A review of methods of clinical image quality evaluation in mammography.

PURPOSE Consistency in evaluation of mammography images in research and clinical practice is dependent on a standardised clinical image quality evaluation system. Currently two such systems are available-one developed by the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the other by the European Commission (EU guidelines). The purpose of this study was to review mammography clinical evaluation methods in research studies and their adherence to these systems. METHOD A total of 23 research articles were reviewed from the period 2000-2006, 11 of these studies used digital images. The focus of the review was the criteria and rating scales used. RESULTS Only 5 studies used either the ACR (3) or EU guidelines (2). The remainder included aspects of these systems together with a range of other criteria and rating scales. Variation was found in the categories of criteria used, number of criteria, the descriptors of the criteria and the instructions used to evaluate the criteria. Instructions were frequently not specific and open to individual interpretation. Although breast density is an important criterion of image quality and contributes to perception of breast lesions, inclusion of this criterion was not universal, and even when used the area of breast density to be evaluated was not identified, thus enhancing inter-observer variability. Scales that were absolute or relative were used for evaluation, all of which incorporated inconsistent numbers of steps. CONCLUSION Low adherence to ACR and EU Guidelines has resulted in considerable variation in the evaluation methods used in research studies. The implications of this variability are considerable both for evaluation of image quality in research outcomes and clinical practice.

[1]  L W Bassett,et al.  Reasons for failure of a mammography unit at clinical image review in the American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program. , 2000, Radiology.

[2]  Mary Rickard,et al.  Breast compression in mammography: how much is enough? , 2003, Australasian radiology.

[3]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  ACR–AAPM–SIIM Practice Guideline for Determinants of Image Quality in Digital Mammography , 2013, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[4]  M. Brandan,et al.  Evaluation of equipment performance, patient dose, imaging quality, and diagnostic coincidence in five Mexico City mammography services. , 2004, Archives of medical research.

[5]  G. Marchal,et al.  Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen–film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial , 2006, European Radiology.

[6]  E. Sickles,et al.  Mammography with breast cushions. , 2005, Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health.

[7]  Comparison of the validity and reliability of two image classification systems for the assessment of mammogram quality , 2005, Journal of medical screening.

[8]  Liem T. Bui-Mansfield Breast Imaging, 3rd ed. , 2008 .

[9]  Thomas Stone Clinical image evaluation methods for calibration and QC , 1996, Medical Imaging.

[10]  Jung-Han Kim,et al.  Screen-Film Mammography and Soft-Copy Full-Field Digital Mammography: Comparison in the Patients with Microcalcifications , 2005, Korean journal of radiology.

[11]  N. Obuchowski,et al.  Comparing the performance of mammographic enhancement algorithms: a preference study. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  S. Feig,et al.  Image quality of screening mammography: effect on clinical outcome. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2006 .

[14]  M Ruschin,et al.  Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[15]  Emily White,et al.  Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[16]  Christiane Kulinna-Cosentini,et al.  Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates. , 2008, European journal of radiology.

[17]  M. Helvie,et al.  Adverse effects of increased body weight on quantitative measures of mammographic image quality. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  E. Bonaldo,et al.  Breast biphasic compression versus standard monophasic compression in X-ray mammography. , 2000, Radiology.

[19]  L. Liberman,et al.  Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). , 2002, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[20]  E. Grabbe,et al.  Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions , 2002, European Radiology.

[21]  L L Fajardo,et al.  Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. The International Digital Mammography Development Group. , 2000, Radiology.

[22]  S. Obenauer,et al.  Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography , 2002, European Radiology.

[23]  Emily White,et al.  Screening mammography: clinical image quality and the risk of interval breast cancer. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[24]  D. Blanc,et al.  European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images , 1998 .

[25]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  J. Heine,et al.  Mammographic tissue, breast cancer risk, serial image analysis, and digital mammography. Part 2. Serial breast tissue change and related temporal influences. , 2002, Academic radiology.

[27]  Glenys A. Hamilton,et al.  Image quality preferences among radiographers and radiologists. A conjoint analysis , 2005 .

[28]  Robert M. Nishikawa,et al.  Radiologists’ Preferences for Digital Mammographic Display , 2000 .

[29]  M Ruschin,et al.  Clinical evaluation of a new set of image quality criteria for mammography. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[30]  E. Denton,et al.  Can radiographers read screening mammograms? , 2003, Clinical radiology.

[31]  T. Helbich,et al.  Image quality of a wet laser printer versus a paper printer for full-field digital mammograms. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[32]  C D Claussen,et al.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection. , 2005, The British journal of radiology.

[33]  W F Good,et al.  Detection of masses and clustered microcalcifications on data compressed mammograms: an observer performance study. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[34]  Akihiro Sato,et al.  Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography: image contrast and lesion characterization. , 2003, Radiation medicine.