| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Breast Imaging |
1 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-240), Division of Mammography Quality and Radiation Programs, 1350 Piccard Dr, Rockville, MD 20850 (O.H.S., D.C.S., J.L.M., F.H.)
2 Consumer and Clinical Radiation Hazards Division, Radiation Protection Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (G.R.S.).
PURPOSE: To evaluate trends in mammography quality before and after the implementation of the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) of 1992 and to compare technical data collected in the United States with corresponding data obtained from the first survey of mammography facilities conducted in 1994–1995 in Canada.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from MQSA inspections conducted in 1995–1997 were analyzed and compared with survey data on U.S. mammography facilities acquired before the MQSA. Technical indicators of mammography quality such as radiation dose, phantom image score, film processing, and darkroom fog were analyzed.
RESULTS: In the United States, phantom image scores, along with other technical measures of performance such as film processing, darkroom fog, and x-ray beam quality, have improved continuously since 1985. The U.S. mean glandular dose has increased to 1.6 mGy compared with the Canadian dose of 1.1 mGy. The mean total phantom image score with artifact subtraction was 11.1 in Canada in 1994–1995 and 11.8 in the U.S. in 1997.
CONCLUSION: 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.
Index terms: Breast radiography, quality assurance, 00.11 • Quality assurance
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. Samei, R. S. Saunders Jr, J. A. Baker, and D. M. Delong Digital Mammography: Effects of Reduced Radiation Dose on Diagnostic Performance Radiology, May 1, 2007; 243(2): 396 - 404. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K.-H. Ng, N. Jamal, and L. DeWerd Global quality control perspective for the physical and technical aspects of screen-film mammography--image quality and radiation dose Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2006; 121(4): 445 - 451. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. C. Spelic, R. V. Kaczmarek, and O. H. Suleiman Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends Survey of Abdomen and Lumbosacral Spine Radiography Radiology, July 1, 2004; 232(1): 115 - 125. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. G. Benz and M. W. Benz Reduction of Cancer Risk Associated With Pediatric Computed Tomography by the Development of New Technologies Pediatrics, July 1, 2004; 114(1): 205 - 209. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Smith-Bindman, P. W. Chu, D. L. Miglioretti, E. A. Sickles, R. Blanks, R. Ballard-Barbash, J. K. Bobo, N. C. Lee, M. G. Wallis, J. Patnick, et al. Comparison of Screening Mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom JAMA, October 22, 2003; 290(16): 2129 - 2137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. A. Feig Image Quality of Screening Mammography: Effect on Clinical Outcome Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2002; 178(4): 805 - 807. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Baker and M. S. Soo Breast US: Assessment of Technical Quality and Image Interpretation Radiology, April 1, 2002; 223(1): 229 - 238. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. A. Sickles Breast Imaging: From 1965 to the Present Radiology, April 1, 2000; 215(1): 1 - 16. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. D. Pisano, M. Schell, J. Rollins, C. B. Burns, B. Hall, Y. Lin, M. P. Braeuning, E. Burke, and J. Holliday Has the Mammography Quality Standards Act Affected the Mammography Quality in North Carolina? Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2000; 174(4): 1089 - 1091. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
