Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences Volume 17, Issue no. 3, DOI 10.18502/sjms.v17i3.12128 Production and Hosting by Knowledge E Research Article Diagnostic Reference Levels in Mammography in the Asian Context Chamudi Ishara Rajamuni1,2 and Bimali Sanjeevani Weerakoon2* 1Postgraduate Institute of Science, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka 2Department of Radiography/Radiotherapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka ORCID: Bimali Sanjeevani Weerakoon: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0843-6389 Abstract Background: Breast cancer is the most frequent cancer among the female population globally. Therefore, early detection is helpful for effective treatments and to reduce the mortality rate. Mammography is a radiological examination done with low-energy X-rays to detect abnormalities in breast tissue. This study aims to review the literature to evaluate the techniques, protocols, and conversion factors used to determine the diagnostic reference levels (DRLs); within the Asian continent using both phantom- and patient-based data. Methods: Related articles were systematically reviewed via Pub Med, Google scholar, and freehand search with the aid of relevant terms. Related abstracts in English were screened, and suitable articles were selected after reviewing the full-text. Four hundred and thirty abstracts were screened for relevance, and 12 articles were selected. Results: The study comprises four phantom-based and eight patient-based studies. The studies varied between the types of test subjects, conversion factors, breast compression thickness, and dose calculation protocols. This obstructs continuing the DRLs with the updates and comparisons among countries. Establishments of DRLs in Asian countries are less than the rest of the world. DRLs should be measured continuously, and should be updated based on other clinical parameters of the patients. Conclusion: DRLs in mammography were measured from time to time in different geographical locations in Asia by following various techniques. But when compared with the other regions of the world, there is less consideration for establishing DRLs in Asia. There should be standard protocols and updated conversion factors according to the advancements of the technology to ensure radiation protection with optimal absorbed dose with appropriate image quality. Keywords: mammography, diagnostic reference level, mean glandular dose How to cite this article: Chamudi Ishara Rajamuni and Bimali Sanjeevani Weerakoon* (2022) “Diagnostic Reference Levels in Mammography in the Asian Context,” Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences, vol. 17, Issue no. 3, pages 401–415. DOI 10.18502/sjms.v17i3.12128 Page 401 Corresponding Author: Weerakoon; email: bsw888@gmail.com, bsw888@ahs.pdn.ac.lk Received 23 April 2022 Accepted 2 July 2022 Published 30 September 2022 Production and Hosting by Knowledge E Rajamuni, Weerakoon. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited. Editor-in-Chief: Prof. Nazik Elmalaika Obaid Seid Ahmed Husain, MD, M.Sc, MHPE, PhD http://www.knowledgee.com https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences Rajamuni, Weerakoon 1. Introduction Breast cancer is the most frequent cancer among the female population globally. This impacts 2.1 million women each year [1]. In 2018, it was estimated that 627,000 women died due to breast cancer; this was 15% of total cancer deaths among women worldwide [1]. At present, breast cancer cases among Asian women are still lower than in their Western counterparts [2]. However, there will be a gradual growth of reported cases among Asian women in the near future due to the changes in lifestyle and the technical advancements in the diagnostic field [3]. Currently, closer to one-quarter (24%) of breast cancer incidences were reported in the Asia-Pacific region (a total of 404,000 cases at a ratio of 3:100,00 women), and of them, higher percentages were reported among Chinese (46%), Japanese (14%), and Indonesian (12%) females [4]. Early detection of breast cancers is helpful for effective treatments and to reduce the mortality rate. Mammography is a radiological examination done with low-energy X-rays to detect abnormalities in breast tissue. Mammograms are performed on both symptomatic and asymptomatic women. According to the current guidelines of the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), women in their 40s should begin annual mammogram screening. But those who have had breast cancer previously and who have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer