PURPOSE: To identify the most common deficiencies in the quality of mammograms submitted for clinical image evaluation (evaluation of image from actual patient referred for mammography). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 1997, the American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program reviewed clinical images for 2,341 mammography units. For each mammography unit, the facility submitted bilateral mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal mammograms obtained in a woman with fatty breasts and a woman with dense breasts. Images were reviewed independently by two experienced radiologists. Reviewers listed the general categories and specific deficiencies that led to a decision to fail the unit that produced the clinical images. RESULTS: Of the 2,341 mammography units, 1,034 (44%) failed the clinical image evaluation process. Of 6,128 categories cited by reviewers as deficient, 1,250 (20%) involved problems in positioning; 944 (15%), exposure; 887 (14%), compression; 806 (13%), sharpness; 785 (13%), contrast; 703 (11%), labeling; 465 (8%), artifacts; and 288 (5%), noise. A significantly higher proportion of failures was attributed to positioning deficiencies for fatty breasts than for dense breasts (P =.028). Higher proportions of failures in dense breasts were related to compression (P <.001) and exposure (P <.001) deficiencies. CONCLUSION: Common problems in clinical image quality have been identified. This information should be useful for educators and facilities striving to improve the quality of mammography.
PURPOSE: To identify the most common deficiencies in the quality of mammograms submitted for clinical image evaluation (evaluation of image from actual patient referred for mammography). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 1997, the American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program reviewed clinical images for 2,341 mammography units. For each mammography unit, the facility submitted bilateral mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal mammograms obtained in a woman with fatty breasts and a woman with dense breasts. Images were reviewed independently by two experienced radiologists. Reviewers listed the general categories and specific deficiencies that led to a decision to fail the unit that produced the clinical images. RESULTS: Of the 2,341 mammography units, 1,034 (44%) failed the clinical image evaluation process. Of 6,128 categories cited by reviewers as deficient, 1,250 (20%) involved problems in positioning; 944 (15%), exposure; 887 (14%), compression; 806 (13%), sharpness; 785 (13%), contrast; 703 (11%), labeling; 465 (8%), artifacts; and 288 (5%), noise. A significantly higher proportion of failures was attributed to positioning deficiencies for fatty breasts than for dense breasts (P =.028). Higher proportions of failures in dense breasts were related to compression (P <.001) and exposure (P <.001) deficiencies. CONCLUSION: Common problems in clinical image quality have been identified. This information should be useful for educators and facilities striving to improve the quality of mammography.
Authors: Yeon Joo Gwak; Hye Jung Kim; Jin Young Kwak; Eun Ju Son; Kyung Hee Ko; Jin Hwa Lee; Hyo Soon Lim; You Jin Lee; Ji Won Park; Kyung Min Shin; Yun-Jin Jang Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 3.500