Assessment of mammography image quality in istanbul city

Abstract

468 Mammography is the only proven effective method for breast cancer screening (1). Image quality in mammography plays an important role in detecting small lesions and microcalcifications. Low quality images lead to underdiagnosis of in situ and early cancers (2). Quality standards for mammography are established in Western countries, and breast imaging units are accredited and strictly monitored (3-5). Unfortunately, Turkey has no established standards. The Manual for Quality Standards of Conventional Mammography prepared by the Turkish Radiological Society (TRS) contains the only guidelines published in Turkey (6), and the manual has not been used in an accreditation program. A volunteer accreditation program has been developed by the Society for Conventional Mammography but, to our knowledge, no applications have been made to date. The only obligatory inspection for mammography machines occurs in the application for a license during the registration process conducted by the Turkish Atomic Energy Authority. However, this process does not take the image quality into account.The aim of the present study was to assess the image quality of mammography units in İstanbul. Materials and methodsA total of 55 mammography units in İstanbul were visited between November 2010 and March 2011. The list of the mammography units was obtained from the health authorities. Four centers refused to enter the study. Twenty-four of the units belonged to public healthcare facilities, and 27 were private centers. The public health care facilities included three university hospitals, one military research hospital, 11 public educational research hospitals, and nine public hospitals or clinics. The private centers included three private university hospitals, 18 private hospitals, and eight private centers. Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) equipment was used in 18 units, 24 units used computed radiology (CR) for digital imaging, and an analog mammography system was used in nine units. Two machines did not have an automatic exposure control (AEC) system. An American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom was used to assess image quality. We used a phantom (Computerized Imaging Reference Systems Model 015 [Z 673], Norfolk, Virginia, USA) made of acrylic that contained 16 structures mimicking masses such as calcifications and fibers that was the equivalent of 4.5 cm thickness of compressed breast tissue. Each unit exposed the phantom according to its own protocol for a craniocaudal (CC) view of a standard size (B cup) breast. All exposures were performed using the AEC system with the exception of those made by the two units that did not have AEC systems. In these units the technologists were asked to use the same protocol they used to take a CC view of a standard size breast. The BREAST IMAGING ORIGINAL ARTICLE Assessment of mammography quality in İstanbulBurcu Gürdemir, Erkin Arıbal PURPOSE We aimed to evaluate the mammography image quality in İstanbul and to survey the awareness of mammography quality. MATERIALS AND METHOD...

European radiographers’ challenges from mammography education and clinical practice – an integrative review

“…There was variation in IQ by organization, equipment, staff education, working habits and motivation and by economic interests.a) 7, 8 b) 1, 3, 8[33]UKTo evaluate the feasibility of training sufficient for radiographers to deliver an intervention to promote early presentation of breast cancer to all older women attending for their final routine mammogram.Mixed methods study assessing the feasibility of training of 25 radiographers in one breast screening service at key time points during the training process.Measures: competence and confidence of radiographers to deliver the intervention, radiographers’ perceptions and experiences both of training and delivering the intervention. Qualitative interview study.Commitment, motivation, varying levels of staff basic education and clinical experience, informing about education, giving regular feedback about performance.4)radiographer related factors: commitment, motivation, varying basic education 5) challenges related to organizing education: informing about education, giving feedback.c) How to take into account the promotion of breast screening adherence in radiographer’s work.c) 3[26]TurkeyTo evaluate the mammography image quality in İstanbul and to survey the awareness of mammography quality.Cross-sectional study. N  = 55/50 mammography units were assessed in İstanbul.…”

“…In five out of the 16 selected studies, the equipment in use was screen-film mammography (SFM) [ 24 ] or SFM combined with digital mammography (DM) [ 5 , 25 – 27 ]. Four of these research settings using SFM systems were located in Eastern Europe [ 5 , 25 , 26 ] (Table 3 ).…”

Evolution of mammographic image quality in the state of Rio de Janeiro

“…In a less comprehensive way, Turkey, where no quality standard for accreditation is established, has a Handbook of Quality Standards for Conventional Mammography issued by the local radiological society. In Istanbul, a study involving 50 public and private facilities concluded that the mammography quality was insufficient in 19 (38%) out of the 50 facilities ( 25 ) .…”

How Many of the Biopsy Decisions Taken at Inexperienced Breast Radiology Units Were Correct?

“…There are no supervisory mechanisms in Turkey that investigate the quality of breast imaging centers and their compliance with the requirements. A study assessing 54 breast units in Istanbul reported that 38% of the devices in mammography units provided images with insufficient quality (25). We also had to repeat the studies in 42% of the patients presenting with the decision for biopsy since the studies were of insufficient quality.…”