Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interim recommendations for a digital mammography quality assurance program

  • Acpsem Position Paper
  • Published:
Australasian Physics & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 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. Accordingly, updates of this document will be provided as deemed necessary in electronic format on the ACPSEM’s website (see http://www.acpsem.org.au/au/subgroup/radiology/RadiologySG_index.html).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Craig, A.R., Heggie, J.C.P., McLean, D., Coakley, K.S. and Nicoll, J.J.,Recommendations for a mammography quality assurance program, Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine, 24(3): 107–131, 2001.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. RANZCR,Mammographic Quality Control Manual Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, 2002.

  3. National Program for the Early Detection of Breast Cancer,National Accreditation Requirements: 2005. Commonwealth Department Human Services and Health., 2005.

  4. Yaffe, M.J. (private communication)

  5. Bloomquist, A.K., Yaffe, M.J., Pisano, E.T., Hendrick, R.E., Mawdsley, G.E., Bright, S., Shen, S.Z., Mahadevappa, M.et al., Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: Part I, Medical Physics, 33: 719–736, 2006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pisano, E.T., Gatsonis, C., Hendrick, R.E., Yaffe, M.J., Baum, J.K., Acharyya, S., Conant, E.F., Fajardo, L.L.et al.,Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening, The New England Journal of Medicine: 353, 2005.

  7. Yaffe, M.J., Bloomquist, A.K., Mawdsley, G.E., Pisano, E.T., Hendrick, R.E., Fajardo, L.L., Boone, J.M., Kanal, K.et al., Quality control for digital mammography: Part II recommendations from the ACRIN DMIST trial, Medical Physics, 33: 737–752, 2006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. EUREF,Addendum on Digital Mammography: European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening. European Reference Organisation for Quality, 2003.

  9. EUREF,European Protocol for the Quality Control of the Physical and Technical Aspects of Mammography Screening. European Commission, 2005.

  10. Pisano, E.T. and Yaffe, M.J.,Digital Mammography, Radiology, 234: 353–362, 2005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. American Association of Physicists in Medicine,Acceptance Testing and Quality Control of Photostimulable Storage Phosphor Imaging Systems AAPM, Task Group 10 Report No. TG10, 1998.

  12. Monnin, P., Gutierrez, D., Bulling, S., Guntem, D. and Verdun, F.R.,A comparison of the performance of digital mammography systems, Medical Physics, 34: 906–914, 2007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. NHSBSP,Routine control tests for full field digital mammography systems National Breast Screening Programme Report No. NHSBSP Equipment Report 0702, 2007.

  14. Young, K.C. (private communication).

  15. Aslund, M., Cederstrom, B., Lundqvist, M. and Danielsson, M.,Physical characterization of a scanning photon counting digital mammography system based on Si-strip detectors, Med Phys, 34: 1918–25, 2007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. AAPM,Assessment of Display Performance for Medical Imaging Systems American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Task Group 18 Report No. TG18, 2002.

  17. Samei, E., Badano, A., Chakraborty, D., Cornelius, C., Flynn, M.J., Hemminger, B., Hangiandreou, N., Johnson, J.et al., Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: Executive summary of AAPM TG18 report, Medical Physics, 32: 1205–1225, 2005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Aslund, M., Cederstrom, B., Lundqvist, M. and Danielsson, M.,Optimized AEC for scanning digital mammography based on local variation of scan velocity, Proceedings of the SPIE, 5745: 468–477, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Elbakri, I.A., Lakshminarayanan, A.V. and Tesic, M.M.,Automatic exposure control for a slot scanning full field digital mammographic system., Medical Physics, 32: 2763–2770, 2005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. International Electrotechnical Commission,Evaluation and routine testing in medical imaging departments — Part 3–4: Acceptance tests — Imaging performance of dental X — ray equipment International Electrotechnical Commission Report No. IEC 61223-3-4, 2000.

