medigraphic.com

2019, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Anales de Radiología México 2019; 18 (2)

Criteria, methods and analysis guidelines and evaluation for the quality control of mammogram imaging and reading: A meta-narrative review

García-Luna KJ, Ocampo-Ramírez JD, Pardo-Bustamante MP, Ruiz-Villa CA, Castaño-Vélez AP

Language: Spanish
References: 44
Page: 108-118
PDF size: 2723.14 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To identify and collect the guidelines, methods and analysis and evaluation criteria for the control of mammogram imaging and reading at the worldwide, regional and local levels.
Methods: A meta-narrative review was carried out, taking into account the pragmatic approach to health care services. We included scientific articles that incorporated the analysis and evaluation of image quality and clinical interpretation in mammography. It is a system of classification by categories and variables that face the documents with the greatest impact.
Key results: Guidelines and quality control protocols have been adapted worldwide according to the standards of the European and American guidelines. It is recommended to establish a guideline that includes the following criteria: personal training, technology evaluation, visualization of anatomical areas, acquisition techniques and breast positioning, dose level and patient exposition and report quality.
Conclusion: Even though there are internationally standardized guidelines for the quality evaluation, it is suggested that each country or region have guidelines adapted to their needs and which include higher significance criteria established in this revision.


REFERENCES

  1. Globocan. Breast Cancer Estimated Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide in 2012 [Internet]. Consultado 26/09/2017. Disponible en: http:// globocan.iarc.fr/old/FactSheets/cancers/breast-new.asp#INCIDENCE.

  2. Barr H, Blanco S, Fleitas I, Jimenez P, Swann P, Pastel M, Mysler G. Garantía De Calidad De Los Servicios De Mamografía: Normas Básicas Para América Latina Y El Caribe [Internet]. 2016. p. 60. Disponible en: http:// iris.paho.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/31293/9789275319260- spa.pdf?sequence=7&isAllowed=y.

  3. DANE. Índice de mortalidad por cancer de mama [Internet]. 20 de marzo 2017. 2017. Disponible en: http://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/estadisticas- por-tema/salud/nacimientos-y-defunciones/defunciones-no-fetales/ defunciones-no-fetales-2016.

  4. Chevalier M, Torres R. Mamografía digital. 2010;11(1):11-26.

  5. Ministerio de la Protección Social. Guía de práctica clínica (GPC) para la detección temprana, seguimiento y rehabilitación del cáncer de próstata. 2013.

  6. Maria S, Souza PDE, Silva TB, Hidemi A, Watanabe U, Syrjänen K. Implementation of a Clinical Quality Control Program in a Mammography Screening Service of Brazil. Anticancer Res. 2014;34:5057-65.

  7. Martínez H, Wiesner C, Arcinieras M, Poveda C, Puerto D, Ardila I, et al. La calidad de la mamografía en Colombia: análisis de un estudio piloto. An Radiol México. 2013;(3):164-74.

  8. Uchida DM. Screening mammography and the chilean reality [Internet]. Vol. 14, Revista Chilena de Radiología. 2008 [cited 2018 Aug 28]. Disponible en: https://scielo.conicyt.cl/pdf/rchradiol/v14n3/art05.pdf.

  9. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: Meta-narrative reviews. J Adv Nurs. 2013; 69(5):987-1004.

  10. Théberge I, Guertin MH, Vandal N, Daigle JM, Dufresne MP, Wadden N, et al. Clinical Image Quality and Sensitivity in an Organized Mammography Screening Program. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2018;69(1):16-23.

  11. Government of Canada HCHE and CSBSEPRPBRS and HAD. Canadian Mammography Quality Guidelines. 2002. Disponible en: http://www.hcsc. gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/02hecs-sesc267/index-eng.php#a32.

  12. Guertin MH, Théberge I, Dufresne MP, Zomahoun HTV, Major D, Tremblay R, et al. Clinical image quality in daily practice of breast cancer mammography screening. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2014;65(3):199-206.

  13. Donoghue CO, Eklund M, Ozanne EM, Esserman LJ, O’Donoghue C, Eklund M, et al. Aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States: comparison of current practice and advocated guidelines. Ann Intern Med [Internet]. 2014;160(3):145-54. Disponible en: http://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24658691.

  14. O’Connell A, Conover DL, Zhang Y, Seifert P, Logan-Young W, Lin CFL, et al. Cone-beam CT for breast imaging: Radiation dose, breast coverage, and image quality. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(2):496-509.

  15. Chubak J, Boudreau DM, Fishman PA, Elmore JG. Cost of breast-related care in the year following false positive screening mammograms. Med Care. 2010;48(9):815-20.

  16. Koch H, Castro MVK. Qualidade da interpretação do diagnóstico mamográfico. Radiol Bras [Internet]. 2010;43(2):97-101. Disponible en: http:// www. scielo. br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-39842010000200009&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt.

  17. Pereira FH, Baptista EA, Coppini NL, Do Espírito-Santo R, De Oliveira AJ. Low-loss image compression techniques for cutting tool images: a comparative study of compression quality measures. Exacta [Internet]. 2010;8(2):225-35. Disponible en: http://www4.uninove.br/ojs/index.php/ exacta/article/view/2000.

  18. Da Silva SD, Joana GS, Oliveira BB, de Oliveira MA, Leyton F, Nogueira M do S. Dosimetry and image quality in digital mammography facilities in the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Radiat Phys Chem [Internet]. 2015;116:292- 9. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2015.05.024.

