How Much Radiation Are Women in Saudi Arabia Receiving from Mammography? A Review

Sarah K Albahiti

For citation: Albahiti SK. How Much Radiation Are Women in Saudi Arabia Receiving from Mammography? A Review. International Journal of Biomedicine. 2024;14(2):235-239. doi:10.21103/Article14(2)_RA5
Originally published June 5, 2024


This review compiles and assesses data from recent studies on mammographic radiation doses in Saudi Arabia, aiming to evaluate mean glandular dose (MGD) exposure during mammography and its implications in breast cancer risk. The reviewed studies spanned from 2019 to 2023 and included a range of sample sizes and institutional settings, with patients’ ages from 27 to 85 years. Considerations such as the number of mammographic views and compressed breast thickness were examined. The studies reported average MGDs below the National Diagnostic Reference Level set by the Saudi Food and Drug Authority. However, limitations were noted regarding sample size selection and incomplete data on all mammographic projections. Despite these limitations, the findings highlight the need for continued assessment of patient doses to optimize mammography practices and address the absence of quality standardization acts in Saudi Arabia. These insights are critical for governing authorities to ensure that effective patient dose monitoring occurs regularly and that the establishment of minimum quality standards for breast cancer screening is intact.

mammography • breast cancer • patient dose • diagnostic reference level
  1. Sedeta ET, Jobre B, Avezbakiyev B. Breast cancer: Global patterns of incidence, mortality, and trends. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2023;41(16_suppl).
  2. Bazarbashi S, Al Eid H, Minguet J. Cancer Incidence in Saudi Arabia: 2012 Data from the Saudi Cancer Registry. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2017 Sep 27;18(9):2437-2444. doi: 10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.9.2437. PMID: 28952273; PMCID: PMC5720648.
  3. Abusanad AM, Iskanderani O, Al-hajeili MR, Ujaimi R, Alwassia R. Survival in patients with brain metastasis secondary to breast cancer from Saudi Arabia. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2023;41(16_suppl).
  4. Amaaao AT. Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Quantifying Breast Cancer Factors: Saudi Arabia Context. JMIR Preprints. 2023;49615.
  5. Omar MTA, Al Dhwayan N, Al-Karni MAT, Ajarim D, Idreess MJN, Gwada RFM. Factors Associated with Health-Related Quality of Life Among Breast Cancer Survivors in the Saudi Arabia: Cross Sectional Study. Research Square. 2023; April.
  6. Glechner A, Wagner G, Mitus JW, Teufer B, Klerings I, Böck N, Grillich L, Berzaczy D, Helbich TH, Gartlehner G. Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Mar 31;3(3):CD009632. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009632.pub3. PMID: 36999589; PMCID: PMC10065327.
  7. Al-Wassia RK, Farsi NJ, Merdad LA, Hagi SK. Patterns, knowledge, and barriers of mammography use among women in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J. 2017 Sep;38(9):913-921. doi: 10.15537/smj.2017.9.20842. PMID: 28889149; PMCID: PMC5654025
  8. Miskeen E, Al-Shahrani AM. Breast Cancer Awareness Among Medical Students, University of Bisha, Saudi Arabia. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2023 Apr 17;15:271-279. doi: 10.2147/BCTT.S403803. PMID: 37091353; PMCID: PMC10120833.
  9. Gollapalli M, Alqusser M, Althobaiti A, Alzaid L, Alorefan R, Alnajim S, et al. Text Mining to Analyze Mammogram Screening Results for Breast Cancer Patients in Saudi Arabia. In: Proceedings - 2023 6th International Conference of Women in Data Science at Prince Sultan University, WiDS-PSU, 2023. doi: 10.1109/wids-psu57071.2023.00016
  10. Sulieman A, Serhan O, Al-Mohammed HI, Mahmoud MZ, Alkhorayef M, Alonazi B, Manssor E, Yousef A. Estimation of cancer risks during mammography procedure in Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2019 Sep;26(6):1107-1111. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2018.10.005. Epub 2018 Oct 4. PMID: 31516336; PMCID: PMC6733693.
  11. Kabir NA, Okoh FO, Mohd Yusof MF. Radiological and physical properties of tissue equivalent mammography phantom: Characterization and analysis methods. Radiation Physics and Chemistry. 2021;180, 109271.
  12. Duffy SW, Yen AM, Tabar L, Lin AT, Chen SL, Hsu CY, Dean PB, Smith RA, Chen TH. Beneficial effect of repeated participation in breast cancer screening upon survival. J Med Screen. 2024 Mar;31(1):3-7. doi: 10.1177/09691413231186686. Epub 2023 Jul 12. PMID: 37437178; PMCID: PMC10878004.
  13. Sippo DA, Nagy P. Quality improvement projects for value-based care in breast imaging. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014 Dec;11(12 Pt A):1189-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.08.019. Epub 2014 Oct 11. PMID: 25307675.
