Top

Insights into Imaging

Published in:

Open Access 01-10-2013 | Review

Quality assurance and quality control in mammography: a review of available guidance worldwide

Authors: Cláudia Reis, Ana Pascoal, Taxiarchis Sakellaris, Manthos Koutalonis

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 5/2013

Abstract

Objectives

Review available guidance for quality assurance (QA) in mammography and discuss its contribution to harmonise practices worldwide.

Methods

Literature search was performed on different sources to identify guidance documents for QA in mammography available worldwide in international bodies, healthcare providers, professional/scientific associations. The guidance documents identified were reviewed and a selection was compared for type of guidance (clinical/technical), technology and proposed QA methodologies focusing on dose and image quality (IQ) performance assessment.

Results

Fourteen protocols (targeted at conventional and digital mammography) were reviewed. All included recommendations for testing acquisition, processing and display systems associated with mammographic equipment. All guidance reviewed highlighted the importance of dose assessment and testing the Automatic Exposure Control (AEC) system. Recommended tests for assessment of IQ showed variations in the proposed methodologies. Recommended testing focused on assessment of low-contrast detection, spatial resolution and noise. QC of image display is recommended following the American Association of Physicists in Medicine guidelines.

Conclusions

The existing QA guidance for mammography is derived from key documents (American College of Radiology and European Union guidelines) and proposes similar tests despite the variations in detail and methodologies. Studies reported on QA data should provide detail on experimental technique to allow robust data comparison. Countries aiming to implement a mammography/QA program may select/prioritise the tests depending on available technology and resources.

Main messages

•An effective QA program should be practical to implement in a clinical setting.

•QA should address the various stages of the imaging chain: acquisition, processing and display.

•AEC system QC testing is simple to implement and provides information on equipment performance.

Joy JE, Penhoet EE, Petitti DB (2005) Saving Women’s Lives-Strategies for Improving Breast Cancer Detection and Disgnosis, The National Academies

Klabunde C, Bouchard F, Taplin S, Scharpantgen A, Ballard-Barbash R (2001) Quality assurance for screening mammography: an international comparison. J Epidemiol Community Health 55(3):204–212PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

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

International Atomic Energy Agency (2011) Quality assurance programme for digital mammography. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

Hendrick RE, Klabunde C, Grivegnee A, Pou G, Ballard-Barbash R (2002) Technical quality control practices in mammography screening programs in 22 countries. Int J Qual Health Care 14(3):219–226PubMedCrossRef

European Comission (1996) European protocol on Dosimetry in mammography. European Commission, Luxembourg

European Commission (2006) European communities/European reference organisation for quality assured breast screening and diagnostic services European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. European Communities, Brussels

National Breast Screening Quality Assurance (2005) The Commissioning and Routine Testing of Mammographic X-Ray Systems, York, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine

American College of Radiology (1999) Mammography Quality Control Manual. American College of Radiology, Reston

10.

International Atomic Energy Agency (2009) Quality assurance programme for screen film mammography, internatio. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

11.

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

12.

Marshall NW, Mackenzie AHI (2011) Quality control measurements for digital x-ray detectors. Phys Med Biol 56:979–999PubMedCrossRef

13.

Francine N, Richard T (2006) Manuel de contrôle de la qualité pour la mammographie et la biopsie guidée par stéréotaxie. Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux, Quebec

14.

Nordisk Rapportserie om Stralskyddsfragor (1994) Mammography_Nordic_protocol_Selected_pages.pdf, Stockolm

15.

Tsai HY, Chong NS, Ho YJ, Tyan YS (2010) Evaluation of depth dose and glandular dose for digital mammography. Radiat Meas 45(3–6):726–728CrossRef

16.

Dance DR, Young KC, Van Engen RE (2011) Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol 56(2):453–471PubMedCrossRef

17.

International Cancer Screening Network (2011) Other Characteristics of Breast Cancer Screening Programs in 27 ICSN Countries, 2007–2008. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda

18.

European Communities/European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services, European Commission (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Http://www.euref.org/european-guidelines 19(4):1–432

19.

Meeson S, Young KC, Hollaway PB, Wallis MG (2001) Procedure for quantitatively assessing automatic exposure control in mammography: a study of the GE Senographe 600 TS. Br J Radiol 74(883):615–620PubMedCrossRef

20.

Zoetelief J, Fitzgerald M, Leitz W, Sabel M (1998) Dosimetric methods for and influence of exposure parameters on the establishment of reference doses in mammography. Radiat Prot Dosim 80:175–180CrossRef

21.

