Volume 4, Issue 2, June 2018, Page: 6-11
Dosage Estimation in Mammography for Quality Assurance and Quality Control Using Adult Mammograms
Oladotun Ayotunde Ojo, Department of Physics, Osun State University, Osogbo, Nigeria
Musibau Adekunle Ibrahim, Department of Information and Communication Technology, Osun State University, Osogbo, Nigeria
Peter Adefisoye Oluwafisoye, Department of Physics, Osun State University, Osogbo, Nigeria
Charles Okechukwu Chime, Department of Radiology, University of Benin Teaching Hospital, Benin City, Nigeria
Received: Jul. 17, 2018;       Accepted: Aug. 22, 2018;       Published: Sep. 17, 2018
DOI: 10.11648/j.rst.20180402.11      View  279      Downloads  17
Abstract
Any form of X-ray exposure should be carefully monitored and controlled, so that the patient is only exposed to safe amounts. Even though X-ray users are extremely careful when exposing their patients to diagnostic tests, where radiation is involved, it is important to bear in mind how low the risks really are, especially when compared to other forms of radiation exposure. As with any kind of medical procedure, X-rays are safe when they are used properly. When clinically indicated, properly conducted imaging with the smallest risk should be performed. In this study, the optical densities, OD, of adult mammograms, undergoing X-ray exposures was measured from the radiology department of the University of Benin Teaching Hospital (UBTH), Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria, with the aid of a densitometer, model MA 5336. The measured optical densities were used to estimate the X-ray radiation dose to patients, undergoing mammography, for the purpose of Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC), in diagnostic and screening. A total of fifty (50) adult mammograms were collected for use in the radiology department of the hospital. The optical densities were measured five times at different spots across the image of each of the mammograms and the mean were obtained, in other to estimate the absorbed dose. The results obtained showed that the mean dose was 0.48 mGy, minimum dose 0.04 mGy, maximum dose 1.07 mGy, range of dose 1.03 mGy, SD 0.24, kurtosis 2.77, 1st Q 0.34 and 3rd Q 0.66. These results were in agreement with those of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), guidance levels in X-ray guided medical interventional procedures.
Keywords
Exposure, Radiation, Absorbed Dose, Mammograms, Optical Densities
To cite this article
Oladotun Ayotunde Ojo, Musibau Adekunle Ibrahim, Peter Adefisoye Oluwafisoye, Charles Okechukwu Chime, Dosage Estimation in Mammography for Quality Assurance and Quality Control Using Adult Mammograms, Radiation Science and Technology. Vol. 4, No. 2, 2018, pp. 6-11. doi: 10.11648/j.rst.20180402.11
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Akinlade, B. I., Odefemi, F. B. and Farai, I. P. (2016). Overview of radiation dose to patients from medical X – ray examinations in Nigeria. Afr. J. Med. Sci. 45, 23 – 29.
[2]
NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement) (1987). Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. NCRP 1987, report 93.
[3]
Ajayi, I. R. and Akinwumi, A. (2000). Measurement of entrance skin doses to patients in four common diagnostic examinations by thermo luminescence dosimetry in Nigeria. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2000; 87(3): 213 – 220.
[4]
Boerma M, Nelson GA, Sridharan V, Mao XW, Koturbash I, Hauer-Jensen M. Space radiation and car-diovascular disease risk. World J Cardiol. (2015). 7(12):882–8. Epub 2016/01/06. https://doi.org/10.4330/wjc.v7.i12.882 PMID: 26730293.
[5]
Lu T, Zhang Y, Wong M, Feiveson A, Gaza R, Stoffle N, et al. Detection of DNA damage by space radiation in human fibroblasts flown on the International Space Station. Life Sciences in Space Research. (2017). 12 (Supplement C):24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lssr.2016.12.004.
[6]
Dobrzynski L, Fornalski KW, Feinendegen LE. Cancer Mortality Among People Living in Areas With Various Levels of Natural Background Radiation. Dose Response. (2015). 13(3):1559325815592391. Epub 2015/12/18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325815592391 PMID: 26674931.
[7]
Medlin D, Heffron W, Siegel A, Wilson K, Klingenberger A, Gall A, et al. Development of an x-ray irradiation port for biomedical applications at the CUEBIT facility. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. (2015). 583(1):012048.
[8]
Mykyta Sokolov and Ronald Neumann (2016). Global Gene Expression Alterations as a Crucial Constituent of Human Cell Response to Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation Exposure. Int. J. Mol. Sci. (2016). 17, 55.
[9]
Mervyn D Cohen (2018). Is there a risk of getting cancer from radiation from medical diagnostic imaging? J Radiol Med Imaging. 2018; 1: 1005.
[10]
GAMMEX (2016). Film Densitometer Peripheral Technical Manual, Model 5336. GAMMEX Middleton, WI, USA.
[11]
Scarlat, F., Scarisoreanu, A., Oane, M., Mitre, E., Badita, E. (2008). Determination of Absorbed Dose Using a Dosimetric Film. IX Radiation Physics & Protection Conference, 15 – 19 November, 2008, Nasr City, Egypt. 313 – 321.
[12]
Artur, T. (2003). Determination of Absorbed X-ray Radiation Dose in X-ray Diagnostics and Imaging. J. Med. Sci. 1 (2); 31-36.
[13]
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) (Safety Reports Series No. 59). Establishing Guidance Levels in X – ray Guided Medical Interventional Procedures: A Pilot Study. Safety Reports Series No. 59.
[14]
NBIRR (Nigeria Basic Ionizing Radiation Regulation) (2003).
[15]
ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) (1996). Radiological Protection and safety in Medicine, Publication 73 (Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press).
Browse journals by subject