Assessment of the impact of chest radiography on the breast of female patients in a medical facility in Asaba, Delta State: An evaluation of the lifetime cancer risk

Akintayo Daniel Omojola, Azuka Anthonio Agboje, Kanu Bassey Uche, Esu Okon Esu, Funmilayo Ruth Omojola, Margaret Idongesit Anizor, Ebbi Donald Robinson

Abstract


Objectives: Posteroanterior (PA) Chest radiography is the most common medical investigation worldwide. This study is aimed at determining the mean and median entrance surface dose (ESD), 75th percentile ESD, dose to right (RT) and left (LT) breast, absorbed dose (DT) and organ dose from PA chest radiography for female patients between the ages of 20-79 years. It is also aimed at determining the effective dose (E) and estimating the lifetime cancer risk.

Methods: This prospective study was carried out with 121 female subjects who came for routine PA chest radiography. Digital radiography (DR) unit was used for all patients. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) was positioned at the centre of the collimated beam of each patient and transparent nylon was attached to the skin. The TLDs were also attached to both breasts with the patient facing the erect bucky to estimate the exit dose (ED).

Results: The mean, median and 75th percentile ESD for the 6 age groups were 0.96 ±0.15 mGy, 0.95 (0.71-1.23) mGy and 1.07mGy respectively. The mean dose to the RT, LT breast and the DT were 0.35 ±0.12, 0.40 ±0.13 and 0.58 ±0.12 mGy respectively. The mean E for the age groups was 0.029 mSv, while the mean organ doses to the lungs, breast and thyroid were 0.290, 0.059 and 0.022 mGy respectively. The estimated lifetime cancer risk among the age groups ranged from 1.0-2.8 per million. 

Conclusion: The mean ESD and E were above recommended guidelines. ESD and DT were primarily affected by focus film distance (FFD) and field size for all age groups. An evaluation of the lifetime cancer risk from this study shows that the risk was twice as high as the United Kingdom (UK) Health Protection Agency (HPA) report. Though the risk was minimal, there may be need to review the current protocol to meet up with the reported values in the HPA published guidelines.


Keywords


Entrance Surface Dose (ESD); Thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD); Digital Radiography (DR); Effective Dose (E); Exit Dose (ED); Absorbed Dose (DT)

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bercovich E, Javitt MC. Medical Imaging: From Roentgen to the Digital Revolution, and Beyond. Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2018; 9:e0034.

Sharma S, Traeger AC, Reed B, et al. Clinician and patient beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain: a systematic qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Open. 2020; 10:e037820.

Pasqual E, Turner MC, Gracia-Lavedan E, et al. Association of ionizing radiation dose from common medical diagnostic procedures and lymphoma risk in the Epilymph case-control study. PLoS ONE. 2020; 15(7): e0235658.

Campanella F, Rossi L, Giroletti E, et al. Are physicians aware enough of patient radiation protection? Results from a survey among physicians of Pavia District– Italy. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017; 17:406

Do KH. General Principles of Radiation Protection in Fields of Diagnostic Medical Exposure. J Korean Med Sci. 2016; 31 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S6-S9.

IAEA General Safety Guide. Radiation protection of the public and the Environment. IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR-8. Vienna: IAEA Safety Series. 2018

ICRP. Radiological Protection and Safety, in Medicine, ICRP Publication 73, Annals of the ICRP 26, No. 2, Pergamon Press, Oxford. 1996

National Radiologic Protection Board (NRPB). National Protocol for Patient Dose Measurements in Diagnostic Radiology, NRPB, Chilton Didcot, UK: NRPB Publication. 1992.

International Commission on Radiation Units & Measurements (ICRU). Patient dosimetry for X-rays used in medical imaging. Bethesda, Maryland: ICRU publications, Report 74, 2005.

Pinto LM, Pai M, Dheda K, et al. Scoring systems using chest radiographic features for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in adults: a systematic review. Eur Respir J 2013; 42: 480–494

Wielpütz MO, Heußel CP, Herth FJ, et al. Radiological diagnosis in lung disease: factoring treatment options into the choice of diagnostic modality. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2014; 111(11):181-187.

Truong K, Bradley S, Baginski B, et al. The effect of well-characterized, very low-dose X-ray radiation on fibroblasts. PLoS One. 2018; 13(1):e0190330.

Lai ZH, Sá dos Reis C, Sun Z. Effective dose and image optimisation of lateral lumbar spine radiography: a phantom study. Eur Radiol Exp. 2020; 4 (1):13

Brennan PC, McDonnell S, O’Leary D. Increasing film-focus distance (FFD) reduces radiation dose for x-ray examinations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2004; 108(3):263-8.

International Commission on Radiological Protection. Diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. ICRP Publication 135. 2017

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement. Reference levels and achievable doses in medical and dental imaging: recommendations for the United States. Bethesda, Md. NCRP Report No. 172; 2012.

Omojola AD Akpochafor MO, Adeneye SO. Validation of entrance surface air kerma of MTS-N (LiF: Mg, Ti) chips with reference ionization chamber using kilovoltage X-ray machine for patient dosimetry. SAR.2020; 58 (2): 16-21

Omojola AD, Akpochafor MO, Adeneye SO. Calibration of MTSN (LiF: Mg, Ti) chips using cesium137 source at low doses for personnel dosimetry in diagnostic radiology. Radiat Prot Environ 2020; 43:108-114.

ICRP. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann. ICRP 37. 2007: 1–332

ICRP, 1998. Genetic Susceptibility to Cancer. ICRP Publication 79. Ann. ICRP 28, 1998: (1-2).