should get medical advice, and must undergo mammography examinations before their 40s [5]. In the Asian region, there are fewer national population-based screening programs. Also, the mortality rate increases due to cultural and economic obstacles and misunderstandings about the disease [4]. Breast tissue is radiosensitive; therefore, mammography examination may induce a cancer risk in healthy women. Therefore, the amount of radiation to the patients during the examination should be kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). According to the International Commission of Radiation Protection (ICRP) recommendations, there are two principles of radiation protection. They are the justification for the protection and optimization of radiation protection while considering diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) [6]. In mammography, mean glandular dose (MGD) is the dose quality management factor [7], and this MGD depends on surface air kerma and conversion factors [6]. According to the Annals of ICRP 2016, there are two methods for dose assessment in mammography. DRL is a parameter used in quality control processes and radiation dose level comparison among different manufacturers. DRL is a selected quantity of radiation dose defined as: an investigation level, applied as a quantitative measurement, DOI 10.18502/sjms.v17i3.12128 Page 402 Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences Rajamuni, Weerakoon on absorbed doses in the air, a simple phantom made up of tissue-equivalent material or directly on the representative patient [8]. In the early stages of medical imaging, mammography was film-screen based and with the advancement of technology the era of computed mammography (CR) and digital mammography (DM) emerged introducing the tomosynthesis techniques, which produces 3D images. This advancement had a significant influence on image quality and dose reduction. However still, most Asian countries do not have any national breast screening programs. In early studies, radiation dose on the breast tissue was measured using various perspectives. Different researchers define the dose as air kerma [9], entrance surface air dose [10], mid breast dose [11], total energy transmission to the breast [12], and average glandular tissue [13]. However, it was later decided that the dose to the breast could be measured as the mean glandular dose (MGD), which is the most effective method of measuring the dose because the mammary glands are highly sensitive to ionizing radiation. At present, authorities responsible for radiation protection such as the International Commission of Radiation Protection (ICRP) [14], the United States National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements [15], the British Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) [44], European Protocol [17], and the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) [18] recommend this standard measurement. MGD is not a direct measurement, it is calculated by considering certain assumptions and the nature of the breast tissue. Moreover, it is required to consider technical factors of the machine such as kVp, HVLs, tube output, and automatic exposure control (AEC) mode [19]. Conversion factors are established by the Monte-Carlo method [8]. There are both phantom-based established DRLs as well as patient-based DRLs. Phantom- based DRLs do not reflect the clinical environment well due to the variation in the composition of the patients’ breast tissue. Therefore, phantom-based DRLs are the best measurements for quality assurance of the machine, while patient-based DRLs give more information for the application in a clinical setting. DRLs are not statistic values; therefore, it should be continuously updated according to the advancement of hardware and software. In 2014, a review was done by a group of Australian researchers regarding the state of the established mammography DRLs in the world [20]. According to their findings, there is less contribution for DRLs in Asian countries. Most Asian countries are yet to develop the DRLs in mammography. This study was done to review the literature to evaluate the current state of mammography DRLs in Asian countries. DOI 10.18502/sjms.v17i3.12128 Page 403 Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences Rajamuni, Weerakoon 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Search strategy and study selection This study was done as a systematic review using preferred reporting items for system- atic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) [21]. Literature