Position paper: recommendations for a digital mammography quality assurance program V4.0.

In 2001 the ACPSEM published a position paper on quality assurance in screen film mammography which was subsequently adopted as a basis for the quality assurance programs of both the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) and of BreastScreen Australia. Since then the clinical implementation of digital mammography has been realised and it has become evident that existing screen-film protocols were not appropriate to assure the required image quality needed for reliable diagnosis or to address the new dose implications resulting from digital technology. In addition, the advantages and responsibilities inherent in teleradiology are most critical in mammography and also need to be addressed. The current document is the result of a review of current overseas practice and local experience in these areas. At this time the technology of digital imaging is undergoing significant development and there is still a lack of full international consensus about some of the detailed quality control (QC) tests that should be included in quality assurance (QA) programs. This document describes the current status in digital mammography QA and recommends test procedures that may be suitable in the Australasian environment. For completeness, this document also includes a review of the QA programs required for the various types of digital biopsy units used in mammography. In the future, international harmonisation of digital quality assurance in mammography and changes in the technology may require a review of this document. Version 2.0 represented the first of these updates and key changes related to image quality evaluation, ghost image evaluation and interpretation of signal to noise ratio measurements. In Version 3.0 some significant changes, made in light of further experience gained in testing digital mammography equipment were introduced. In Version 4.0, further changes have been made, most notably digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) testing and QC have been addressed. Some additional testing for conventional projection imaging has been added in order that sites may have the capability to undertake dose surveys to confirm compliance with diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) that may be established at the National or State level. A key recommendation is that dosimetry calculations are now to be undertaken using the methodology of Dance et al. Some minor changes to existing facility QC tests have been made to ensure the suggested procedures align with those most recently adopted by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists and BreastScreen Australia. Future updates of this document may be provided as deemed necessary in electronic format on the ACPSEM's website ( https://www.acpsem.org.au/whatacpsemdoes/standards-position-papers and see also http://www.ranzcr.edu.au/quality-a-safety/radiology/practice-quality-activities/mqap ).

Practitioner compression force variability in mammography: a preliminary study.

OBJECTIVE: This preliminary study determines whether the absolute amount of breast compression in mammography varies between and within practitioners. METHODS: Ethics approval was granted. 488 clients met the inclusion criteria. Clients were imaged by 14 practitioners. Collated data included Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density, breast volume, compression and practitioner code. RESULTS: A highly significant difference in mean compression used by different practitioners (p<0.0001 for each BI-RADS density) was demonstrated. Practitioners applied compression in one of three ways using either low, intermediate or high compression force, with no significant difference in mean compression within each group (p=0.99, p=0.70, p=0.54, respectively). Six practitioners showed a significant correlation (p<0.05) between compression and BI-RADS grade, with a tendency to apply less compression with increasing BI-RADS density. When compression was analysed by breast volume there was a wide variation in compression for a given volume. The general trend was the application of higher compression to larger breast volumes by all three practitioner groups. CONCLUSION: This study presents an insight into practitioner variation of compression application in mammography. Three groups of practitioners were identified: those who used low, intermediate and high compression across the BI-RADS density grades. There was wide variation in compression for any given breast volume, with trends of higher compression demonstrated for increasing breast volumes. Collation of further studies will facilitate a new perspective on the analysis of practitioner, client and equipment variables in mammography imaging. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: For the first time, it has been practically demonstrated that practitioners vary in the amount of compression applied to breast tissue during routine mammography.