Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) and Image Quality Evaluation for Digital Mammography in a Nigerian Facility

A. E.  Anasthesia; U. Ibrahim; S. D.  Yusuf; D. Z. Joseph; N. Flavious; M.  Sidi; S. Shem; A.  Mundi; A.  Dare; D. S.  Joseph; Y. A.  Ningi

doi:10.46481/jnsps.2022.734

Authors

A. E. Anasthesia Radiology Unit, Nyanya General Hospital Abuja, Nigeria
U. Ibrahim Department of Physics, Nasarawa State University Keffi, Nigeria
S. D. Yusuf Department of Physics, Nasarawa State University Keffi, Nigeria
D. Z. Joseph
[email protected]
Department of Radiography Federal University of Lafia
N. Flavious Department of Radiography, University of Maiduguri, Borno State, Nigeria
M. Sidi Department of Radiography, University of Maiduguri
S. Shem Department of Radiography, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, KadunaState, Nigeria
A. Mundi Department of Physics, Nasarawa State University Keffi, Nigeria
A. Dare Department of Radiography and Radiation sciences, Baze University Abuja
D. S. Joseph Department of Radiology, Federal Medical Center Katsina
Y. A. Ningi Radiology Department, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University Bauchi

Keywords:

Diagnostic reference level, mean glandular dose, image quality evaluation, dose, thermoluminiscent dosimeters

Abstract

Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) for digital mammography and image quality evaluation are important optimization tools in medical imaging. High quality mammograms are essential to the successful early detection of breast cancer. The objective of the study is to establish DRLs for digital mammography and to assess image quality of the mammograms for optimization. DRLs were established using thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) chips to estimate the mean glandular dose for both cranio-caudal and medio-lateral oblique projections. The TLD chips were calibrated. The DRLs were set at the 75th percentile of the distribution of the median value of mean glandular dose. Image quality was assessed using European Commission guideline for mammographic image quality assessment. Results for DRLs were 0.53 mGy for cranio-caudal and also 0.53 mGy for medio-lateral oblique. Image quality evaluation showed criteria scores for cranio-caudal and medio-lateral oblique projections as 76 % and 61.2 % respectively. The mammograms scored the highest and lowest score of 100 % and 44 % on criteria 2 and criteria 6 (absence of skin fold) respectively for cranio-caudal projections while for the mediolateral oblique projections, criteria 1 (all breast tissue clearly shown) and criteria 5 (inframammary angle clearly demonstrated) have the highest and lowest score of 96 % and 8 % respectively. The study showed that the DRLs in this study was lower than the established values in other regions of Nigeria and international established values. Image quality was within acceptable level. DRLs for digital mammography and image quality evaluation are important optimization tool that should be adopted by every radiology department with mammography unit.

Dimensions

REFERENCES

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), “Radiation Protection and safety in medical uses of ionizing radiation”, IAEA- Safety standard series No SSG -46, Vienna (2018).

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), “Diagnostic reference level in medical imaging, review and additional advice”, ICRP Supporting Guidance 2 Ann. ICRP, 31 (2001).

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), “The 2007 Recommendations of International Commission On Radiological Protection” ICRP Publication 103.Ann.ICRP37 (2007).

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), “Radiological protection and safety in medicine”, ICRP publication 73.Ann. ICRP, 26 (1996).

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), “Diagnostic reference level in medical imaging”, ICRP publication 135.Ann. ICRP, 46 (2017).

Institute of Physical Science in Medicine (IPSM), “The commissioning and routine testing of mammographic X-ray systems”, (2nd Ed.). Report NO, 59 (1994).

American College Of Radiology (ACR), “Mammography Quality Control Manual”, American College of Radiology Committee on Quality Assurance in Mammography. Reston, Va. (1998).

A. S. Whitley, C. Sloane, G. Hoodley, A. D. Moore & C.W. Aslop, “Clark Positioning in Radiography”, (12th Ed.). New York, (2009) 436.

S. H. Taplin, C. M. Rutter, C. Finder, M. T. Mandelson, F. Houn & E. White, “Screening mammography clinical image quality and the risk of interval breast cancer”, American Journal of Roentgenology, 178 (2002) 797.

D. R. Dance, “Monte Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose”, Phys. Med. Biol.,35 (1990) 1211.

D. R. Dance, C. Skinner, K. C. Young, J. R. Beckett & C. J. Kotre, “Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol”, Phys. Med. Biol., 45 (2000) 3225.

D. R. Dance, K. C. Young & R. E. Van Engen, “Further Factors for the Estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA Breast dosimetry protocols”, Phys. Med. Biol., 56 (2009) 4372.

D. R. Dance, K. C. Young & R. E. Van Engen, “Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols”, Phys. Med. Biol., 54 (2011) 453.

EUREF, “European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis”, (4th Ed.) Official publications of the European Commission, Luxembourg (2006a).

D. Z. Joseph, C. C. Nzotta, J. D. Skam, M. S. Umar & D. Y. Musa, “Diagnostic reference level for mammography examination in Northern Nigeria”, African Journal of Medical & Health Sciences, 17(2018) 58.

J. I. Joshua, C. C. Nzotta, G. M. Abubakar & F. B. Nkubli, “Assessment of mean glandular doses in some selected hospital in Lagos State”, Global scientific Journal, 6 (2018).

F. O. Ogundare, A. N. Oditta, R. I. Obed & F. A. Balogun, “Mean glandular dose for women undergoing breast screening in Oyo State Nigeria”, International Journal of Diagnostic Imaging and Radiation Therapy, 15 (2009) 327.