was searched on databases like PubMed and Google Scholar. In addition, articles and other references not available in the databases were cross-searched using Google search. Following search terms were applied “Mammography,” “Mammography Examination,” “Screening,” “DRLs,” “Diagnostic Reference Levels,” “MGD,” “Average Glandular Dose,” “Phantom-based DRLs,” “Patient-based DRLs,” “Asia,” and “Asian countries.” The search was carried out with and without filters, such as the type of article (original research articles), geographical location (Asian continent), and the language (English). As the first step, the articles were selected by screening the title, abstract, and keywords. The abstracts of studies discussing MGD in mammography were taken into a full-text review. After referring to the mammography quality control manual 2018 [22], selected articles were separated as phantom-based and patient-based DRLs. Best matching articles were considered first, followed by the publication date. Studies in the English language were included. 2.1.1. Data extraction General details such as author names, country, and sample size were extracted in each study. MGD at 75𝑡ℎ percentile and 95𝑡ℎ percentile was extracted. Two reviewers independently did the data extraction. 3. Results Twelve articles published between 2000 and 2020 were deemed eligible for inclusion. Figure 1 presents the articles’ search strategy. New data synthesis was done by con- sidering the variation of MGD with breast compression thickness at the 75𝑡ℎ and 95𝑡ℎ percentile values at the distribution. The selected 12 studies covered the different geographical locations of the Asian continent. Among them, three studies were only on phantom-based data, eight were based only on patient-based data, and one was based on both phantom- and patient- based data. There are four major quality control protocols published by the American DOI 10.18502/sjms.v17i3.12128 Page 404 Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences Rajamuni, Weerakoon College of Radiology (ACR) [22], the European Protocol (EP) [23], the IAEA, IPSM [16] protocol, and two methods for conversion factors were followed to calculate MGD and determine DRLs. 74 articles identified through manual searching n oit a cifit n e dI 356 articles identified through database searching 141 articles are duplicates S c r e e n in g E li g ib il it y 289 articles remain after removing duplicates 269 were excluded after screening title and abstract 10 full-text articles excluded due to the absence of DRLs, clinical data with <50 sample size. 21 full articles were evaluated for eligibility In c lu d e d 12 articles included Figure 1: Flow chart of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). 3.1. Techniques of DRL measurements using phantom-based data Phantom is a highly specialized object made up of tissue-equivalent material used in medical imaging for dosimetry, quality control, and equipment calibration. Phantom- based DRLs are essential in assessing the performance of the machine at the installation and ongoing quality control programs. Further, this technique is also crucial in evaluating the DRLs during the comparisons between the previous studies and at the stage of technological advancement. Poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA) is a commonly used DOI 10.18502/sjms.v17i3.12128 Page 405 Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences Rajamuni, Weerakoon phantom material as its radiation transmission property is similar to breast tissues. In this review, phantom-based studies done in Asian countries are selected according to the type of phantom and the protocol used. In most studies, exposures were made under specified technical factors recommended by the manufacturers. Selected machines were DR, CR, or screen film (SFM). Phantoms used in these studies were not identical, and they were different in size and composition. The selected protocols and conversion factors also varied between the studies (Table 1). Three studies measured the entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) value, and the remaining study measured the breast entrance exposure (BEE). When considering protocols and conversion factors, one study has followed the ACR measurement protocol [22] with Wu et al. [24] conversion factors. While the other three studies [18, 25, 29, 32]followed the ACR measurement protocol [22]with Dance et al. [26] conversion factors. An Indian study [25]used an inexpensive in-house built phantom which consists of PMMA, similar to the ACR PMMA phantom. It also followed ACR protocol [22]with Dance et al. [26] MGD conversion factors. However, in these selected studies, DRL values cannot be compared directly without having a unique conversion calculation with a standard phantom. 