  19. Xavier AC da S, Andrade MEA, Pinto BV-CC, Barros VSM de, Kramer R, Khoury HJ. Study on patient dosimetry and image quality in digital mammography. Res Biomed Eng [Internet]. 2017;33(2):138-43. Disponible en: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2446- 47402017000200138&lng=en&tlng=en.

  20. Gaona E, Rivera T, Arreola M, Franco J, Molina N, Alvarez B, et al. Exploratory survey of image quality on CR digital mammography imaging systems in Mexico. Appl Radiat Isot [Internet]. 2014;83:245-8. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2013.07.009.

  21. Gaona E, Corona W, Perales Corona W, Franco Enriquez JG, Frechero NM, Gaona Castañeda G. Optimización de la calidad de imagen en la mamografía analógica y su comparación con la mamografía digital. An Radiol Mex. 2012;11(1):3-10.

  22. Taylor K, Parashar D, Bouverat G, Poulos A, Gullien R, Stewart E, et al. Mammographic image quality in relation to positioning of the breast: A multicentre international evaluation of the assessment systems currently used, to provide an evidence base for establishing a standardised method of assessment. Radiography [Internet]. 2017;23(4):343-9. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2017.03.004.

  23. Živkovi MM, Stantic TJ, Ciraj-bjelac OF. Technical aspects of quality as surance in mammography: preliminary results from Serbia. Nucl Technol Radiat Prot. 2010;25(1):55-61.

  24. Spuur K, Hung WT, Poulos A, Rickard M. Mammography image quality: Model for predicting compliance with posterior nipple line criterion. Eur J Radiol [Internet]. 2011;80(3):713-8. Disponible en: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.06.026.

  25. Monnin P, Marshall NW, Bosmans H, Bochud FO, Verdun FR. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: Part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56(14):4221-38.

  26. Warren LM, MacKenzie A, Cooke J, Given-Wilson RM, Wallis MG, Chakraborty DP, et al. Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography. Med Phys. 2012;39(6):3202-13.

  27. Marshall NW, Monnin P, Bosmans H, Bochud FO, Verdun FR. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: Part I. Technical characterization of the systems. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56(14):4201-20.

  28. Živkovi MM, Stanti TJ, Ciraj-Bjelac OF. Technical aspects of quality as surance in mammography: preliminary results from serbia. 2010;25(1):55-61.

  29. Kosutic D, Ciraj-Bjelac O, Arandjic D. 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):293-7.

  30. Gwak YJ, Kim HJ, Kwak JY, Son EJ, Ko KH, Lee JH, et al. Clinical image evaluation of film mammograms in Korea: Comparison with the ACR standard. Korean J Radiol. 2013;14(5):701-10.

  31. Nguyen TL, Choi YH, Aung YK, Evans CF, Trinh NH, Li S, et al. Breast Cancer Risk Associations with Digital Mammographic Density by Pixel Brightness Threshold and Mammographic System. Radiology [Internet]. 2017;000(0):170306. Disponible en: http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/ radiol.2017170306.

  32. Hwang YS, Tsai HY, Chen CC, Tsay PK, Pan H Ben, Hsu GC, et al. Effects of quality assurance regulatory enforcement on performance of mammography systems: Evidence from large-scale surveys in taiwan. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(2):307-12.

  33. Alkhalifah K, Brindabhan A, Alsaeed R. Effect of exposure factors on image quality in screening mammography. Radiography [Internet]. 2017;23(4):e99-102. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. radi.2017.05.005

  34. European Commission. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition [Internet]. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 2013. p. 138. Disponible en: http://www.euref.org/european-Guidelines.

  35. Kanal KM, Krupinski E, Berns EA, Geiser WR, Karellas A, Mainiero MB, et al. ACR-AAPM-SIIM practice guideline for determinants of image quality in digital mammography. J Digit Imaging. 2013;26(1):10-25.

  36. Ozsoy A, Aribal E, Araz L, Erdogdu MB, Sari A, Sencan I, et al. Mammography quality in Turkey: Auditors’ report on a nationwide survey. Iran J Radiol. 2017;14(1):10-4.

  37. Van Ongeval C, Van Steen A, Geniets C, Dekeyzer F, Bosmans H, Marchal G. Clinical image quality criteria for full field digital mammography: A first practical application. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008;129(1-3):265-70.

  38. Ciraj-Bjelac O, Avramova-Cholakova S, Beganovic A, Economides S, Faj D, Gershan V, et al. Image quality and dose in mammography in 17 countries in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe: Results from IAEA projects. Eur J Radiol [Internet]. 2012;81(9):2161-8. Disponible en: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.05.026.

  39. Gürdemir B, Aribal E. Assessment of mammography quality in stanbul. Diagnostic Interv Radiol. 2012;18(5):468-72.

  40. Brnić Z, Blašković D, Klasić B, Ramač JP, Flegarić-Bradić M, Štimac D, et al. Image quality of mammography in Croatian nationwide screening program: Comparison between various types of facilities. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(4):478-85.

  41. Boyce M, Gullien R, Parashar D, Taylor K. Comparing the use and interpretation of PGMI scoring to assess the technical quality of screening mammograms in the UK and Norway. Radiography [Internet]. 2015;21(4):342-7. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2015.05.006.

  42. Mackenzie A, Warren LM, Wallis MG, Given-Wilson RM, Cooke J, Dance DR, et al. The relationship between cancer detection in mammography and image quality measurements. Phys Medica [Internet]. 2016;32(4):568-74. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.03.004.

  43. Bentley K, Poulos A, Rickard M. Mammography image quality: Analysis of evaluation criteria using pectoral muscle presentation. Radiography. 2008;14(3):189-94.

  44. Patel BK, Gray RJ, Pockaj BA. Potential cost savings of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(6):W231-7.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com