TUESDAY, Nov. 16 (HealthDay News) -- The potential cancer risk
that radiation from mammograms might cause is slight compared to
the benefits of lives saved from early detection, new Canadian
The study is published online and will appear in the January
2011 print issue of
This risk of radiation-induced breast cancers "is mentioned
periodically by women and people who are critiquing screening [and
how often it should be done and in whom]," said study author Dr.
Martin J. Yaffe, a senior scientist in imaging research at
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and a professor in the
departments of medical biophysics and medical imaging at the
University of Toronto.
"This study says that the good obtained from having a screening mammogram far exceeds the risk you might have from the radiation received from the low-dose mammogram," said Dr. Arnold J. Rotter, chief of the computed tomography section and a clinical professor of radiology at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, in Duarte, Calif.
Yaffe and his colleague, Dr. James G. Mainprize, developed a
mathematical model to estimate the risk of radiation-induced breast
cancer following exposure to radiation from mammograms, and then
estimated the number of breast cancers, fatal breast cancers and
years of life lost attributable to the mammography's screening
They plugged into the model a typical radiation dose for digital
mammography, 3.7 milligrays (mGy), and applied it to 100,000
hypothetical women, screened annually between the ages of 40 and 55
and then every other year between the ages of 56 and 74.
They calculated what the risk would be from the radiation over
time and took into account other causes of death. "We used an
absolute risk model," Yaffe said. That is, it computes "if a
certain number of people get a certain amount of radiation, down
the road a certain number of cancers will be caused."
That absolute risk model, Yaffe said, is more stable when
applied to various populations than relative risk models, which
says a person's risk is a certain percent higher compared to, in
this case, those who don't get mammograms.
What they found: If 100,000 women got annual mammograms from
ages 40 to 55 and then got mammograms every other year until age
74, 86 breast cancers and 11 deaths would be attributable to the
Put another way, Jaffe said: "Your chances are one in 1,000 of
developing a breast cancer from the radiation. Your changes of
dying are one in 10,000."
But the lifetime risk of breast cancer is estimated at about one
in eight or nine, he added.
Due to the mammogram radiation, the model concluded that 136
woman-years -- that's defined as 136 women who died a year earlier
than their life expectancy or 13 women who died 10 years earlier
than their life expectancy -- would be lost due to
radiation-induced exposure. But 10,670 woman-years would be saved
by earlier detection.
The data to estimate deaths from radiation exposure was gathered
from other sources, such as from patients who received radiation
from the nuclear weapons used in Japan. "We really don't have any
direct evidence that any woman has ever died because of radiation
received during the mammogram," Yaffe said.
"I'm not minimizing the concern of radiation," Rotter said. "Everything is a balance." For example, younger breasts, particularly those of women aged 40 to 49, are more sensitive to radiation than breasts in older women, but the new study shows it's better to get the screening mammography than skip it.
To learn more about mammography, visit the
American College of Radiology.
Please be aware that this information is provided to supplement the care provided by your physician. It is neither intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice. CALL YOUR HEALTHCARE PROVIDER IMMEDIATELY IF YOU THINK YOU MAY HAVE A MEDICAL EMERGENCY. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider prior to starting any new treatment or with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition.
Copyright © EBSCO Publishing. All rights reserved.