3.2. DRL measurements using phantom-based data There is a difference between the DRLs of the same type of phantom, which uses the same protocol and conversion factors. This may be due to the variation of technical parameters of different manufacturers. In a Taiwanese study using the ACR phantom, the 75𝑡ℎpercentile was obtained as 1.87mGy [27], but a Turkish study [28]with the same phantom followed the IAEA protocol with Dance et al. [26] conversion factors produced the 75𝑡ℎ percentile as 2.0 mGy. In the Indian study [25]conducted with an in-house built phantom similar to ACR PMMA, breast entrance exposure (BEE) was measured by placing a thermoluminescence dosimeter (TLD) within the engraved slot of the phantom. Then the MGD was derived from BEE using two different methods. The measured depth ranges in the phantom are 0.32 and 0.40 cm at 75% depth dose, 0.73 and 0.92 cm at 50% depth dose, and 1.54 and 1.78 cm at 25% depth dose. The difference in MGD values determined using two different methods was in the range of 17.5–32.6%. Malaysian study [29] done with RMI156 phantom with ACR protocol [22] and Wu et al. [24] conversion factors produced 75𝑡ℎ percentile as 1.44 mGy. DOI 10.18502/sjms.v17i3.12128 Page 406 Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences Rajamuni, Weerakoon 3.3. Techniques of DRL measurements in patient-based data There is a large diversification in breast thickness and granularity within the female population around the world. This leads to a difference between the compressed breast thickness (CBT) and the amount of radiation dose received by the breast during mammography examination. Therefore, establishing patient-based DRLs is significant for optimizing patient-specific radiation protection. A summary of the reviewed nine studies investigating patient-based DRLs is displayed in Table 2. In almost all studies, necessary data for the calculations were obtained from the DICOM images. In addition, all studies except one were conducted according to the European protocol [23]. The needed conversion factors were taken from Wu et al. [24, 32] and Dance et al. [26]. Most studies considered the absorbed dose for craniocaudal (CC) mediolateral oblique (MLO) views in mammography examinations. All the analyses were done after performing QC procedures in the selected machines. However, it is worth highlighting that according to the results, a wide range of CBT among the female population was observed, and also mammography examinations were done with different imaging modalities of SFM, CR, and DR. Therefore, the variation of the obtained MGD is unable to compare with other studies. Table 1: Summary of the studies related to Phantom-based DRLs. Country Authors/Year Protocol/Conversion factors Method of data collection Phantom type (Thickness/E-CBT/ G %) Average MGD mGy DRL mGy 75% 95% Turkey Bor et al. (2008) [30] IPSM/Dance et al. [26] Measured ESAK BR12 (40 mm/45 mm/50%) 1.46 2.0 Taiwan Hwang et al. (2019) [29] ACR [22]/Dance et al. [26] Measured ESAK (Using TLDs) ACR PMMA ACR SFM Phantom ACR DM Phantom 42 mm/50% SFM 1.57 DR 1.55 1.87 India Sharma et al. (2011) [25] ACR [22]/Dance et al. [26] NCRP-149 [31]/Wu et al. [24] BEE ACR PMMA 50 mm/50% 32–40mm – 75% depth dose 73–92 mm – 50% depth dose 154–178 mm – 25% depth dose Malaysia Jamal et al. (2003) [18] ACR [22]/Wu et al. [24] Measured ESAK RMI156 42 mm/50% DR0 50–2.39 1.44 IPSM, Institute of Physical Science in Medicine; ACR American College of Radiology; EP, European Protocol; IAEA; International Atomic Energy Agency; ESAK, Entrance Surface Air Kerma; IAK, Incident Air Kerma; BEE, Breast Entrance Exposure; PMMA, Poly Methyl Methacrylate; SFM, Screen Film Mammography; DR, Digital Radiography; CR, Computed Tomography; EBCT, Equivalent Breast Compression Thickness; G%, Granularity; MGD, Mean Glandular Dose; DRLs, Diagnostic Reference Levels; TLD, Thermo Luminescence Dosimeters. 3.4. DRL measurements using patient-based data The measured patient-based DRLs show a wide range at both the 75𝑡ℎ and 95𝑡ℎ percentiles, as shown in Table 2. According to the findings, there is a higher MGD DOI 10.18502/sjms.v17i3.12128 Page 407 Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences Rajamuni, Weerakoon for the MLO view than the CC view and also DRL is higher in SFM than that in CR and DR mammography machines. