Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Insights into Imaging
Published in: Insights into Imaging 3/2017

Open Access 01-06-2017 | Original Article

Overview of the radiographers’ practice in 65 healthcare centers using digital mammography systems in Portugal

Authors: Cláudia Sá dos Reis, Ana Pascoal, Lucian Radu, Mário Fartaria de Oliveira, João Alves

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To assess current practices in digital mammography (DM) in Portuguese healthcare providers using digital systems. To investigate compliance with European standards regarding mean glandular dose and quality control practice and to identify optimisation needs.

Methods

Two questionnaires, targeted at breast radiographers and chief radiographers, were designed and applied in 65 imaging departments offering DM. Questions fielded were focused on the staff profile and technical/clinical practice.

Results

Prior to starting their activity in DM, 70% (82 out of 118) of the respondents received training in DM. The practice in 29 out of 59 providers was established by the manufacturers’ recommendations for image acquisition. Variations were observed between radiographers who belong to the same provider namely the selection of exposure parameters such as the target-filter combination and automatic mode. The use of the manual exposure mode was reported for imaging breast implants (44%) and surgical specimens (22%). The main causes of repeat examinations were skin folding (21%) and absence of pectoral muscle (PM) (20%).

Conclusions

The study revealed opportunities to optimise radiographers’ practice in DM regarding the selection of exposure parameters. A robust and consistent training programme in DM and established local protocols can help to reduce the variations observed and improve clinical practice.

