Optimization of image quality in analogous mammography and its comparison with digital mammography

Enrique Gaona; Wendy Perales Corona; Jesús Gabriel Franco Enríquez; Nelly Molina Frechero; Gregorio Gaona Castañeda

2012, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Anales de Radiología México 2012; 11 (1)

Optimization of image quality in analogous mammography and its comparison with digital mammography

Gaona E, Perales CW, Franco EJG, Molina FN, Gaona CG

Full text

How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 26
Page: 3-10
PDF size: 434.65 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the quality of screening images in full field digital mammography (FFDM) systems located in the Mexico City metropolitan area, and compare it with an optimized film-screen mammography (FSCM) system. In Mexico, the current rate of mortality due to breast cancer constitutes a public health problem and has become the leading cause of death among Mexican women. The primary purpose of mammography is to facilitate detection of breast cancer at an early stage of its natural history.
Material and methods. Sampling was performed at 10 mammography services that use full field digital mammography systems of different makes and models. Also, a mammography service with an optimized filmscreen mammography system was included. Image quality was evaluated with a manikin and with the American College of Radiology (ACR) scoring system.
Discussion. In the evaluation of image quality, FFDM systems obtained lower scores than the FSCM system. Two FFDM systems had image quality ower than that established by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and by the ACR. Of the images from the FFDM systems, 40% present artifacts and lack of uniformity during acquisition, processing, or printing; these are the main quality issues in images from FFDM systems.
Conclusion. In general, image quality in the FSCM system, with a quality control program, was equal or superior to that obtained in FFDM systems without a quality control program. The average glandular dose (AGD) was below the 3.0 mGy limit for both systems (FSCM and FFDM).

REFERENCES

International Atomic Energy Agency, Quality Assurance Programme for Digital Mammography, IAEA Human Health Series No. 17, Vienna, 2011:14-15.
Rizo RP y col. Registro Hospitalario de Cáncer: Compendio de Cáncer 2000-2004. Cancerología 2007;2(3):220-21.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía [Internet]. Distrito Federal (México): Estadísticas a Propósito del Día Mundial Contra el Cáncer: Datos Nacionales. Disponible en: http://www. inegi.org.mx/lib/buscador/busqueda.asp x?s=inegi&textoBus=mortalidad cancer mama&e =&seccionBus=docit.
Tabar L, et al. Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20 year follow up before and after introduction of screening, Lancet 2003;361:1405–1410.
World Health Organization, IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention Vol. 7: Breast Cancer Screening, (International Agency for Research on Cancer, Ed.), Lyon, IARC Press. 2002: 127-129.
Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D’orsi CJ. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: Results of 4,945 paired examinations, Radiology 2001;218:873–880.
Skaane P, Young K, Population-based mammography screening: Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: The Oslo I study, Radiology 2003;229:877–884.
Pisano ET, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening, New Engl J Med 2005;353:1–11.
Gaona E. Los Rayos X en Mamografía. 1er. edición. México, DF: Distribuidora y Editora Mexicana, 2002. p. 161.
Gaona E. Física de la Radiología y Seguridad Radiológica. 1er. edición. México, DF: Distribuidora y Editora Mexicana, 2006. p. 285.
Hendrick RE, Bassett LW, Botsco MA. et al. ACR Mammography Quality Control Manual. Reston, American College of Radiology, VA, 1999:117–121,149–163.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA),in Mammography Quality Standards Acts Regulations, FDA, Rockville, MD, 2002:40–51.
13 Secretaría de Salud de México. Para la prevención, diagnóstico, tratamiento, control y vigilancia epidemiológica del cáncer de mama. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-041-SSA2-2011. Diario Oficial de la Federación de 9 de junio de 2011:29-30.
Secretaría de Salud de México, Requisitos Técnicos para las Instalaciones, Responsabilidades Sanitarias, Especificaciones Técnicas para los Equipos y Protección Radiológica en Establecimientos de Diagnostico Medico con Rayos X. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-229-SSA1-2002. Diario Oficial de la Federación, 15 de septiembre 2006:61-62.
Consejo Mexicano de Radiología e Imagen, Directorio de Médicos Certificados, [consultado 2011 enero 20]. Disponible de: http://www.cmri.org.mx/medicos.html
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía [Internet]. Distrito Federal (México): Estadísticas a Propósito del Día Mundial Contra el Cáncer: Datos Nacionales. Disponible en: http://www. inegi.org.mx/lib/buscador/busqueda.asp x?s=inegi&textoBus=mortalidad cancer mama&e =&seccionBus=docit.
Fleitas I, Caspani CC, Borrás C, Plazas MC, Miranda AA, Brandan ME, de la Mora R. The quality of radiology services in five Latin American countries. Rev Panam Salud Pública 2006;20(2-3):113-124.
Gaona E. Advanced breast cancer as indicator of quality mammography. AIP Conference Proceedings 682. 2003:201-04.
Ciraj-Bjelac O, Faj D, Stimac D, Kosutic D, Arandjic D, Brkic, H. Good reasons to implement quality assurance in nationwide breast cancer screening programs in Croatia and Serbia: Results from a pilot study, Eur. J. Radiol. 2009 11:108-113.
Faj D, Posedel D, Stimac D, Ivezic Z, Kasabasic M, Ivkovic A, Kubelka D, Ilakovac V, Brnic Z, Bjelac OC. Survey of mammography practice in Croatia:equipment performance, image quality and dose. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008;131(4):535-40.
Vassileva J, Avramova-Cholakova S, Dimov A, Lichev A. Implementation of the European protocol for quality control of the technical aspects of mammography screening in Bulgaria, Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;114(1-3):403-05.
Kosutic D, Ciraj-Bjelac O, ArandjicD. Mammography practice in Serbia: evaluation and optimisation of image quality and the technical aspects of the mammographic imaging chain. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010;139:(1-3):293-297.
Ramos M, Ferrer S, Verdú G, Villaescusa JI, Salas MD. Evaluation of DR and CR digital mammography systems based on phantom and breast dosimetry. Eng Med Biol Soc 2006;(1):5659-62.
Robson KJ. An investigation into the effects of suboptimal viewing conditions in screen-film mammography. Br J Radiol 2008;963:219-31.
Dimakopoulou AD, Tsalafoutas IA, Georgiou EK, Yakoumakis EN. Image quality and breast dose of 24 screen-film combinations for mammography. Br JRadiol 2006;79(938):123-29.
Gaona, E, Nieto JA, Góngora JA, ID,Arreola M. and Enríquez JG F. TL dosimetry for quality control of CR mammography imaging Systems. RadiationEffects and Defects in Solids 2007;162:759-763.