Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bassett, L. W.
Right arrow Articles by Feig, S. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bassett, L. W.
Right arrow Articles by Feig, S. A.
(Radiology. 2000;215:698-702.)
© RSNA, 2000

Breast Imaging

Reasons for Failure of a Mammography Unit at Clinical Image Review in the American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program1

Lawrence W. Bassett, MD, Dione M. Farria, MD, MPH, Swati Bansal, MS, Marybeth A. Farquhar, RN, MSN, Pamela A. Wilcox, MBA and Stephen A. Feig, MD

1 From the Iris Cantor Center for Breast Imaging, University of California Los Angeles School of Medicine (L.W.B.); the Breast Imaging Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pa (D.M.F.); the American College of Radiology, Reston, Va (S.B., M.A.F., P.A.W.); and the Department of Radiology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.A.F.). Received June 18, 1999; revision requested July 14; revision received September 1; accepted September 14. Address correspondence to D.M.F., Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University Medical Center, 510 S Kingshighway Blvd, St Louis, MO 63110 (e-mail: farriad@mir.wustl.edu).

PURPOSE: To identify the most common deficiencies in the quality of mammograms submitted for clinical image evaluation (evaluation of image from actual patient referred for mammography).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 1997, the American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program reviewed clinical images for 2,341 mammography units. For each mammography unit, the facility submitted bilateral mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal mammograms obtained in a woman with fatty breasts and a woman with dense breasts. Images were reviewed independently by two experienced radiologists. Reviewers listed the general categories and specific deficiencies that led to a decision to fail the unit that produced the clinical images.

RESULTS: Of the 2,341 mammography units, 1,034 (44%) failed the clinical image evaluation process. Of 6,128 categories cited by reviewers as deficient, 1,250 (20%) involved problems in positioning; 944 (15%), exposure; 887 (14%), compression; 806 (13%), sharpness; 785 (13%), contrast; 703 (11%), labeling; 465 (8%), artifacts; and 288 (5%), noise. A significantly higher proportion of failures was attributed to positioning deficiencies for fatty breasts than for dense breasts (P = .028). Higher proportions of failures in dense breasts were related to compression (P < .001) and exposure (P < .001) deficiencies.

CONCLUSION: Common problems in clinical image quality have been identified. This information should be useful for educators and facilities striving to improve the quality of mammography.

Index terms: Breast radiography, quality assurance, 00.11, 00.93, 00.99 • Quality assurance




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 radtechHome page
J. MINIGH
Mammographic Film Artifacts.
Radiol. Technol., May 1, 2006; 77(5): 389M - 402M.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]