  14. Lillé S, Marshall W. EQUIP: Enhancing Quality Using the Inspection Program. Radiol Technol. 2017 May;88(5):556-561. PMID: 28500100.
  15. Gonzalez-Ruiz A, Sánchez Mendoza HI, Santos Cuevas CL, Isidro-Ortega FJ, Estrada JF, Domínguez-García MV, Flores-Merino MV. An evaluation of the present status of quality assurance program implementation in digital mammography facilities in a developing country. J Radiol Prot. 2022 Nov 28;42(4). doi: 10.1088/1361-6498/aca0fe. PMID: 36347024.
  16. Hejduk P, Sexauer R, Ruppert C, Borkowski K, Unkelbach J, Schmidt N. Automatic and standardized quality assurance of digital mammography and tomosynthesis with deep convolutional neural networks. Insights Imaging. 2023 May 18;14(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s13244-023-01396-8. PMID: 37199794; PMCID: PMC10195933.
  17. Selvan CS, Sureka CS. Quality Assurance and Average Glandular dose Measurement in Mammography Units. J Med Phys. 2017 Jul-Sep;42(3):181-190. doi: 10.4103/jmp.JMP_69_16. PMID: 28974865; PMCID: PMC5618466.
  18. Alrehily F. DIAGNOSTIC REFERENCE LEVELS OF RADIOGRAPHIC AND CT EXAMINATIONS IN SAUDI ARABIA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2022 Oct 16;198(19):1451-1461. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncac183. PMID: 36125219.
  19. SFDA. Saudi Food & Drug Authority National Diagnostic Reference Levels. 2023.
  20. Radiatioin Protection of Patients. IAEA Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) in Medical Imaging .
  21. Yaffe MJ. Developing a quality control program for digital mammography: Achievements so far and challenges to come. Imaging in Medicine. 2011; 3(1).
  22. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2-4):1-332. doi: 10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003. PMID: 18082557.
  23. Dance DR, Sechopoulos I. Dosimetry in x-ray-based breast imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2016 Oct 7;61(19):R271-R304. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/61/19/R271. Epub 2016 Sep 12. PMID: 27617767; PMCID: PMC5061150.
  24. Sardanelli F, Helbich TH; European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI). Mammography: EUSOBI recommendations for women's information. Insights Imaging. 2012 Feb;3(1):7-10. doi: 10.1007/s13244-011-0127-y. Epub 2011 Oct 28. PMID: 22695994; PMCID: PMC3292646.
  25. Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A, Moran C, Berns EA, Yaffe MJ, Herman B, Acharyya S, Gatsonis C. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Feb;194(2):362-9. doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.2114. PMID: 20093597; PMCID: PMC2854416.
  26. Gilbert FJ, Pinker-Domenig K. Diagnosis and Staging of Breast Cancer: When and How to Use Mammography, Tomosynthesis, Ultrasound, Contrast-Enhanced Mammography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2019 Feb 20. In: Hodler J, Kubik-Huch RA, von Schulthess GK, editors. Diseases of the Chest, Breast, Heart and Vessels 2019-2022: Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging [Internet]. Cham (CH): Springer; 2019. Chapter 13. PMID: 32096932.
  27. Hofvind S, Ponti A, Patnick J, Ascunce N, Njor S, Broeders M, et al. False-positive results in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review and survey of service screening programmes. J Med Screen. 2012;19 Suppl 1:57-66. doi: 10.1258/jms.2012.012083. PMID: 22972811.
  28. Román R, Sala M, Salas D, Ascunce N, Zubizarreta R, Castells X. Effect of protocol-related variables and women's characteristics on the cumulative false-positive risk in breast cancer screening. Ann Oncol. 2012 Jan;23(1):104-111. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdr032. Epub 2011 Mar 23. PMID: 21430183; PMCID: PMC3276323.
  29. Tamam N, Salah H, Rabbaa M, Abuljoud M, Sulieman A, Alkhorayef M, et al. Evaluation of patients radiation dose during mammography imaging procedure. Radiation Physics and Chemistry. 2021;188, 109680.
  30. Saeed MK. Radiation doses and potential cancer risks during mammography procedures at southern Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Radiation Research. 2021;19(4):929-936.
  31. Alahmad H, AlEnazi K, Alshahrani A, Albariqi S, Alnafea M. Evaluation of mean glandular dose from mammography screening: A single-center study. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences. 2023-11-08 , doi:10.1016/j.jrras.2023.100749
  32. Hegazi TM, AlSharydah AM, Alfawaz I, Al-Muhanna AF, Faisal SY. The Impact of Data Management on the Achievable Dose and Efficiency of Mammography and Radiography During the COVID-19 Era: A Facility-Based Cohort Study. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2023 Mar 14;16:401-414. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S389960. PMID: 36941927; PMCID: PMC10024472.

Download Article
Received February 5, 2024.
Accepted March 14, 2024.
©2024 International Medical Research and Development Corporation.