Wall BF, Haylock R, Jensen JTM, et al. Radiation risks from medical X-ray examination as a function of age and sex of the patient. Chilton, Didcot, HPA-CRCE-028, UK. 2011

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Diagnostic Radiology Physics: A Handbook for Teachers and Students. IAEA Publications, Vienna, Austria. 2014

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Dosimetry in diagnostic radiology: an international code of practice. Technical Reports Series (TRS) No. 457. IAEA Publications, Vienna, Austria. 2007

European Committee (EC). European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. EUR 16260EN. 1996

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). International basic standards for protection against ionizing radiation and for the safety of radiation source. Vienna: IAEA Safety Series. 1996

National Radiologic Protection Board (NRPB). National protocol for patient dose measurements in diagnostic radiology. Chilton Didcot, UK: NRPB. Report of the working party of the Institute of Physics Science in Medicine. 2000

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement. Reference levels and achievable doses in medical and dental imaging: recommendations for the United States. Bethesda, Md. NCRP Report No. 172; 2012.

Musa Y, Hashim S, Abdul Karim MK. Direct and indirect entrance surface dose measurement in X-ray diagnostics using nanoDot OSL dosimeters. J Phys Conf Ser. 2019: 1248 012014

Nikzad S, Pourkaveh M, Vesal NJ, et al. Cumulative Radiation Dose and Cancer Risk Estimation in Common Diagnostic Radiology Procedures. Iran J Radiol. 2018 15(3):e60955.

Akpochafor MO, Omojola AD, Adeneye SO, Aweda MA, Ajayi HB. Determination of reference dose levels among selected X-ray centers in Lagos State, South-West Nigeria. J Clin Sci. 2016; 13:167-72.

Ciraj O, Markovic S, Kosutic D. Patient dose from conventional diagnostic radiology procedures in Serbia and Montenegro. J Prev Med. 2004; 12:26–34.

Aliasgharzadeh A, Mihandoost E, Masoumbeigi M, et al. Measurement of Entrance Skin Dose and Calculation of Effective Dose for Common Diagnostic X-Ray Examinations in Kashan, Iran. Glob J Health Sci. 2015; 7(5):202-207.

Ichikawa T, Ono K, Asada Y. [Evaluation of Entrance Surface Dose in Chest Radiography Using Clinical Images: Estimation of Subject Thickness Using Two-direction Radiography]. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi. 2018; 74 (7):661-666.

Jibiri NN, Olowookere CJ. Patient dose audit of the most frequent radiographic examinations and the proposed local diagnostic reference levels in southwestern Nigeria: Imperative for dose optimisation. J Radiat Res Appl Sc. 2016; 9:274-281

Jecl D, Mekis N Ljubljana SI. Breast shielding significantly reduced breast dose during thoracic spine radiography. ESR. 2015. pp 1-7

Mekiš N, Žontar D, Škrk D. The effect of breast shielding during lumbar spine radiography. Radio Oncol. 2013; 47 (1): 26-31.

Fordham LA, Brown ED, Washburn D, et al. Efficacy and feasibility of breast shielding during abdominal fluoroscopic examinations. Acad Radiol. 1997; 4: 639-43.

Elshami W, Abuzaid MM, Tekin HO. Effectiveness of Breast and Eye Shielding During Cervical Spine Radiography: An Experimental Study. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2020; 13:697-704.

Murphy A, Bell D. Entrance Skin Dose. Reference article, Radiopaedia.org. (Accessed on 14 Sep 2021) https://radiopaedia.org/articles/52598

Hart D, Shrimpton PC. Fourth review of the UK national patient dose database [published correction appears in Br J Radiol. 2013 86(1021):20120341]. Br J Radiol. 2012; 85 (1018):e957-e958.

ICRP Publication 60 (1991) Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Elsevier Health Sciences. 1990; 21: 1-201.

Zhang Y, Li X, Segars WP, et al. Comparison of patient specific dose metrics between chest radiography, tomosynthesis, and CT for adult patients of wide ranging body habitus. Med. Phys. 41 (2), 023901-1-7

Achuka JA, Aweda MA, Usikalu MR, et al. Cancer risks from chest radiography of young adults: A pilot study at a health facility in South West Nigeria. Data in Brief. 2018; 19:1250–1256

Ciraj O, Markovic S, Kosutic D. Patient dosimetry in diagnostic radiology. Nucl Tech Radiat Protect. 2003; 18: 36-41

Chaparian A, Tavakoli I, Karimi V. Organ doses, effective dose, and radiation risk assessment in radiography of pediatric paranasal sinuses. Asian Biomed. 2013; 7(5): 695-698

Ladia A, Messaris G, Delis H, et al. Organ dose and risk assessment in paediatric radiography using the PCXMC 2.0. J Phys Conf Ser. 2015; 637: 012014

Toroi P, Kelaranta A, Vock P, et al. Interpretation of measured dose data in X-ray imaging. In: 13th international congress of the international radiation protection association. Glasgov, Scotland; 2012. Available from: https://www.irpa.net/members/TS2a.9.pdf

De Oliveira VLS, De Oliveira PMC, Abrantes MES, et al. Applying the PCXMC® software for dose assessment in patients submitted to chest and skull X-ray examinations. INAC, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. 2009

Zarghani H, Toossi MTB. Evaluation of Organ and Effective Doses to Patients Arising From Some Common X-Ray Examinations by PCXMC Program in Sabzevar, Iran. Iran J Med Phys. 2015; 12(4): 284-291




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.36162/hjr.v6i4.459

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.