Mammography in the 1990s: The United States and Canada

Abstract

Mammography quality is better today than it has been at any other time in the United States. With the exception of radiation dose. Canadian technical measures of performance are comparable to measures before MQSA in the United States.

<title>Design and evaluation of a slot-scanning full-field digital mammography system</title>

“…The results for the conventional system are based on the unpublished survey data from six randomly selected clinical sites. These data are corroborated by trends in dose on the mammography accreditation phantom [9,10]. …”

Image quality and mean glandular dose in Mexican mammography services measured with an Object-Insert/TL mammography kit

“…The agreement in dosimetry and ACR score suggests -within the uncertainties of the small samplingsthat in more than 10 years there has been no optimization of image quality and dose, in spite of the publication of national regulations in 1997 and 2006 [6]. This result contrasts with that reported in other countries, where dose has been reduced and the image quality has improved over time [11]. Fig.…”

Breast Cancer Screening

“…73-75 The mean glandular dose from mammography in the U.S. is 1 to 2 mGy (100 to 200 mrad) per view, amounting to 2 to 4 mGy (200 to 400 mrad) per standard two-view examination. 73,76 There is no way to know if and how many breast cancers are actually being caused by screening mammography. Still, the potential risk has prompted efforts to limit exposure by reducing the amount of radiation required for mammography screening, developing imaging modalities that do not use radiation (e.g., ultrasound and MRI), and modifying screening strategies for subpopulations especially vulnerable to radiation.…”