Assessment of the uterine dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Issue 2 (May 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cepeda Martins, A.R.; Di Maria, S.; Afonso, J.; Pereira, M.; Pereira, J.; Vaz, P.
• Is Part Of: Radiography. Volume 28:Issue 2(2022)
• Page Start: 333
• Page End: 339
• Publication Date: 2022-05
• Subjects: Breast cancer -- Mammography -- Tomosynthesis -- Pregnancy -- TLDs -- Dosimetry; Diagnostic imaging -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Diagnostic Imaging -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Imagerie pour le diagnostic -- Périodiques; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Cancer -- Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.0757
• DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2021.09.002
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1078-8174

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Digital Mammography (DM-2D) and more recently Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT), are two of the most effective imaging modalities for breast cancer detection, often used in screening programmes. It may happen that exams using these two imaging modalities are inadvertently performed to pregnant women. The objective of this study is to assess the dose in the uterus due to DM-2D and DBT exams, according to two main irradiation scenarios: in the 1st scenario the exposure parameters were pre-selected directly by the imaging system, while in the 2nd scenario, the maximum exposure parameters were chosen. Methods: The mammography equipment used was a Siemens Mammomat Inspiration. A physical anthropomorphic phantom, PMMA plates (simulating a breast thickness of 6 cm) and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were used to measure entrance air kerma values on the phantom's breast and abdomen in order to successively estimate the mean glandular dose (MGD) and the dose in the uterus. For the two irradiation scenarios chosen, two-breast imaging modalities were selected: 1) DBT in Cranio-Caudal (CC) view (with 28 kV and 160 mAs as exposure parameters), 2) DBT and DM in Medio Lateral-Oblique (MLO) and CC views (with 34 kV and 250 mAs as exposure parameters). Results: In the 1st scenario, the TLD measurements did not detect significant dose values in the abdomen whereas the MGD estimated using the D.R. Dance model was in close agreement with data available in the literature. In the 2nd scenario, there was no significant difference in MGD estimation between the different views, whereas the air kerma values in the abdomen (in DBT mode, CC and MLO) were 0.049 mGy and 0.004 mGy respectively. In CC DM-2D mode the abdomen air kerma value was 0.026 mGy, with no significant detected value in MLO view. Conclusions: For the dose in the uterus, the obtained values seem to indicate that DM-2D and DBT examinations inadvertently performed during pregnancy do not pose a significant radiological risk, even considering the case of overexposure in both breasts. Implications for practice: The accurate knowledge of the doses in DM-2D and DBT will contribute to raise the awareness among medical practitioners involved in breast imaging empowering them to provide accurate information about dose levels in the uterus, improving their radiation risk communication skills and consequently helping to reduce the anxiety of pregnant women undergoing this type of examinations.