Hemdal B, Bengtsson G, Leitz W, Andersson I, Mattson S (2000) Comparison of the european and nordic protocols on dosimetry in mammography involving a standard phantom. Radiat Prot Dosim 90:149–154CrossRef

22.

Hemdal B (2009) Evaluation of absorbed dose and image quality in mammography. Lund University, Malmö

23.

Hemdal B, Herrnsdorf L, Andersson I, Bengtsson G, Heddson B, Olsson M (2005) Average glandular dose in routine mammography screening using a sectra MicroDose mammography unit. Radiat Prot Dosim 114(1–3):436–443CrossRef

24.

Jamal N, K-N NG, Mclean D (2003) A study of mean glandular dose during diagnostic mammography in Malaysia and some of the factors affecting it. Br J Radiol 76(904):238–245PubMedCrossRef

25.

Zoetelief J, Jasen JTM (1995) Calculation of Air kerma to average glandular tissue dose conversion factors for mammography. Radiat Prot Dosim 57(1–4):397–400

26.

Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ (2000) Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 45(11):3225–3240PubMedCrossRef

27.

Koutalonis M, Delis H, Spyrou G, Costaridou L, Tzanakos G, Panayiotakis G (2006) Monte Carlo generated conversion factors for the estimation of average glandular dose in contact and magnification mammography. Phys Med Biol 51(21):5539–5548PubMedCrossRef

28.

Thierens H, Bosmans H, Buls N, De Hauwere A, Bacher K, Jacobs J, Clerinx P (2009) Typetesting of physical characteristics of digital mammography systems for screening within the Flemish breast cancer screening programme. Eur J Radiol 70(3):539–548PubMedCrossRef

29.

Marshall NW (2006) A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system. Phys Med Biol 51(10):2441–2463PubMedCrossRef

30.

Huda W, Sajewicz AM, Ogden KM, Scalzetti EM, Dance D (2002) How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography? Acad Radiol 9:764–772PubMedCrossRef

31.

Poulos A, McLean D (2004) The application of breast compression in mammography: a new perspective. Radiography 10(2):131–137CrossRef

32.

O’Leary D, Teape A, Hammond J, Rainford L, Grant T (2011) Compression force recommendations in mammography must be linked to image quality. Proceedings of the European Congress of Radiology 2011, Vienna, pp 1–19

33.

National Quality Management Committee (2008) Australia B BreastScreen Australia Quality National Accreditation Standards-Quality Improvement Program, Australia, National Quality Management Committee of BreastScreen Australia

34.

Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists Mammography Quality Assurance Program (2009) Guidelines for quality control testing fpr digital (CR & DR) mammography. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, Sidney

35.

Vachon CM, Pankratz VS, Scott CG, Maloney SD, Ghosh K, Brandt KR, Milanese T, Carston MJ, Sellers TA (2007) Longitudinal trends in mammographic percent density and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev/Am Assoc Cancer Res 16(5):921–928CrossRef

36.

Bosmans H, van Engen R, Heid P, Lazzari B, Schopphoven S, Thijssen M, Young K (2011) EUREF type test protocol. European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services, Nijmegen

37.

Engen R van, Bosmans H, Bouwman R, Dance D, Heid P, Lazzari B, Marshall N, Schopphoven S, Strudley C et al (2013) Protocol for the Quality Control of the Physical and Technical Aspects of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Systems—Draft Version 0.10. EUREF, Nijmegen

Title: Quality assurance and quality control in mammography: a review of available guidance worldwide
Authors: Cláudia Reis
Ana Pascoal
Taxiarchis Sakellaris
Manthos Koutalonis
Publication date: 01-10-2013
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Insights into Imaging / Issue 5/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-013-0269-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Quality assurance and quality control in mammography: a review of available guidance worldwide

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Main messages

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Main messages

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2013

Survey of inappropriate use of magnetic resonance imaging

Event-based versus process-based informed consent to address scientific evidence and uncertainties in ionising medical imaging

Clinical impact of 18F-FDG PET-CT in recurrent stage III/IV melanoma: a tertiary centre Specialist Skin Cancer Multidisciplinary Team (SSMDT) experience

A questionnaire survey reviewing radiologists’ and clinical specialist radiographers’ knowledge of CT exposure parameters

Radiology smartphone applications; current provision and cautions

Evaluating thyroid nodules: predicting and selecting malignant nodules for fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology