Vol 71, No 5 (2021)
Research paper (original)
Published online: 2021-08-20

open access

Page views 6576
Article views/downloads 1096
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Average glandular doses reported by mammography units: how reliable are they?

Witold Skrzyński1, Katarzyna Pasicz1, Ewa Fabiszewska1
Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology 2021;71(5):257-262.


Introduction. Average glandular dose (AGD) values displayed by mammography units are often used to compare doses with diagnostic reference levels, with acceptable and achievable dose levels given with in the European guidelines on breast cancer screening, or between mammography units. The aim of the work was to check the reliability of displayed AGD values by comparing them with independently calculated values.

Material and methods. The comparison was performed for five mammography units, for 20 groups of patients (50 patients each), examined in various periods between the years 2015 and 2020. AGD values were calculated independently for the same patients using the results of measurements.

Results. Observed differences between displayed and calculated doses affected their comparison with acceptable and achievable dose levels.

Conclusions. The displayed AGD values should be used with caution. If reliable information on AGD values is needed, they should be independently calculated using the results of measurements.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Didkowska J, Wojciechowska U. Breast cancer in Poland and Europe — population and statistics. Nowotwory J Oncol. 2013; 63: 111–118.
  2. Didkowska J. Mammography screening — a recognised standard. Nowotwory J Oncol. 2017; 66(5): 418–421.
  3. Tołwiński J, Fabiszewska E, Gwiazdowska B, et al. On the possibility of reducing doses received by patients during mammography screening. Nowotwory J Oncol. 2005; 55: 441–447.
  4. Fabiszewska E, Grabska I, Pasicz K, et al. Ocena jakości aparatury rentgenowskiej używanej w pracowniach mammograficznych w realizacji badań przesiewowych raka piersi u kobiet w latach 2007 i 2011 w Polsce. Nowotwory J Oncol. 2014; 64(2): 119–128.
  5. European Parliament. Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom. Off J Eur Commun. 2013; 56: 1–73.
  6. Obwieszczenie Marszałka Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z dnia 11 września 2019 r. w sprawie ogłoszenia jednolitego tekstu ustawy - Prawo atomowe. Dz.U. 2019 poz. 1792. n.d.
  7. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. ICRP Publication 135. Ann ICRP. 2017; 46.
  8. Directorate-General for Health and Consumers (European Commission). European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth Edition. 2006.
  9. Directorate-General for Health and Consumers (European Commission). European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition, supplements. 2013.
  10. Samara ET, Tsapaki V, Sramek D. Dose management software implementation in mammography. Phys Med. 2019; 68: 88–95.
  11. Fabiszewska E, Pasicz K, Grabska I, et al. Comparison of Individual Doses During Mammography Screening Examinations with Screen – Film and DR Systems and Optimization Attempts of Exposure Parameters. Mammography - Recent Advances. 2012: 109–132.
  12. Suleiman ME, Brennan PC, McEntee MF. Mean glandular dose in digital mammography: a dose calculation method comparison. J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2017; 4(1): 013502.
  13. International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA Human Health Series No. 17. Quality assurance programme for digital mammography. 2011.
  14. Dance DR. Monte Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose. Phys Med Biol. 1990; 35(9): 1211–1219.
  15. Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, et al. Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol. 2000; 45(11): 3225–3240.
  16. Update Digital Mammography Protocol 01-2017 n.d.:2–4. https://www.euref.org/downloads?download=54:digital-mammography-protocol-01-2017 (4.02.2021).
  17. Du X, Yu N, Zhang Y, et al. The relationship of the mean glandular dose with compressed breast thickness in mammography. J Public Health Emerg. 2017; 1: 32–32.
  18. Hauge IHR, Olerud HM. Uncertainties involved in the estimation of mean glandular dose for women in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP). Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2013; 155(1): 81–87.
  19. Morán P, Chevalier M, Ten JI, et al. Patient dose in digital mammography. Med Phys. 2004; 31(9): 2471–2479.
  20. Lorek A, Zarębski W, Steinhof-Radwańska K, et al. The atypical form of granulomatous lobular mastitis – diagnostic dilemmas. A case report. Nowotwory J Oncol. 2020; 70(2): 69–72.
  21. Directorate-General for Energy (European Commission). Criteria for acceptability of medical radiological equipment used in diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine and radiotherapy. 2012.
  22. Hetland PO, Friberg EG, Ovrebø KM, et al. Calibration of reference KAP-meters at SSDL and cross calibration of clinical KAP-meters. Acta Oncol. 2009; 48(2): 289–294.
  23. Cannillo B, Ostan A, Dionisi C, et al. Variability of the discrepancy between manufacturer and measured CTDI values by scanner type, acquisition parameters and phantom size. Phys Med. 2018; 49: 34–39.
  24. International Atomic Energy Agency. Status of Computed Tomography Dosimetry for Wide Cone Beam Scanners. IAEA HUMAN HEALTH SERIES 2011.
  25. Parikh RA, Wien MA, Novak RD, et al. A comparison study of size-specific dose estimate calculation methods. Pediatr Radiol. 2018; 48(1): 56–65.