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) shows a higher value than that of 2D CR and DR systems. The range of mean DRLs of the reviewed studies at the 75𝑡ℎ percentile was 1.27–2.64 mGy and at the 95𝑡ℎ percentile was 1.2–2.4 mGy. Two Japanese studies in the CBT range of <45 mm show a 75𝑡ℎ percentile value of 1.91 [33] and 2.0 mGy [34]. Although these studies were conducted in the same geographical location, the authors used two different dose calculation methods and protocols. A study conducted at Qatar MGD for CC and MLO was 2.2 mGy and 2.5 mGy, respectively [35]. In this study, MGD was calculated according to the European protocol [23],and the Dance et al. [26] conversion factors were used and the obtained values were higher than the MGDs of other studies. This may be due to many factors such as the inclusion of symptomatic patients under the age of 40, the broad spectrum of CBT, the variation in the selection of the conversion factors, and the wide age range of the patients selected. A study done in Iran [36] shows the 75𝑡ℎ percentile as 0.88 and 1.11 mGy for CC and MLO views, respectively. A study done in Turkey [28]reported 1.3 and 1.8 mGy for CC and MLO views, respectively. A study done in China [37] reported that the mean MGD was about 1.6 mGy and the range of the MGD was from 0.39–5.01 mGy. Furthermore, they concluded that MGD did not differ significantly between MLO and CC views and the MGD level was higher in CR than in DR and SFM. A study done in Korea [38] found that the MGD per view of 2120 images was 1.81± 0.7 mGy, and they also concluded that kVp, mAs, breast size, and CBT were positively associated with MGD. A worldwide survey [39] reported specific percentiles for different regions of the world. According to that, the MGD at the 75𝑡ℎ and 95𝑡ℎ percentiles was reported as 1.7 and 2.3 mGy for the Asia-Pacific region, respectively. For all geographic regions, the MGD per image for CC and MLO ranged from 1.4 to 1.5 mGy. A Malaysian study [18] has shown that MGD differs between different ethnic groups within the Asian continent; Malay (3.36 mGy), Chinese (3.31 mGy), and Indian (3.44 mGy), and their CBT varied from 38 to 46, 33 to 39, and 40 to 48 mm, respectively. 4. Discussion Based on this review, two methods by Dance et al. [26]and Wu et al. [32] were used to calculate MGD..Both methods are related to the characteristics of the X-ray spectrum and the granularity of the breast tissue. However, the selection of conversion factors depended on the manufacturer. Dance et al. [26] conversion factors are the most suitable conversion factors with the technological advancement of the machine. Wu DOI 10.18502/sjms.v17i3.12128 Page 408 Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences Rajamuni, Weerakoon Table 2 Country Author Number of Images Dose measuring method Protocol and conversion factors BCT mm Mean Glandular Dose DRLs 75% 95% RE Iran Bahreyni et al. [36]. (2013) 100 Measured ESAK (TLDs) EP [23] Wu et al. [32] CC: 47 MLO: 53 SMLO: 50–60 CC: 0.88 MLO: 1.11 CC: 0.88 MLO: 1.11 World wide Geeraert et al. [39] (2012) 14,7497 Estimated ESAK from DICOM images N/A Dance et al. [26] Europe: 1.48 North America: 1.42 Asia- Pacific: 1.42 Europe: 1.6 North America: 1.6 Asia-Pacific: 1.2 Europe: 2.4 North America: 2.1 Asia- Pacific: 23 Qatar Naemi et al. [35] (2020) 150 Measured ESAK (DICOM images) EP [23] Dance et al. [26] CC-60.3 ± 13.9 MLO- 67.9 ± 12.9 CC–2.2 MLO450 2.5 Japan Kawaguchi et al.𝑎 [34] (2014) 300 Measured ESAK EP [23] Dance et al. [26] SMLO:30-40 MLO:37.6 SMLO:1.88 MLO:1.84 SMLO:2 Turkey Ayd𝚤n et al. [28] (2020) 6309 Measured ESAK MGD ESD EP [23] Dance et al. [26] 40–49 50.1 CC–1.3 MLO–1.8 CC–2.3 MLO–2.7 CC–4.2 MLO–4.8 CC < 2 50–64 49.3 CC–2.2 MLO–2.6 CC–3.8 MLO–4.4 MLO < 2.5 Japan Asada et al. [33] (2014) NA Estimated ESAK EP [23] Dance et al. [26] 42 1.58 1.91 China Xiang et al. [37] (2014) 420 Measured ESAK EP [23] Dance et al. [26] 13–75 1.6 2.0 Korea Baek et al. [38] (2017) 560 Estimated ESAK 47.9 1.81 Malaysia Jamal et al. [18] (2003) Measured ESAK ACR[22] Wu et al. [24] Malay: 38–46 Chinese: 33–38 Indian: 40–48 3.36 3.31 3.44 ACR, American College of Radiology; EP, European Protocol; ESAK, Entrance surface Air Kerma; IAK, Incident Air Kerma; SFM, Screen Film Mammography; DR, Digital Radiography; CR, Computed Radiography; BCT, Breast Compression Thickness; G, Glandularity; MGD, Mean Glandular Dose; DRLs, Diagnostic Reference Levels; TLD, Thermoluminescence Dosimeter; CC, Cranio-Caudal; MLO, Medio-Lateral Oblique; SMLO, Standard Medio-Lateral Oblique. et al.