Quality Controls in Digital Mammography protocol of the EFOMP Mammo Working group.

This article aims to present the protocol on Quality Controls in Digital Mammography published online in 2015 by the European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics (EFOMP) which was developed by a Task Force under the Mammo Working Group. The main objective of this protocol was to define a minimum set of easily implemented quality control tests on digital mammography systems that can be used to assure the performance of a system within a set and acceptable range. Detailed step-by-step instructions have been provided, limiting as much as possible any misinterpretations or variations by the person performing. It is intended that these tests be implemented as part of the daily routine of medical physicists and system users throughout Europe in a harmonised way so allowing results to be compared. In this paper the main characteristics of the protocol are illustrated, including examples, together with a brief summary of the contents of each chapter. Finally, instructions for the download of the full protocol and of the related software tools are provided.

[1]  Per Skaane,et al.  Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--Oslo I study. , 2003, Radiology.

[2]  Per Skaane,et al.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study. , 2004, Radiology.

[3]  K. Robson.  A parametric method for determining mammographic X-ray tube output and half value layer. , 2001, The British journal of radiology.

[4]  Margarita Chevalier,et al.  Patient dose in digital mammography. , 2004, Medical physics.

[5]  Silvia Obenauer,et al.  Soft Copy versus Hard Copy Reading in Digital Mammography , 2003, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[6]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. , 2005, Medical physics.

[7]  Maryann Chorlton,et al.  Digital mammographic artifacts on full-field systems: what are they and how do I fix them? , 2008, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[8]  Walter Huda,et al.  How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography? , 2002, Academic radiology.

[9]  Norimitsu Shinohara,et al.  Computerized quantitative evaluation of mammographic accreditation phantom images. , 2010, Medical physics.

[10]  G Contento,et al.  Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography. , 2008, Medical physics.

[12]  Gisella Gennaro,et al.  Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography , 2006, European Radiology.

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

[14]  C. J. Kotre,et al.  Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  Martin J. Yaffe,et al.  A Harmonized Quality Control Program for Digital Mammography , 2006, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[16]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography , 2013, European Radiology.

[17]  D. Dance,et al.  Further factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[18]  M. Chevalier,et al.  A phantom using titanium and Landolt rings for image quality evaluation in mammography , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[19]  G. Gennaro,et al.  A multiparametric automatic method to monitor long-term reproducibility in digital mammography: results from a regional screening programme , 2017, European Radiology.

[20]  A comparison of digital and screen-film mammography using quality control phantoms. , 2000, Clinical radiology.