Radiology, Vol 188, 803-806, Copyright © 1993 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Mammographic positioning: evaluation from the view box

LW Bassett, IA Hirbawi, N DeBruhl and MK Hayes
Iris Cantor Center for Breast Imaging, Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center 90024- 6952.

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.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. A. Harvey, B. T. Nicholson, and M. A. Cohen Finding Early Invasive Breast Cancers: A Practical Approach Radiology, July 1, 2008; 248(1): 61 - 76. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. H. Taplin, C. M. Rutter, C. Finder, M. T. Mandelson, F. Houn, and E. White Screening Mammography: Clinical Image Quality and the Risk of Interval Breast Cancer Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2002; 178(4): 797 - 803. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Sardanelli, F. Zandrino, A. Imperiale, E. Bonaldo, M. G. Quartini, and N. Cogorno Breast Biphasic Compression versus Standard Monophasic Compression in X-ray Mammography Radiology, November 1, 2000; 217(2): 576 - 580. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				A. R. Guest, M. A. Helvie, H.-P. Chan, L. M. Hadjiiski, J. E. Bailey, and M. A. Roubidoux Adverse Effects of Increased Body Weight on Quantitative Measures of Mammographic Image Quality Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2000; 175(3): 805 - 810. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. W. Bassett, D. M. Farria, S. Bansal, M. A. Farquhar, P. A. Wilcox, and S. A. Feig Reasons for Failure of a Mammography Unit at Clinical Image Review in the American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program Radiology, June 1, 2000; 215(3): 698 - 702. [Abstract] [Full Text]