[32]conversion factors are limited to a few X-ray spectra, namely Mo/Mo, Mo/Rh, and Rh/Rh. The phantom studies used different types of phantoms according to the selected protocol. ACR and the European guidelines introduced two standard phantoms, and both consist of PMMA. The composition of the phantoms and their standards vary with the advancement of technology. In-house-built phantoms, at low cost, with a similar composition to standard phantoms also had an equivalent performance on MGD measurement. DOI 10.18502/sjms.v17i3.12128 Page 409 Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences Rajamuni, Weerakoon DRLs are calculated at the 75𝑡ℎ and 95𝑡ℎ percentile of the dose distribution. Calcula- tions of the percentiles depend on various parameters such as age, weight, height, and BMI of the selected sample. When there is a large range of data, the 75𝑡ℎ percentile is commonly used. The application of the 75𝑡ℎpercentile mentioned the importance of dose reduction by 25%. The 95𝑡ℎ percentile is suitable for a small range of data distribu- tion and needed only 5% of dose reduction interventions. The 75𝑡ℎand 95𝑡ℎpercentiles are essential due to the difference in dose distribution in screening mammography and diagnostic mammography. Especially in the case of pathological conditions which affect breast composition. Determination of the DRL should satisfy with optimum image quality for better image interpretation accuracy. Depending on the protocol followed, there was a wide range of CBT. Phantoms that followed EP used thicker equivalent CBT (53 mm) while ACR phantoms followed thinner equivalent CBT (42 mm). In patient-based studies, the mean CBT varied for the same protocol; therefore, a range of CBT was given for patient-based studies. This is due to the variation of breast composition with patient-related factors such as age, BMI, and hereditary of the females in different geographical locations of Asia. No patient-based study was able to provide a standard breast compression thickness. A plot of CBT versus DRLs used as a good quality control measure for nonstandard breast thicknesses. Table 3: Summary of the protocols related to reviewed articles. Protocol Test subjects Digital/SFM Conversion factors Reference levels for standard breast Standard patient number Nature of the phantom ACR 2018 N/A PMMA (4.2 cm/50%) 2D digital SFM DBT Dance (2000) [26] <2.0 ACR1999 N/A PMMA (4.0/4.2 cm/50%) SFM Wu (1991) Dance (1990) [26] Sobol (1990) <=3.0 EU protocol 2006 Minimum 10 patients PMMA (4.5/5.3 cm/50%) Digital SFM Dance (2000) [26] <2.5 IAEA protocol 2007 10–50 patients PMMA (4.0/5.0 cm/50%) Digital SFM Dance (2000) [26] N/A IPEM 2005 Minimum 10 patients PMMA (4.5/5.3 cm/50%) Digital SFM Dance (2000) [26] <3.5 ACR, American College of Radiology; EU, European Protocol; SFM, Screen Film Mammography; DR, Digital Radiography; CR, Computed Radiography; BCT, Breast Compression Thickness; IPSM, Institute of Physical Sciences in Medicine; IAE, International Atomic Energy Agency. DRLs in mammography were measured from time to time in different geographical locations in Asia by following various techniques. However, when compared with other regions of the world, there is less consideration for establishing DRLs in Asia. Most of the studies followed EU protocol and ACR protocol with Dance et al. [26] conversion DOI 10.18502/sjms.v17i3.12128 Page 410 Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences Rajamuni, Weerakoon factors. Most countries have never continued the records on DRLs within the last 20 years. Due to the variation in the BCT, age, BMI, G%, and technological advancement, there is a range of DRLs. Therefore, establishing internationally recognized protocols and updated conversion factors is essential for inter-study comparison and to ensure radiation protection with optimal absorbed dose with appropriate image quality. Mea- surement of MGD of various patients regularly and calculation of DRLs according to the standard protocols and conversion factors will be helpful in ensuring radiation protection in mammography. Acknowledgements None. Competing Interests None declared. Availability of Data and Material All information pertaining to the review is available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author. Funding None. References [1] World Health Organization. (2021). Breast cancer. WHO. https://www.who.int/news- room/fact-sheets/detail/breast-cancer [2] Bray, F., McCarron, P., & Parkin, D. M. (2004). The changing global patterns of female breast cancer incidence and mortality. Breast Cancer Research, 6(6), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr932 [3] Bhoo-Pathy, N., Yip, C. H., Hartman, M., Uiterwaal, C. S., Devi, B. C., Peeters, P. H., Taib, N. A., van