  21. International Electrotechnical Commission,X-ray tube assemblies for medical diagnosis — Characteristics of focal spots. International Electrotechnical Commission Report No. 60336, 1993.

  22. Gunn, C.,Radiographic Imaging. A Practical Approach., 3rd ed. Churchill Livingstone., 2002.

  23. Marshall, N.W.,Retrospective analysis of a detector fault for a full field digital mammography system, Physics in Medicine and Biology, 51: 5655–5673, 2006.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dicom Works. http://dicom.online.fr/

  25. Image J. http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/

  26. Standards Australia & Standards New Zealand,X-ray tube assemblies for medical diagnosis — Characteristics of focal spots. Standards Association of Australia Report No. AS/NZS 4274:1995, 1995.

  27. Standards Australia & Standards New Zealand,Approval and test specification — Medical electrical equipment — General requirements for safety — Collateral Standard: Requirements for radiation protection in diagnostic X-ray equipment No. AS/NZS 3200.1.3:1996, 1996.

  28. Strauss, K.J. and Rossi, R.P., Specification, acceptance testing, and quality control of mammography imaging equipment. inA categorical course in physics — technical aspects of breast imaging, edited by A.G. Haus and M.J. Yaffe, RSNA, Oak Brook, IL, pp. 219–246, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rossmann, K.,Point Spread-Function, Line Spread-Function and Modulation Transfer Function, Radiology, 93: 257–272, 1969.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Coltman, J.W.,The Specification of Imaging Properties by Response to a Sine Wave Input, Journal of the Optical Society of America, 44: 468–471, 1954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Droege, R.T. and Morin, R.L.,A practical method to measure the MTF of CT scanners, Medical Physics, 9: 758–761, 1982.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. International Electrotechnical Commission,Evaluation and routine testing in medical imaging departments — Part 3–2: Acceptance testing — imaging performance of mammographic x-ray equipment International Electrotechnical Commission Report No. 61223-3-2 Ed. 2.0, 2004.

  33. Maidment, A. and Albert, M.,Conditioning data for calculation of the modulation transfer function, Medical Physics, 30: 248–252, 2003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Carton, A.-K., Vandenbroucke, D., Struye, L., Maidment, A., Kao, Y.-H., Albert, M., Bosmans, H. and Marchal, G.,Validation of MTF measurement for digital mammography quality control, Medical Physics, 32: 1684–1695, 2005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. International Electrotechnical Commission,Medical Electrical Characteristics of Digital X-ray imaging devices — Part 1–2: Determination of the quantum detection efficiency — mammography detectors International Electrotechnical Commission Report No. 62220-1-2, 2004, (draft).

  36. Hoeschen, C., Tischenko, O., Buhr, E. and Illers, H.,Comparison of technical and anatomical noise in digital thorax x-ray images, Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 114: 75–80, 2005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tischenko, O., Hoeschen, C., Dance, D.R., Hunt, R.A., Maidment, A. and Bakic, P.R.,Evaluation of a novel method of noise reduction using computer-simulated mammographs, Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 1–3, 2005.

  38. Fletcher-Heath, L. and Van Metter, R.,Quantifying the performance of human and software CDMAM phantom image observers for the qualification of digital mammography systems, p486–498 in Medical Imaging 2005: Physics of Medical Imaging, Proceedings of SPIE, volume 5745, M.J. Flynn (ed), 614219, 2005.

  39. Van Metter, R., M. Heath and Fletcher-Heath, L.,Applying the European protocol for the quality of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening threshold contrast visibility assessment to digital systems, conference paper in Medical Imaging 2006: Physics of Medical Imaging, proceedings of the SPIE, vol 6142, M.J. Flynn & J. Hsieh (eds) 614205, 2006.

  40. ACR,Mammography quality control manual American College of Radiology, Merrifield, VA, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  41. AAPM,Acceptance Testing and Quality Control of Photostimulable Storage Phosphor Imaging Systems American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Task Group 10 Report No. TG10, 1998.

