Literature DB >> 29125335

A review of mammographic positioning image quality criteria for the craniocaudal projection.

Rhonda-Joy I Sweeney1, Sarah J Lewis1, Peter Hogg2,3, Mark F McEntee1.   

Abstract

Detection of breast cancer is reliant on optimal breast positioning and the production of quality images. Two projections, the mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal (CC), are routinely performed. Determination of successful positioning and inclusion of all breast tissue is achieved through meeting stated image quality criteria. For the CC view, current image quality criteria are inconsistent. Absence of reliable anatomical markers, other than the nipple, further contribute to difficulties in assessing the quality of CC views. The aim of this paper was to explore published international quality standards to identify and find the origin of any CC positioning criteria which might provide for quantitative assessment. The pectoralis major (pectoral) muscle was identified as a key posterior anatomical structure to establish optimum breast tissue inclusion on mammographic projections. It forms the first two of the three main CC metrics that are frequently reported (1) visualization of the pectoral muscle, (2) measurement of the posterior nipple line and (3) depiction of retroglandular fat. This literature review explores the origin of the three metrics, and discusses three key publications, spanning 1992 to 1994, on which subsequent image quality standards have been based. The evidence base to support published CC metrics is sometimes not specified and more often, the same set of publications are cited, most often without critical evaluation. To conclude, there remains uncertainty if the metrics explored for the CC view support objective evaluation and reproducibility to confirm optimal breast positioning and quality images.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29125335      PMCID: PMC5965788          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170611

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  40 in total

1.  Breast biphasic compression versus standard monophasic compression in X-ray mammography.

Authors:  F Sardanelli; F Zandrino; A Imperiale; E Bonaldo; M G Quartini; N Cogorno
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection.

Authors:  R L Birdwell; D M Ikeda; K F O'Shaughnessy; E A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  The ACR's Mammography Accreditation Program: ten years of experience since MQSA.

Authors:  Judy M Destouet; Lawrence W Bassett; Martin J Yaffe; Priscilla F Butler; Pamela A Wilcox
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 5.532

4.  A study to find the optimal orientation of the breast for the cranio caudal view, for screening purposes.

Authors:  S M Naylor; L Lee; A J Evans
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 2.350

Review 5.  Regulatory Compliance in Mammography.

Authors:  Jennifer Loesch
Journal:  Radiol Technol       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr

6.  Breast thickness in routine mammograms: effect on image quality and radiation dose.

Authors:  M A Helvie; H P Chan; D D Adler; P G Boyd
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Breast density: clinical implications and assessment methods.

Authors:  Nicole S Winkler; Sughra Raza; Meaghan Mackesy; Robyn L Birdwell
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.333

8.  The relationship between cancer detection in mammography and image quality measurements.

Authors:  Alistair Mackenzie; Lucy M Warren; Matthew G Wallis; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; Julie Cooke; David R Dance; Dev P Chakraborty; Mark D Halling-Brown; Padraig T Looney; Kenneth C Young
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2016-04-06       Impact factor: 2.685

9.  Breast cancer detected with screening US: reasons for nondetection at mammography.

Authors:  Min Sun Bae; Woo Kyung Moon; Jung Min Chang; Hye Ryoung Koo; Won Hwa Kim; Nariya Cho; Ann Yi; Bo La Yun; Su Hyun Lee; Mi Young Kim; Eun Bi Ryu; Mirinae Seo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  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
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2017-03-16
View more
  1 in total

1.  Full-field digital mammography: the '30% rule' and influences on visualisation of the pectoralis major muscle on the craniocaudal view of the breast.

Authors:  Julia Strohbach; Jenny Maree Wilkinson; Kelly Maree Spuur
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2020-06-22
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.