Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl
Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników

Znaleziono wyników: 2

Liczba wyników na stronie
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
Wyniki wyszukiwania
help Sortuj według:

help Ogranicz wyniki do:
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
1
100%
EN
Objectives Mammographic density (MD) refers to the percentage of dense tissue of an entire breast and was proposed to be used as a surrogate marker for breast cancer. High-dose ionizing radiation (IR) has been recognized as a breast cancer risk factor. The aim of our study was to investigate association between lifetime low dose ionizing radiation (LDIR) and MD. Material and Methods A cross-sectional study included 467 women aged 40–60 years who underwent screening mammography in Łódź, Poland. The digital mammography examination of the breasts included both craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views. The volumetric breast density (VBD) (%) and fibrograndular tissue volume (FG) (cm3) were determined based on the analysis of mammographic image (“for processing”) using Volpara Imaging Software. The exposure to IR was estimated for each individual, based on the data from interviews about diagnostic or therapeutic medical procedures performed in the area of the neck, chest, abdomen and spine, which involved X-rays and γ rays and the data about the doses derived from literature. Linear and logistic regression were fitted with VBD and FG as the outcomes and organ breast dose, effective dose and number of mammographies as the determinants, adjusted for major confounders. Results The analyses showed no association between VBD or FG and the breast organ dose or the effective dose. The only significant finding observed concerned the association between the number of mammographies and the FG volume with β coefficient: 0.028 (95% CI: 0.012–0.043), and predicted mean FG volume >13.4 cm3 among the women with >3 mammographies when compared to those with none. Conclusions This study does not, in general, provide support for the positive association between LDIR and MD. The weak association of the FG volume with the number of mammographies warrants further verification in larger independent studies.
EN
Objectives Interventional cardiologists (ICs) are occupationally exposed to low or moderate doses of ionizing radiation from repeated exposures. It is not clear whether these occupational conditions may affect their eye lens. Therefore, the risk of radiation-induced cataract in the cohort of Polish interventional cardiologists is analyzed in this paper. Material and Methods The study group consisted of 69 interventional cardiologists and 78 control individuals occupationally unexposed to ionizing radiation. The eye lens opacities were examined using a slit camera and evaluated with Lens Opacities Grading System III. Cumulative eye lens doses were estimated retrospectively using a questionnaire including data on occupational history. Results The average cumulative dose to the left and right eye lens of the ICs was 224 mSv and 85 mSv, respectively. Nuclear opalescence and nuclear color opacities in the most exposed left eye were found in 38% of the ICS for both types, and in 47% and 42% of the controls, respectively. Cortical opacities were found in 25% of the ICS and 29% of the controls. Posterior subcapsular opacities were rare: about 7% in the ICs group and 6% in the control group. Overall, there was some, but statistically insignificant, increase in the risk for opacity in the ICs group, relative to the control group, after adjusting for the subjects’ age, gender, smoking status and medical exposure (adjusted OR = 1.47, 95% CI: 0.62–3.59 for the pooled “any-eye any-type” opacity). There was also no evidence for an increased opacity risk with an increase in the dose. Conclusions The study found no statistically significant evidence against the hypothesis that the risk of cataract in the group of the ICs occupationally exposed to low doses of ionizing radiation is the same as in the control group. Nevertheless, the adverse effect of ionizing radiation still cannot be excluded due to a relatively small study sample size. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2019;32(5):663–75
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.