Mean Glandular Dose (MGD) Assessment of Patients Submitted for Mammography Examinations in Some Selected Radiological Facilities in Jos, Plateau State.

Background: Mammography is the most effective imaging modality for early detection of breast cancer, but it involves ionizing radiation exposure to radiosensitive breast tissue. The mean glandular dose (MGD) is the most appropriate metric for assessing radiation risk in mammography.
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate patient-specific MGD values from craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views in selected radiological facilities in Jos Plateau State, Nigeria, and compare them with international safety standards.
Methods: Twenty female patients underwent mammography examinations in two facilities (M1 and M2). Compressed breast thickness (CBT), exposure parameters, and incident air kerma were recorded. MGD was calculated using the Dance model with appropriate conversion coefficients.
Results: At M1, CBT ranged from 21.0-44.2 mm (mean 29.7 mm) with a mean MGD of 1.14 mGy. At M2, CBT ranged from 21.2-43.4 mm (mean 32.5 mm) with a mean MGD of 1.09 mGy. Both values were below the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reference level of 1.5 mGy for a 32 mm breast thickness.
Conclusion: The evaluated facilities operate within international safety standards, with patient doses comparable to global benchmarks. This study provides the first patient-based MGD assessment in Jos Plateau State and highlights the importance of continuous dose monitoring to optimize mammography practice in Nigeria.

Mean glandular dose (MGD), Mammography

1. Aliasgharzadeh, A., Moradi, H., Talakesh, T., Motallebzadeh, E., Ataei, G., Borujeni, M. H., & Farhood, B. (2021). Mean glandular dose measurement in three mammography centers in Kashan: An approach to provide a local DRL. Frontiers in Biomedical Technologies, 8(4), 285–291. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Beckett, J. R., & Kotre, C. J. (2000). Dosimetric implications of age related glandular changes in screening mammography. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 45, 801–813. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bosmans, H., Young, K., & Marshall, N. (2013). European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis (4th ed.). European Commission, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bouzarjomehri, F., Mostaar, A., Ghasemi, A., Ehramposh, M., & Khosravi, H. (2006). The study of mean glandular dose in mammography in Yazd and the factors affecting it. Iranian Journal of Radiology, 4(1), 29–35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Ciraj-Bjelac, O., Beciric, S., Arandjic, D., Kosutic, D., & Kovacevic, M. (2010). Mammography radiation dose: Initial results from Serbia based on mean glandular dose assessment for phantoms and patients. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 140(1), 75–80. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Dance, D., Young, K., & Van Engen, R. (2010). Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: Factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 56(2), 453–471. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. International Commission on Radiological Protection. (1991). 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP Publication 60). Pergamon Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Ike-Ogbonna, M. I., Jwanbot, D. I., Ike, E. E., Sirsena, U. A. I., & Joseph, I. A. (2017). Assessment of beam alignment, collimation and half value layer of some selected X-ray machines in Plateau State, Nigeria. International Journal of Innovative Scientific & Engineering Technology Research, 5(4), 1–5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. International Atomic Energy Agency. (2014). Radiation protection and safety in medical uses of ionizing radiation (IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 3). International Atomic Energy Agency. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Quach, K. Y., Morales, J., Butson, M. J., et al. (2000). Measurement of radiotherapy X-ray skin dose on a chest wall phantom. Medical Physics, 27, 1676–1680. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Stuhrmann, M., Aronius, R., & Schietzel, M. (2000). Tumor vascularity of breast lesions: Potentials and limits of contrast-enhanced Doppler sonography. American Journal of Roentgenology, 175, 1585–1589. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• A Comparative Study on the Thermal and Electrical Conductivity of Common Materials
• Thickness Dependent Thermoelectric Properties of Pb0.4In0.6Se Thin Films Deposited by Physical Evaporation Technique
• Optimization of a Patch Antenna Using Genetic Algorithm
• Kinematic Constraints On Brown Dwarf Atmospheric Variability And Evidence For Bimodal Formation From Multi-Survey Analysis
• Reservoir Characterization through the Application of Petrophysical Evaluation of Well Logs of Animaux Field, Niger Delta Basin, Nigeria