Abstract
Recent radiobiological studies have provided compelling evidence that the low energy X-rays as used in mammography are approximately four times – but possibly as much as six times – more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy X-rays. Since current radiation risk estimates are based on the effects of high energy gamma radiation, this implies that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancers for mammography X-rays are underestimated by the same factor. The balance of risk and benefit for breast screening have been re-analysed for relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values between 1 and 6 for mammography X-rays. Also considered in the analysis is a change in the dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor (DDREF) from 2 to 1, women with larger than average breasts and implications for women with a family history of breast cancer. A potential increase in RBE to 6 and the adoption of a DDREF of unity does not have any impact on the breast screening programme for women aged 50–70 years screened on a 3 yearly basis. Situations for which breast screening is not justified due to the potential cancers induced relative to those detected (the detection-to-induction ratio (DIR)) are given for a range of RBE and DDREF values. It is concluded that great caution is needed if a programme of early regular screening with X-rays is to be used for women with a family history of breast cancer since DIR values are below 10 (the lowest value considered acceptable for women below 40 years) even for modest increases in the RBE for mammography X-rays.
1 Heyes GJ, Mill AJ. The neoplastic transformation potential of mammography X rays and atomic bomb spectrum radiation. Radiat Res 2004;162:120–7.
2 Frankenberg D, Kelnhofer K, Bar K, Frankenberg-Schwager M. ERRATA: Enhanced neoplastic transformation by mammography X rays relative to 200 kVp X rays: Indication for a strong dependence on photon energy of the RBEM for various end points (vol 157, pg 99, 2002). Radiat Res 2002;158:126
3 Goggelmann W, Jacobsen C, Panzer W, Walsh L, Roos H, Schmid E. Re-evaluation of the RBE of 29 kV x-rays (mammography x-rays) relative to 220 kV x-rays using neoplastic transformation of human CGL1-hybrid cells. Radiat Environ Biophys 2003;42:175–82.
4 Law J, Faulkner K. Two-view screening and extending the age range: the balance of benefit and risk. Br J Radiol 2002;75:889–94.
5 Law J, Faulkner K. Concerning the relationship between benefit and radiation risk, and cancers detected and induced, in a breast screening programme. Br J Radiol 2002;75:678–84.
6 IARC. Press Release N° 139: Mammography screening can reduce deaths from breast cancer. Lyon, France, 2002
7 Patnick J, editor. Breast Screening Programme Annual Review. Sheffield, UK: National Health Service Cancer Screening Programmes, 2002
8 Young KC, Faulkner K, Wall B, Muirhead C. Review of radiation risk in breast screening: report by a joint working party of the NHSBSP National Coordinating Group for Physics Quality Assurance and the National Radiological Protection Board. Sheffield, UK: National Health Service Cancer Screening Programmes, 2003
9 Law J. Cancers detected and induced in mammographic screening: New screening schedules and younger women with family history. Br J Radiol 1997;70:62–9.
10 Puskin JS, Nelson CB. Estimating radiogenic cancer risks (report 402-R-93-076), Washington DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 1994
11 McIntosh A, Shaw C, Evans G, Turnbull N, Bahar N, Barclay M, et al. Clinical guidelines and evidence review for the classification and care of women at risk of familial breast cancer. London: National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care, University of Sheffield, 2004
12 Goffin J, Chappuis PO, Wong N, Foulkes WD. Re: Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1754
13 Law J, Faulkner K. Cancers detected and induced, and associated risk and benefit, in a breast screening programme. Br J Radiol 2001;74:1121–7.
14 Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS, Catzavelos GC, Prospero LS, Yaffe MJ, et al. Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3524–31.
15 Stoutjesdijk MJ, Boetes C, Jager GJ, Beex L, Bult P, Hendriks J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1095–102.
16 Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RK, Leutner CC, Kempe A, Wardelmann E, Hocke A, et al. Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. Radiology 2000;215:267–79.
17 Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Geller B, Mandelson MT, Taplin SH, Malvin K, et al. Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2000;133:855–63.
