No abstract

The minimum annual volume of 500 mammograms required in North America is justified; radiologist accuracy may be compromised if interpretive volume is consistently less than this requirement. Raising interpretive volume may help to reduce the frequency of false positives without loss of sensitivity. Possible gains in accuracy may be greater with increases in volume of up to approximately 3000 mammograms interpreted annually.

Despite measures to ensure high-quality imaging, including CAR accreditation, approximately half of this random sample of screening mammograms failed the CAR quality standards. It would be important to define quality targets for screening mammograms carried out in daily practice to interpret such observations.

Although not all mammograms in the Quebec screening program met the optimum quality required by the Canadian Association of Radiologists or American College of Radiology accreditation, the screening mammograms produced in this population-based organized screening program reached a high enough level of quality so that the remaining variation in quality is too little to impair screening sensitivity.