  42. Samei, E., Seibert, J.A., Willis, C.E., Flynn, M.J., Mah, E. and Junck, K.L.,Performance evaluation of computed radiography systems, Medical Physics, 28: 361–371, 2001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. NHSBSP,Commissioning and routine testing of full field digital mammography systems NHS Cancer Screening Programmes Report No. NHSBSP Equipment report 0604, 2006.

  44. Standards Australia & Standards New Zealand,Evaluation and routine testing in medical imaging departments — Acceptance tests — Imaging performance of mammographic X-ray equipment No. AS/NZS 4184.3.2:1998, 1998.

  45. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements,Patient Dosimetry for X Ray Used in Medical Imaging ICRU Report No. Report 74, 2006.

  46. Eklund, S., Thilander, A. and Leitz, W.,The impact of anatomic variations on absorbed radiation doses in mammography, Radiation Protection & Dosimetry, 49: 167–170, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Cross, P.,Doses in mammography: From the phantom to the patient, Australasian Radiology, 38: 20–23, 1994.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Geise, R.J. and Palchevsky, A.,Composition of Mammographic Phantom Materials, Medical Physics, 198: 347–350, 1996.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Heggie, J.C.P.,Survey of Doses in Screening Mammography, Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine, 19: 207–216, 1996.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Klein, R., Aichinger, H., Dieker, J., Jansen, J.T.M., Joite-Barfu, S., Sabel, M., Schulz-Wendland, R. and Zoetelief, J.,Determination of average glandular dose with modern mammography units for two large groups of patients, Physics in Medicine and Biology, 42: 651–671, 1997.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Young, K.C., Ramsdale, M.L. and Bignall, F.,Review of dosimetric methods for mammography in the UK breast screening programme, Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 80: 183–186, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Beckett, J. and Kotre, C.J.,Dosimetric implications of age related glandular changes in screening mammography, Physics in Medicine and Biology, 45: 801–813, 2000.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Dance, D.R., Skinner, C.L., Young, K.C., Beckett, J. and Kotre, C.J.,Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammographic dosimetry protocol, Physics in Medicine and Biology, 45: 3225–3240, 2000.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Dance, D.R.,Monte Carlo calculations of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose, Physics in Medicine and Biology, 35: 1211–1219, 1990.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Wu, X., Barnes, G.T. and Tucker, D.M.,Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography, Radiology, 179: 143–148, 1991.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Wu, X., Gingold, E.L., Barnes, G.T. and Tucker, D.M.,Normalised average glandular tissue dose in molybdenum target — rhodium filter and rhodium and rhodiuim -target rhodium filter mammography, Radiology, 193: 83–89, 1994.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Sobol, W.T. and Wu, X.,Parametrization of mammography normalized average glandular dose tables, Medical Physics, 24: 547, 1997.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Dance, D.R. (private communication)

  59. Liu, B., Goodsitt, M. and Chan, H.-P.,Normalised average glandular dose in magnification mammography, Radiology, 197: 27–32, 1995.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. ACR,Stereotactic breast biopsy quality control manual American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Physics Department, Westmead Hospital, Wentworthville, Australia

    I. D. McLean & R. K. Grewal

  2. Department Medical Engineering & Physics, St Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne, Fitzroy, Australia

    J. C. P. Heggie

  3. Biomedical Technology Services, Fortitude Valley, Australia

    J. Herley

  4. Radiology Department, Auckland Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand

    F. J. Thomson

  5. Dosimetry and Medial Radiation Physics Section, Division of Human Health, International Atomic Energy Agency, PO Box 200, A-1400, Vienna, Austria

    I. D. McLean

Authors
  1. I. D. McLean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. C. P. Heggie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Herley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F. J. Thomson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. K. Grewal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. D. McLean.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McLean, I.D., Heggie, J.C.P., Herley, J. et al. Interim recommendations for a digital mammography quality assurance program. Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 30, 65–100 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178412

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178412

Key words

Search

Navigation