Abstract Archives of the RSNA, 2014
Stamatia V. Destounis MD, Presenter: Investigator, FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation
Investigator, Seno Medical Instruments, Inc
Ralph Philip Highnam PhD, Abstract Co-Author: CEO, Matakina Technology Limited
CEO, Volpara Solutions Limited
Ariane Chan PhD, Abstract Co-Author: Employee, Matakina Technology Limited
Andrea Lynn Arieno BS, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose
Renee Morgan RT, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose
To evaluate the radiation doses reported by manufacturers for women undergoing mammographic screening over time, in the context of dose reporting to patients.
Mammographic images of women undergoing yearly mammography screening at our facility were retrospectively analyzed. We identified 30 women who had 4 or 5 temporal studies complete with 4-view mammograms taken from a mix of three manufacturers (System 1, System 2, and System 3) digital mammography systems. Raw digital images were used in this evaluation. The manufacturer reported mean glandular dose (MGD) was extracted from the image headers and compared over time, considering also the technical factors and volumetric information generated by VolparaDensity (algorithm version 1.5.0). All MGD values presented were taken as the average (mean) per image across a 4-view study.
The manufacturer-reported radiation doses for the same patient were highly variable over time. The absolute mean change (between sequential studies) in MGD was 0.72 mGy, with changes ranging from -2.87 to +4.31 mGy. For instances where dose increased compared to the previous year, the average increase in MGD and average percentage increase, were 0.8 mGy and 62.1%, respectively. For instances where dose decreased compared to the previous year, the average decrease in MGD and average percentage decrease, were -0.6 mGy and -21.7%, respectively. Changes in MGD were not significantly influenced by changes in breast density (quantitative volumetric or BI-RADS scores); however, the manufacturer did significantly influence changes in MGD as a significantly higher average MGD was found when comparing System 1 and System 2 (3.5 and 1.4 mGy, respectively; p < 0.001).
Manufacturer-reported radiation doses vary considerably over time and between manufacturer, due to differences in technology, as well as differences in how they compute dose. This is important as patients are becoming increasingly concerned about radiation dose.
Radiation dose is becoming a major concern, not only for general radiology, but also for mammography. The delivery of meaningful dose reports to patients is hindered by the wide variation in manufacturer reported doses.
Can We Use the Manufacturer Reported Mammography Dose to Inform Patients?. Radiological Society of North America 2014 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, - ,Chicago IL. http://archive.rsna.org/2014/14045500.html