. It was also observed that in the digital systems the use of compression force is not adequate and the irradiation parameters are not optimized. The images failed to reproduce the pectoral muscle and the contrast-to-noise ratio was not adequate for one system, indicating the need to improve the patient’s positioning and the exposure parameters. Conclusion: It can be concluded that the use of non-optimized irradiation parameters is causing the higher doses with digital systems, highlighting the insufficient compression force
Keywords:Mammography, Mean glandular dose, Image quality, Digital radiography.
Aguillar V, Bauab S, Maranhão N. Mama: diagnóstico por imagem. Rio de Janeiro: Revinter; 2009.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Portaria SVS/MS nº 453, de 1 de junho de 1998. Aprova o Regulamento Técnico que estabelece as diretrizes básicas de proteção radiológica em radiodiagnóstico médico e odontológico, dispõe sobre o uso dos raios-x diagnósticos em todo território nacional e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil, Brasília, 1998.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Portaria nº 2.898, de 28 de novembro de 2013. Atualiza o Programa Nacional de Qualidade em Mamografia (PNQM). Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil. Brasília, 2013.
Chida K, Komatsu Y, Sai M, Nakagami A, Yamada T, Yamashita T, Mori I, Ishibashi T, Maruoka S, Zuguchi M. Reduced compression mammography to reduce breast pain. Clinical Imaging. 2009; 33(1):7-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2008.06.025. PMid:19135922.
Commission of the European Communities. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. Bruxelles: CEC; 1996.
Dance D, Skinner C, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ. Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2000; 45(11):3225-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/45/11/308. PMid:11098900.
Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A, Moran C, Berns EA, Yaffe MJ, Herman B, Acharyya S, Gatsonis C. 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. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2010; 194(2):362-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.2114. PMid:20093597.
Instituto Nacional do Câncer. Tipos de câncer: mama. Rio de Janeiro: INCA; 2014 [cited 2016 June 9]. Available from: http://www2.inca.gov.br/wps/wcm/connect/tiposdecancer/site/home/mama
International Atomic Energy Agency. Human Health Series N17: Quality Assurance Programme for Digital Mammography. Viena: IAEA; 2011.
Kawaguchi A, Matsunaga Y, Otsuka T, Suzuki S. Patient investigation of average glandular dose and incident air kerma for digital mammography. Radiol Phys Tech. 2014; 7(1):102-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12194-013-0239-9. PMid:24234736.
Körner M, Weber CH, Wirth S, Pfeifer KJ, Reiser MF, Treitl M. Advances in digital radiography: physical principles and system overview. Radiographics. 2007; 27(3):675-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/rg.273065075. PMid:17495286.
Morán P, Chevalier M, Ten JI, Fernández Soto JM, Vañó E. A survey of patient dose and clinical factors in a full-field digital mammography system. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2005; 114(1-3):375-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nch514 PMid:15933140.
Sabino SMS, Silva TB, Watanabe AH, Syrjänen K, Carvalho AL, Mauad EC. Implementation of a clinical quality control program in a mammography screening service of Brazil. Anticancer Research. 2014; 34(9):5057-65. PMid:25202091.
Yaffe MJ, Bloomquist AK, Hunter DM, Mawdsley GE, Chiarelli AM, Muradali D, Mainprize JG. Comparative performance of modern digital mammography systems in a large breast screening program. Medical Physics. 2013; 40(12):1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.4829516. PMid:24320526.
Young KC. Radiation doses in the UK trial of breast screening in women aged 40-48 years. The British Journal of Radiology. 2002; 75(892):362-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.75.892.750362. jPMid:12000696.