Radiation Doses and Cancer Risks from Breast Imaging Studies

References

• 1 Ahmed NU, Fort J, Malin A, Hargreaves M. Barriers to mammography screening in a managed care population. Public Adm Manage 2009;13(3):7–39.
  Google Scholar
• 2 Linton OW, Mettler FA; National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. National conference on dose reduction in CT, with an emphasis on pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181(2):321–329.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 3 Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, Berdon WE. Estimates of the cancer risks from pediatric CT radiation are not merely theoretical: comment on “point/counterpoint—in x-ray computed tomography, technique factors should be selected appropriate to patient size. against the proposition.” Med Phys 2001;28(11):2387–2388.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 4 Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, et al.. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100(24):13761–13766.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 5 Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357(22):2277–2284.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 6 Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A, et al.. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194(2):362–369.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 7 Lindfors KK, Boone JM, Nelson TR, Yang K, Kwan AL, Miller DF. Dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2008;246(3):725–733.
  Google Scholar
• 8 Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189(3):616–623.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 9 Preston DL, Ron E, Tokuoka S, et al.. Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958-1998. Radiat Res 2007;168(1):1–64.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 10 Preston DL, Shimizu Y, Pierce DA, Suyama A, Mabuchi K. Studies of mortality of atomic bomb survivors: report 13—solid cancer and noncancer disease mortality: 1950-1997. Radiat Res 2003;160(4):381–407.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 11 Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, et al.. Effect of recent changes in atomic bomb survivor dosimetry on cancer mortality risk estimates. Radiat Res 2004;162(4):377–389.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 12 National Research Council of the National Academies. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII, phase 2—Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006.
  Google Scholar
• 13 International Commission on Radiological Protection. The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007;37(2-4):1–332.
  Google Scholar
• 14 International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 26. Ann ICRP 1977;1(3):1–53.
  Google Scholar
• 15 International Commission on Radiological Protection. Risks associated with ionising radiations. ICRP publication SG1. Ann ICRP 1991;22(1):1–18.
  Google Scholar
• 16 Sechopoulos I, Suryanarayanan S, Vedantham S, D’Orsi CJ, Karellas A. Radiation dose to organs and tissues from mammography: Monte Carlo and phantom study. Radiology 2008;246(2):434–443.
  Google Scholar
• 17 Mettler FA, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 2008;248(1):254–263.
  Google Scholar
• 18 Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR. Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice. Med Phys 2002;29(5):830–834.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 19 Mettler FA, Bhargavan M, Faulkner K, et al.. Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources—1950–2007. Radiology 2009;253(2):520–531.
  Google Scholar
• 20 Wu T, Stewart A, Stanton M, et al.. Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images. Med Phys 2003;30(3):365–380.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 21 Boone JM, Nelson TR, Lindfors KK, Seibert JA. Dedicated breast CT: radiation dose and image quality evaluation. Radiology 2001;221(3):657–667.
  Google Scholar
• 22 Yang WT, Carkaci S, Chen L, et al.. Dedicated cone-beam breast CT: feasibility study with surgical mastectomy specimens. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189(6):1312–1315.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 23 Stabin MG. Doses from medical radiation sources. 2009 Health Physics Society Web site. http://www.hps.org/hpspublications/articles/dosesfrommedicalradiation.html. Accessed May 6, 2010.
  Google Scholar
• 24 DePuey EGGarcia EVBerman DS, eds. Cardiac SPECT imaging. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000; 119–123.
  Google Scholar
• 25 Labeled organ doses for Miraluma (rest, 2 hour void). RxList Web site. http://www.rxlist.com/miraluma-drug.htm. Accessed May 6, 2010.
  Google Scholar
• 26 Huang B, Law MW, Khong PL. Whole-body PET/CT scanning: estimation of radiation dose and cancer risk. Radiology 2009;251(1):166–174.
  Google Scholar
• 27 Geise RA, Palchevsky A. Composition of mammographic phantom materials. Radiology 1996;198(2):347–350.
  Google Scholar
• 28 Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, et al.. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 2006;241(1):55–66.
  Google Scholar
• 29 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. NCRP report no. 160. Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 2009.
  Google Scholar
• 30 Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE. Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 2004;230(1):29–41.
  Google Scholar
• 31 Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al.. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356(3):227–236.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 32 Picano E. Informed consent and communication of risk from radiological and nuclear medicine examinations: how to escape from a communication inferno. BMJ 2004;329(7470):849–851.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 33 Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Narayanan D, et al.. High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression (“positron emission mammography”) is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer. Breast J 2006;12(4):309–323.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 34 Brem RF, Fishman M, Rapelyea JA. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ with mammography, breast specific gamma imaging, and magnetic resonance imaging: a comparative study. Acad Radiol 2007;14(8):945–950.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 35 Brem RF, Floerke AC, Rapelyea JA, Teal C, Kelly T, Mathur V. Breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct imaging modality for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiology 2008;247(3):651–657.
  Google Scholar
• 36 Brem RF, Ioffe M, Rapelyea JA, et al.. Invasive lobular carcinoma: detection with mammography, sonography, MRI, and breast-specific gamma imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192(2):379–383.
  Medline Google Scholar