Gils, C. H., & Verkooijen, H. M. (2013). Breast cancer research in Asia: DOI 10.18502/sjms.v17i3.12128 Page 411 Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences Rajamuni, Weerakoon Adopt or adapt Western knowledge? European Journal of Cancer (Oxford, England), 49(3), 703–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2012.09.014 [4] Saz-Parkinson, Z., Duffy, S. W., Canelo-Aybar, C., Gräwingholt, A., Quinn, C., Follmann, M., & Schünemann, H. J. (2012). Breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 172(12), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.7326/L20-0254 [5] Vañó, E., Miller, D. L., Martin, C. J., Rehani, M. M., Kang, K., Rosenstein, M., Ortiz- Lo´pez, P., Mattsson, S., Padovani, R., Rogers, A. (2017). ICRP Publication 135 – Diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. Annals of the ICRP, 44(1). [6] Dance, D. R., Skinner, C. L., & Alm Carlsson, G. (1999). Breast dosimetry. Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 50(1), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969- 8043(98)00047-5 [7] Dance, D. R. (1990). Monte Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 35, 1211–1219. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/35/9/002 [8] Butler, P. F., & Jensen, J. E. Breast exposure: Nationwide trends; A mammographic quality assurance program–Results to date. Radiologic Technology, 50(3), 251–257. [9] Fitzgerald, M., White, D. R., White, E., & Young, J., (1981). Mammographic practice and dosimetry in Britain. The British Journal of Radiology, 54(639), 212–220. https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-54-639-212 [10] Breslow L., & Thomas, L. B. (1977). Final reports of the National Cancer Institute ad hoc Working Groups on Mammography in Screening for Breast Cancer and a summary report of their joint findings and recommendations. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 69, 467–541. [11] Boag, J. W., Stacey, A. J., & Davis, R. (1976). Radiation exposure to the patient in xeroradiography. The British Journal of Radiology, 49, 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-49-579-253 [12] Karlsson, M., Nygren, K., Wickman, G., & Hettinger, G. (1976). Absorbed dose in mammary radiography. Acta Radiologica: Therapy, Physics, Biology, 15(3), 252–258. https://doi.org/10.3109/02841867609131962 [13] Fintor, L., Alciati, M. H., & Fischer, R. (1995). Legislative and regulatory mandates for mammography quality assurance. Journal of Public Health Policy, 16, 81–107. https://doi.org/10.2307/3342978 [14] Vañó, E., Miller, D. L., Martin, C. J., Rehani, M. M., Kang, K., Rosenstein, M., Ortiz- López, P., Mattsson, S., Padovani, R., Rogers, A., & the Authors on behalf of ICRP. (2017). ICRP Publication 135: Diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. Annals of the ICRP, 46(1), 1–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146645317717209 DOI 10.18502/sjms.v17i3.12128 Page 412 Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences Rajamuni, Weerakoon [15] Tenforde, T. S. (2004). A guide to mammography and other breast imaging procedures. NCRP Report. [16] Jamal, N., Ng, K. H., & McLean, D. (2003). A study of mean glandular dose during diagnostic mammography in Malaysia and some of the factors affecting it. The British Journal of Radiology, 76, 238–245. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/66428508 [17] Strudley, C., Looney, P., & Young K. C. (2014). Technical evaluation of Hologic Selenia Dimensions digital breast tomosynthesis system: NHSBSP Equipment Report 1307 Version 2. NHS. [18] Suleiman, M. E., Bernnan, P. C., & McEntee, F. M. (2014). Diagnostic reference levels in digital mammography: A systematic review. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 167(4). [19] Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339(7716), b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535 [20] Hendrick, M. J., Bassett, L., Botsco, M., Deibel, D., Feig, S., Gray, J., Haus, A., Heinlei, R., & Kitts, E., (2018). Mammography quality control manual. American College of Radiology. [21] Perry, N., Broeders, M., de Wolf, C., Törnberg, S., Holland, R., & von Karsa, L. (2008). European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition. Summary Document, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdm481 [22] Wu, X., Gingold, E. L., Barnes, G. T., & Tucker, D. M. (1994). Normalized average glandular dose in molybdenum target-rhodium filter and rhodium target-rhodium filter mammography. Radiology, 193(1), 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.193.1.8090926 [23] Sharma, R., Sharma, S. D., Mayya, Y. S., & Chourasiya, G. (2012). Mammography dosimetry using an in-house developed polymethyl methacrylate phantom. