PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the mammography image quality in İstanbul and to survey the awareness of mammography quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-five mammography units in İstanbul were visited. The mammography image quality was evaluated using a standard American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom. The phantom contained 16 objects, and a score of at least 10 of 16 was accepted as the optimum level for image quality according to ACR recommendations. Mediolateral oblique (MLO) and craniocaudal (CC) best views obtained from 48 units were evaluated for proper positioning. The technologist for each unit completed a questionnaire designed to determine the equipment properties and quality awareness. Finally, the technologist was asked to evaluate the quality of mammograms at that site. All phantom images and best views were evaluated and scored by two blinded radiologists. RESULTS: Of the 55 units visited, 50 completed both the phantom imaging and questionnaire. Images from 19 of 50 units (38%) did not meet quality standards. Positioning for MLO view was not correct in 72% of the units, and 39% of the units had improper positioning for the CC view. However, 90% of these units reported that they had excellent image quality and positioning. CONCLUSION: The mammography image quality is poor in İstanbul, and mammography units are not aware of the image quality.
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the mammography image quality in İstanbul and to survey the awareness of mammography quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-five mammography units in İstanbul were visited. The mammography image quality was evaluated using a standard American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom. The phantom contained 16 objects, and a score of at least 10 of 16 was accepted as the optimum level for image quality according to ACR recommendations. Mediolateral oblique (MLO) and craniocaudal (CC) best views obtained from 48 units were evaluated for proper positioning. The technologist for each unit completed a questionnaire designed to determine the equipment properties and quality awareness. Finally, the technologist was asked to evaluate the quality of mammograms at that site. All phantom images and best views were evaluated and scored by two blinded radiologists. RESULTS: Of the 55 units visited, 50 completed both the phantom imaging and questionnaire. Images from 19 of 50 units (38%) did not meet quality standards. Positioning for MLO view was not correct in 72% of the units, and 39% of the units had improper positioning for the CC view. However, 90% of these units reported that they had excellent image quality and positioning. CONCLUSION: The mammography image quality is poor in İstanbul, and mammography units are not aware of the image quality.
Authors: Anand K Narayan; Huda Al-Naemi; Antar Aly; Mohammad Hassan Kharita; Ruhani Doda Khera; Mohamad Hajaj; Madan M Rehani Journal: Eur J Breast Health Date: 2020-04-01
Authors: Eija Metsälä; Nicole Richli Meystre; José Pires Jorge; Anja Henner; Tiina Kukkes; Cláudia Sá Dos Reis Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2017-03-16