Main Messages

• Radiographers adopted different practices selecting AEC modes and T/F combinations.
• Radiographer practice is more consistent using DR than using CR systems.
• The main causes for rejecting images were the visibility of skin folding and PM absence.
• Radiographers were partly unaware of the dose indicator.
• Radiographers’ training needs: QC, interventional procedures and breast dose optimisation.
Literature
1.
Institute of Medicine-National Research Council (2001) Mammography and beyond: developing technologies for the early detection of breast cancer, 1st edn. National Cancer Policy Board-Institute of Medicine, Washington
2.
3.
4.
Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Dos Santos Silva IM (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251(2):347–358CrossRefPubMed
5.
Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D’Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner M (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353(17):1773–1783CrossRefPubMed
6.
Kuzmiak CM, Cole E, Zeng D, Kim E, Koomen M, Lee Y, Pavic D, Pisano ED (2010) Comparison of image acquisition and radiologist interpretation times in a diagnostic mammography center. Acad Radiol 17(9):1168–1174CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
Mas N, Seinfeld J (2008) Is managed care restraining the adoption of technology by hospitals? J Health Econ 27(4):1026–1045CrossRefPubMed
9.
Lettieri E, Masella C (2009) Priority setting for technology adoption at a hospital level: relevant issues from the literature. Health Policy 90(1):81–88CrossRefPubMed
10.
Leal J, Andrade AS, Ribeiro R (2012) Continuous professional development : the perspective of radiographers in private and public institutions of Lisbon region. Eur Soc Radiol C-1815:1–17
11.
Cataliotti L, De Wolf C, Holland R, Marotti L, Perry N, Redmond K, Rosselli Del Turco M, Rijken H, Kearney N, Ellis IO, Di Leo A, Orecchia R, Noel A, Andersson M, Audretsch W, Bjurstam N, Blamey RW, Blichert-Toft M, Bosmans H, Burch A, Bussolati G, Christiaens MR, Colleoni M, Cserni G, Cufer T, Cush S, Damilakis J, Drijkoningen M, Ellis P, Foubert J, Gambaccini M, Gentile E, Guedea F, Hendriks J, Jakesz R, Jassem J, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Laird O, Lartigau E, Mattheiem W, O’higgins N, Pennery E, Rainsbury D, Rutgers E, Smola M, Van Limbergen E, von Smitten K, Wells C, Wilson R (2007) Guidelines on the standards for the training of specialised health professionals dealing with breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 43(4):660–675CrossRefPubMed
12.
Nodine CF, Kundel HL, Mello-Thoms C, Weinstein SP, Orel SG, Sullivan DC, Conant EF (1999) How experience and training influence mammography expertise. Acad Radiol 6:575–585CrossRefPubMed
13.
European Communities/EUREF (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, vol 19, 4th edn. European Communities, Luxembourg, no. 4
14.
International Atomic Energy Agency (2011) Quality assurance programme for digital mammography. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna
15.
National Health Care Breast Screening Programme (2009) Commissioning and routine testing of full field digital mammography systems - NHSBSP equipment report 0604,” London
16.
Spuur K, Hung WT, Poulos A, Rickard M (2011) Mammography image quality: model for predicting compliance with posterior nipple line criterion. Eur J Radiol 80(3):713–718PubMed
17.
Poulos A, Llewellyn G (2005) Mammography discomfort: a holistic perspective derived from women’s experiences. Radiography 11(1):17–25CrossRef
18.
Li Y, Poulos A, Mclean D, Rickard M (2010) A review of methods of clinical image quality evaluation in mammography. Eur J Radiol 74:122–131CrossRef
19.
D. O’ Leary, A. Teape, J. Hammond, L. Rainford, and T. Grant (2011) Compression force recommendations in mammography must be linked to image quality. In: European Congress of Radiology 2011 pp. 1–19
20.
Ooms EA, Zonderland HM, Eijkemans MJC, Kriege M, Mahdavian Delavary B, Burger CW, Ansink AC (2007) Mammography: interobserver variability in breast density assessment. Breast 16(6):568–576CrossRefPubMed
21.
Toroi P, Zanca F, Young KC, van Ongeval C, Marchal G, Bosmans H (2007) Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system. Eur Radiol 17(9):2368–2375CrossRefPubMed
22.
Samei E (2005) AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: technological and psychophysical considerations for digital mammographic displays. Radiographics 25(2):491–501CrossRefPubMed
23.
C. Lança, C. Reis, and L. Lança (2012) Perceção visual na avaliação diagnóstica em mamografia: uma revisão sistemática. SAÚDE Tecnol. ed. online, vol. Temático 1, pp. 31–40
24.
Reis C, Pascoal A, Sakellaris T, Koutalonis M (2013) Quality assurance and quality control in mammography: a review of available guidance worldwide. Insights Imaging 4(5):539–553CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Fitzpatrick P, Winston A, Mooney T (2008) Radiographer gender and breast-screening uptake. Br J Cancer 98(11):1759–1761
26.
Warren-Forward HM, Mackie B, Alchin M, Mooney T, Fitzpatrick P (2016) Perceptions of Australian clients towards male radiographers working in breast imaging: quantitative results from a pilot study. Radiography 23(1):3–8
27.
Marshall G, Punys V, Sykes A (2008) The continuous professional development (CPD) requirements of radiographers in Europe: an initial survey. Radiography 14(4):332–342CrossRef
28.
Andolina V, Lyllé S (2011) Mammographic imaging—a practical guide, 3rd edn. Wolters Kluwer Health-Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore
29.
National Healthcare System Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) (2007) Guidance on beam quality selection in the NHS Breast screening programme NHSBSP Equipment Report 0704. Sheffield
30.
Oduko J, Young K, Burch A (2012) Breast imaging—a survey of patient doses from digital mammography systems in the UK in 2007 to 2009, vol 7361. Berlin, Springer Berlin Heidelberg
31.
A. Reis, C. Sakellaris, T. Carrasqueiro, S. Pascoal (2012) Digital mammography in Portugal: a national survey on technology and practices. In: Symposium Mammographicum 2012 Meeting Abstracts pp. 1–15
32.
Reis C (2013) Digital mammography: characterisation of practice and equipment performance in portuguese healthcare providers. Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Lisboa
33.
Reis C, Pascoal A (2010) Mamografia digital em portugal: caracterização da tecnologia instalada. Acta Radiol Port 22(145):21–23
34.
American College of Radiology (2011) ACR-SPR practice guideline for the performance of chest radiography. pp. 1–7
35.
American College of Radiology (1999) Mammography quality control manual. American College of Radiology, Reston
36.
International Atomic Energy Agency (2009) Quality assurance programme for screen film mammography, Internatio., no. 2. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna
37.
The National Cancer Screening Service (2008) Guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening, 3rd edn. Members of the Quality Assurance Committee/The National Cancer Screening Service Board, Dublin
Metadata
Title
Overview of the radiographers’ practice in 65 healthcare centers using digital mammography systems in Portugal
Authors
Cláudia Sá dos Reis
Ana Pascoal
Lucian Radu
Mário Fartaria de Oliveira
João Alves
Publication date
01-06-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Insights into Imaging / Issue 3/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-017-0550-9

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Insights into Imaging 3/2017 Go to the issue

Pictorial Review

High-frame rate vector flow imaging of the carotid bifurcation

Original Article

European radiographers’ challenges from mammography education and clinical practice – an integrative review

Statement

The new EU General Data Protection Regulation: what the radiologist should know

Pictorial Review

Imaging of the oesophagus: beyond cancer

Pictorial Review

Tips and tricks for a safe and effective image-guided percutaneous renal tumour ablation

Pictorial Review

Radiological imaging of teratological fetuses: what can we learn?