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 151(2), 379–385. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncr476 [24] Dance, D. R., Skinner, C. L., Young, K. C., Beckett, J. R., & Kotre, C. J. (2000). Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 45(11), 3225– 3240. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/45/11/308 [25] Hwang, Y. S., Tsai, H. Y., Chen, C. C., Chia, S. H., Lin, J. H., Wan, Y. L., & Hsu, G. C. (2009). Survey of radiation dose, image quality and equipment performance of mammography units in Taiwan. Springer. [26] Parmaks𝚤z, A., Ayd𝚤nAtaç, G. K., Bulur, E., Alhan, T., & Alhan, A. (2020). Average glandular doses and national diagnostic reference levels in mammography examinations in Turkey. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 190(1), 100–107. DOI 10.18502/sjms.v17i3.12128 Page 413 Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences Rajamuni, Weerakoon [27] Jamal, N., Ng, K.-H., & McLean, D. (2003). A study of mean glandular dose during diagnostic mammography in Malaysia and some of the factors affecting it. British Journal of Radiology, 76(905), 238–245. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/66428508 [28] Bor, D., Akyol, O., & Olgar, T. (2008). Performance measurements of mammographic systems. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 129, 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncn141 [29] National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, & National Council on Radiation Protection. (2004). A guide to mammography and other breast imaging procedures. National Council on Radiation Protection. [30] Wu, X., Barnes, G. T., & Tucker, D. M. (1991). Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography. Radiology, 179(1), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.179.1.2006265 [31] Asada, Y., Suzuki, S., Minami, K., & Shirakawa, S. (2014). Results of a 2011 national questionnaire for investigation of mean glandular dose from mammography in Japan. Journal of Radiological Protection, 34(1), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1088/0952- 4746/34/1/125 [32] Kawaguchi, A., Matsunaga, Y., Otsuka, T., & Suzuki, S. (2014). Patient investigation of average glandular dose and incident air kerma for digital mammography. Radiological Physics and Technology, 7(1), 102–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194- 013-0239-9 [33] AlNaemi, H., Aly, A., Omar, A. J., AlObadli, A., Ciraj-Bjelac, O., Kharita, M. H., & Rehani, M. M. (2020). Evaluation of radiation dose for patients undergoing mammography in Qatar. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 189(3), 354–361. [34] Bahreyni Toossi, M. T., Zare, H., Bayani Roodi, Sh., Hashemi, M., Akbari, F., & Malekzadeh, M. (2013). Towards proposition of a diagnostic reference level for mammographic examination in the greater Khorasan Province, Iran. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 155, 96–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncs317 [35] Du, X., Wang, J., Yang, C. Y., Zhou, X. F., Chen, W., Cao, X. J., Zhou, Y. Y., Le Yu, N., & the N. L. Y. Xiang DU. (2014). Investigation of mean glandular dose in diagnostic mammography in China. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 27(5), 396–399. [36] Baek, J. E., Kang, B. J., Kim, S. H., & Lee, H. S. (2017). Radiation dose affected by mammographic composition and breast size: First application of a radiation dose management system for full-field digital mammography in Korean women. World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 15, 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-017-1107-6 [37] Geeraert, N., Klausza, R., Muller, S., Bloch, I., & Bosmans, H. (2012). Breast characteristics and dosimetric data in X-ray mammography – A large sample DOI 10.18502/sjms.v17i3.12128 Page 414 Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences Rajamuni, Weerakoon worldwide survey. IAEA 2012 - International Conference on Radiation Protection in Medicine [Conference session]. Bonn, Germany. DOI 10.18502/sjms.v17i3.12128 Page 415 Introduction Materials and Methods Search strategy and study selection Data extraction Results Techniques of DRL measurements using phantom-based data DRL measurements using phantom-based data Techniques of DRL measurements in patient-based data DRL measurements using patient-based data Discussion Acknowledgements Competing Interests Availability of Data and Material Funding References