Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 MSc, Electronic Engineering, Cancer Prevention Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Specialist, Community Medicine, Cancer Prevention Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
3 Radiologist, Cancer Prevention Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
4 BSc, Electronic Engineering, Cancer Prevention Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
Introduction: Mammography is the cornerstone of breast cancer screening and early detection. This study was conducted to investigate the status of digital mammography facilities in Isfahan City, Iran, in terms of equipment and physical-quality requirements, to offer solutions to improve the current situation.Methods: In this descriptive study, all 15 active digital mammography facilities (DMF) in Isfahan City were visited by a medical physicist. Data were collected using a researcher-made checklist including 40 items and topics of calibration, general condition of equipment, dosimetry, quality of images, and printers. Instructions and quality control reports of devices were evaluated and compared with the guidelines of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI).Results: All the DMFs passed the standards of AEOI. The most important problem was that in majority of DMFs, the diagnosis room was not equipped with standard medical monitors or these monitors were not utilized. The differences between evaluated resolution measures of the device with results reported by quality control companies, lack of attention to expiration dates of received films by operator, lack of phantom for periodic calibration by operator, lack of attention to mean glandular dose and surface dose indicator, and printing four images on one film were the other observed problems.Conclusion: It is recommended to pay more attention to installation and operational standards of the equipment and conduct periodic surveys of DMFs. Moreover, equipping the centers with the diagnostic rooms is essential. Although all the medical imaging centers are obliged to conduct annual quality control tests on their equipment by qualified companies, investigating DMFs revealed that these quality control tests are not sufficient.
Keywords
- Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015; 136(5): E359-E386.
- Jena AB, Huang J, Fireman B, Fung V, Gazelle S, Landrum MB, et al. Screening mammography for free: Impact of eliminating cost sharing on cancer screening rates. Health Serv Res 2017; 52(1): 191-206.
- Jacklyn G, Glasziou P, Macaskill P, Barratt A. Meta-analysis of breast cancer mortality benefit and overdiagnosis adjusted for adherence: Improving information on the effects of attending screening mammography. Br J Cancer 2016; 114(11): 1269-76.
- Nelson HD, Fu R, Cantor A, Pappas M, Daeges M, Humphrey L. Effectiveness of breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis to update the 2009 U.S. preventive services task force recommendation. