Noor Kaltham Abdulwahid Mohammad, Norsuddin Norhashimah Mohd, Karim Muhammad Khalis Abdul, Isa Iza Nurzawani Che, Ulaganathan Vaidehi
Centre of Diagnostic, Therapeutic and Investigative Studies (CODTIS), Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia.
Dubai Health Academic Corporate, Radiology Department, Rashid Hospital, Dubai 00971, United Arab Emirates.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2025 Jan 1;15(1):81. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics15010081.
: This study compares system-reported organ doses (ODs) to manually calculated mean glandular doses (MGDs) in mammography across multiple centers and manufacturers in Dubai. : A retrospective study of 2754 anonymized mammograms from six clinics in Dubai were randomly retrieved from a central dose survey database. Organ doses were documented along with other dosimetry information like kVp, mAs, filter, target, compression force, and breast thickness. Mean glandular doses, MGDs, were calculated manually for all the patients using the Dance formula and inferential statistical analyses were run to compare the two figures and verify the factors affecting each. : Our study's analysis revealed that manually calculated mean glandular doses (MGDs) provide a more reliable indicator of radiation exposure than organ doses (ODs) reported by DICOM, particularly in multi-vendor scenarios. Manually calculated MGD values were consistently lower than system-reported ODs (MLO view: 0.96 ± 0.37 mGy vs. 1.38 ± 0.45 mGy; CC view: 0.81 ± 0.33 mGy vs. 1.22 ± 0.38 mGy). Significant differences in both system-reported ODs and manually calculated MGDs were observed across centers ( < 0.001). Strong correlations between system-reported ODs and manually calculated MGDs were found for Siemens equipment (r = 0.923, < 0.001) but only moderate correlations for GE systems (r = 0.638, < 0.001). Calculated MGD values were significantly higher for GE equipment compared to Siemens (1.49 ± 0.77 mGy vs. 0.93 ± 0.33 mGy, < 0.001). : This study addresses concerns regarding mammography dosimetry accuracy by demonstrating the superiority of mean glandular doses over DICOM-generated organ doses. These findings empower practitioners to optimize dose levels, ensuring safer and more effective breast cancer screening protocols.
本研究比较了迪拜多个中心和制造商的乳腺摄影中系统报告的器官剂量（ODs）与手动计算的平均腺体剂量（MGDs）。：从中央剂量调查数据库中随机检索了迪拜六家诊所的2754例匿名乳腺造影片进行回顾性研究。记录了器官剂量以及其他剂量学信息，如千伏峰值、毫安秒、滤过器、靶材、压迫力和乳房厚度。使用Dance公式为所有患者手动计算平均腺体剂量（MGDs），并进行推断性统计分析以比较这两个数值并验证影响每个数值的因素。：我们研究的分析表明，手动计算的平均腺体剂量（MGDs）比DICOM报告的器官剂量（ODs）能提供更可靠的辐射暴露指标，尤其是在多供应商的情况下。手动计算的MGD值始终低于系统报告的ODs（MLO视图：0.96±0.37毫戈瑞对1.38±0.45毫戈瑞；CC视图：0.81±0.33毫戈瑞对1.22±0.38毫戈瑞）。各中心在系统报告的ODs和手动计算的MGDs方面均观察到显著差异（<0.001）。对于西门子设备，系统报告的ODs与手动计算的MGDs之间存在强相关性（r = 0.923，<0.001），但对于通用电气系统仅存在中度相关性（r = 0.63八<0.001）。与西门子相比，通用电气设备计算出的MGD值显著更高（1.49±0.77毫戈瑞对0.93±0.33毫戈瑞，<0.001）。：本研究通过证明平均腺体剂量优于DICOM生成的器官剂量，解决了有关乳腺摄影剂量学准确性的问题。这些发现使从业者能够优化剂量水平，确保更安全、更有效的乳腺癌筛查方案。
