BREAST RADIOLOGY / ORIGINAL PAPER
Impact of breast implant presence and type on mean glandular dose calculations
1
Biomedical Physics Division, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
2
Medical Physics Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
Submission date: 2025-04-08
Final revision date: 2025-05-19
Acceptance date: 2025-09-25
Publication date: 2026-01-10
Corresponding author
Witold Skrzyński
Medical Physics Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, 5 Roentgena St., 02-781 Warsaw, Poland
Medical Physics Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, 5 Roentgena St., 02-781 Warsaw, Poland
Pol J Radiol, 2026; 91(1): 20-29
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Purpose:
Breast cancer remains the most frequently diagnosed cancer among women, making mammography a vital tool for its early detection. However, the increasing prevalence of breast augmentation raises concerns about the accuracy of radiation dose estimation during mammography.
Material and methods:
This study investigates the impact of breast implants on mean glandular dose (MGD) calculations in mammography using Monte Carlo simulations. The research uses the GATE simulation framework to model different implant types (saline, silicone, and adipose tissue) to evaluate their influence on the conversion factors used to determine MGD.
Results:
The results indicate that the standard conversion factors, derived for non-augmented breasts, may not accurately reflect MGD in augmented breasts.
Conclusions:
The study highlights the need for tailored conversion factors to ensure precise radiation dose estimation in women with implants, ultimately improving individualized mammography protocols.
Breast cancer remains the most frequently diagnosed cancer among women, making mammography a vital tool for its early detection. However, the increasing prevalence of breast augmentation raises concerns about the accuracy of radiation dose estimation during mammography.
Material and methods:
This study investigates the impact of breast implants on mean glandular dose (MGD) calculations in mammography using Monte Carlo simulations. The research uses the GATE simulation framework to model different implant types (saline, silicone, and adipose tissue) to evaluate their influence on the conversion factors used to determine MGD.
Results:
The results indicate that the standard conversion factors, derived for non-augmented breasts, may not accurately reflect MGD in augmented breasts.
Conclusions:
The study highlights the need for tailored conversion factors to ensure precise radiation dose estimation in women with implants, ultimately improving individualized mammography protocols.
REFERENCES (29)
1.
Wojciechowska U, Barańska K, Miklewska M, Didkowska JA. Cancer incidence and mortality in Poland in 2020. Nowotwory 2023; 73: 129-145.
2.
Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2024; 74: 229-263.
3.
Cardoso F, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Rubio IT, et al. Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2019; 30: 1194-1220.
4.
Oeffinger KC, Fontham ETH, Etzioni R, Herzig A, Michaelson JS, Shih YCT, et al. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk. JAMA 2015; 314: 1599-1614.
5.
Ronckers CM, Erdmann CA, Land CE. Radiation and breast cancer: a review of current evidence. Breast Cancer Res 2005; 7: 21-32.
6.
International Atomic Energy Agency. Dosimetry in diagnostic radiology: an international code of practice. Vienna: IAEA; 2007.
7.
Dance DR, Sechopoulos I. Dosimetry in x-ray-based breast ima-ging. Phys Med Biol 2016; 61: R271-R304. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/61/19/R271.
8.
Ciraj-Bjelac O, Avramova-Cholakova S, Beganovic A, Economides S, Faj D, Gershan V, et al. Image quality and dose in mammography in 17 countries in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe: results from IAEA projects. Eur J Radiol 2011; 81: 2161-2168.
9.
Vañó E, Miller DL, Martin CJ, Rehani MM, Kang K, Rosenstein M, et al. ICRP publication 135: Diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. Ann ICRP 2017; 46: 1-144.
10.
Liu Q, Suleiman ME, McEntee MF, Soh BP. Diagnostic reference levels in digital mammography: a systematic review. J Radiol Prot 2022; 42. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/ac4214.
11.
