Literature DB >> 8351351

Mammographic positioning: evaluation from the view box.

L W Bassett1, I A Hirbawi, N DeBruhl, M K Hayes.   

Abstract

To evaluate the quality of breast positioning for mediolateral oblique (MLO) and craniocaudal (CC) views, a prospective study of 1,000 consecutive bilateral screening mammographic examinations was performed. Six criteria were tested, including depth of tissue seen, inferior extent of the pectoral muscle relative to the posterior nipple line, presence of fibroglandular tissue at the posterior edge of the film, and whether the nipple was in profile. Pectoral muscle was depicted to within 1 cm of the nipple line or below it on 1,612 of the 2,000 MLO mammograms (81%); all fibroglandular tissue was depicted on 1,532 MLO mammograms (77%). The depth of tissue depicted on the CC mammogram was within 1 cm greater or less than the depth on the MLO mammogram on 1,586 CC mammograms (79%); the pectoral muscle was seen on 646 CC mammograms (32%). The nipple was in profile in 1,769 MLO mammograms (88%) and 1,783 CC mammograms (89%) but not in profile in either view in 83 cases (4%). Overall improvement was seen in 400 of 587 examinations (68%) when new mammograms were compared with previous mammograms. These criteria can be used to evaluate positioning performance and for quality control.

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8351351     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.188.3.8351351

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  7 in total

1.  Computer-aided identification of the pectoral muscle in digitized mammograms.

Authors:  K Santle Camilus; V K Govindan; P S Sathidevi
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2009-10-09       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Self-compression Technique vs Standard Compression in Mammography: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Philippe Henrot; Martine Boisserie-Lacroix; Véronique Boute; Philippe Troufléau; Bruno Boyer; Grégory Lesanne; Véronique Gillon; Emmanuel Desandes; Edith Netter; Maryam Saadate; Anne Tardivon; Christine Grentzinger; Julia Salleron; Guillaume Oldrini
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 3.  A review of mammographic positioning image quality criteria for the craniocaudal projection.

Authors:  Rhonda-Joy I Sweeney; Sarah J Lewis; Peter Hogg; Mark F McEntee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Breast Positioning during Mammography: Mistakes to be Avoided.

Authors:  Manju Bala Popli; Rahul Teotia; Meenakshi Narang; Hare Krishna
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Auckl)       Date:  2014-07-30

5.  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

6.  Automated Assessment of Breast Positioning Quality in Screening Mammography.

Authors:  Mouna Brahim; Kai Westerkamp; Louisa Hempel; Reiner Lehmann; Dirk Hempel; Patrick Philipp
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 6.575

7.  Breast Cancer Detection in Qatar: Evaluation of Mammography Image Quality Using A Standardized Assessment Tool.

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
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.