Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 14, 2025
Detection of Architectural Distortion in Prior Mammograms via Analysis of Oriented Patterns
Published on: August 30, 2013
National diagnostic reference levels for digital diagnostic and screening mammography in Uganda
Denish Odongo1, Alen Musisi1, Richard Omara Okello1
1Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Introduction:
Screening and diagnostic mammography are associated with some risk of radiation-induced breast cancer. This study was conducted to establish the National Diagnostic Reference Levels (NDRLs) for digital diagnostic and screening mammography in Uganda to achieve breast radiation dose optimization.
Methods:
A cross-sectional study was conducted among female participants recruited by consecutive sampling from three selected hospitals with digital mammography in Uganda. The study variables extracted from the mammography machines were exposure factors, compressed breast thickness (CBT), and Average Glandular Dose (AGD) of two standard mammogram views. The stratified National DRL was derived by calculating the 75th percentile of the AGD across all the samples at various CBT ranges for both screening and diagnostic mammography in craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views.
Results:
We included 300 participants with mean ages of 50.28±9.32 and 47.45±13.45 years for the screening and diagnostic mammography, respectively. There were statistically significant positive correlations between AGD and exposure factors (mAs, kVp) (all p-values<0.0001). For screening mammography, mAs demonstrated a strong positive correlation (r = 0.8369 in CC, 0.8133 in MLO), whereas kVp showed a positive correlation with relatively lower coefficients (r = 0.3700 in CC, 0.3080 in MLO). For diagnostic mammography, mAs exhibited an even stronger positive correlation (r = 0.8987 in CC, 0.8762 in MLO), and kVp maintained a positive correlation with somewhat lower coefficients (r = 0.4954 in CC, 0.3597 in MLO). In screening mammography, for CBT within the range of (7-39) mm, the NDRLs were (1.5mGy, 1.66mGy) in CC) and MLO views. For CBT in the range of (40-59) mm, the NDRLs were (1.78mGy, 1.87mGy), and for CBT in the range of (60-99) mm, the NDRLs were (2.18mGy, 2.22mGy). For diagnostic mammography, the NDRLs were established as (1.7mGy, 1.91mGy), (2.00mGy, 2.09mGy), and (2.63mGy, 2.81mGy) for CBT ranges of (7-39) mm, (40-59) mm, and (60-99) mm, respectively.
Conclusion:
The NDRLs for digital screening and diagnostic mammography in Uganda have been proposed for the first time. The NDRL values in mammography should be specific to CBT ranges and mammographic views for both diagnostic and screening mammography.