International Atomic Energy Agency. Handbook of basic quality control tests for diagnostic radiology. Vienna: IAEA; 2023. DOI: 10.61092/iaea.rhjo-8d0u.
12.
Sechopoulos I, Dance DR, Boone JM, Bosmans HT, Caballo M, Diaz O, et al. Joint AAPM Task Group 282/EFOMP Working Group Report: Breast dosimetry for standard and contrast-enhanced mammography and breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 2023; 51: 712-739.
13.
Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ. Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 2000; 45: 3225-3240.
14.
Suleiman ME, Brennan PC, McEntee MF. Mean glandular dose in digital mammography: a dose calculation method comparison. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2017; 4: 013502. DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.4.1.013502.
15.
Roy PG, Yan Z, Nigam S, Maheshwari K. Aesthetic breast surgery: putting in context – a narrative review. Gland Surg 2021; 10: 2832-2846.
16.
Saldanha IJ, Broyles JM, Adam GP, Cao W, Bhuma MR, Mehta S, et al. Implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer: a cystematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2022; 10: e4179. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004179.
18.
Wu Y, Hu F, Li X, Yin G. Autologous fat transplantation for aesthetic breast augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aesthet Surg J 2021; 41: NP402-NP429. DOI: 10.1093/asj/sjaa364.
19.
Fuentes JAP, Sánchez VSR, Ledesma AKG, Mena AF, Brito S, Soteldo C. Mean glandular dose in the mammary gland and dose of radiation in the thyroid gland and lens in women with and without breast implants during different modalities of mammography. Radiologia (Engl Ed) 2022; 64 Suppl 1: 11-19.
20.
Deevband MR, Kaveh Z, Ghorbani M, Khajetash B. Evaluation of glandular dose in mammography in presence of breast cysts using Monte Carlo simulation. Pol J Med Phys Eng 2021; 27: 41-50.
21.
Jan S, Benoit D, Becheva E, Carlier T, Cassol F, Descourt P, et al. GATE V6: a major enhancement of the GATE simulation platform enabling modelling of CT and radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 2011; 56: 881-901.
22.
Sarrut D, Bardiès M, Boussion N, Freud N, Jan S, Létang JM, et al. A review of the use and potential of the GATE Monte Carlo simulation code for radiation therapy and dosimetry applications. Med Phys 2014; 41: 064301. DOI: 10.1118/1.4871617.
23.
Sarrut D, Arbor N, Baudier T, Borys D, Etxebeste A, Fuchs H, et al. The OpenGATE ecosystem for Monte Carlo simulation in medical physics. Phys Med Biol 2022; 67: 184001. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac8c83.
24.
Fathi I, Mkimel M, El Baydaoui R, El Rhazouani O, Mesradi MR. GATE/GEANT4 simulation of radiation risk induced cancer from mammographic screening. Radiat Phys Chem 2022; 193: 109929. DOI: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2021.109929.
25.
Evans S. Catalogue of diagnostic X-ray spectra and other data. J Radiol Prot 1998; 18. DOI: 10.1088/0952-4746/18/1/026.
26.
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Tissue substitutes in radiation dosimetry and measurement. Bethesda (MD): ICRU; 1989. Report No.: ICRU Report No. 44. Available from: https://www.icru.org/report/ti... and-measurement-report-44/.
27.
Allison J, Amako K, Apostolakis J, Arce P, Asai M, Aso T, et al. Recent developments in Geant4. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A 2016; 835: 186-225.
28.
Künzel R, Herdade SB, Costa PR, Terini RA, Levenhagen RS. Ambient dose equivalent and effective dose from scattered x-ray spectra in mammography for Mo/Mo, Mo/Rh and W/Rh anode/filter combinations. Phys Med Biol 2006; 51: 2077-2091.
29.
Beckett JR, Kotre CJ. Estimation of mean glandular dose for mammography of augmented breasts. Phys Med Biol 2000; 45: 3241-3252.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| ISSN: | 1899-0967 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
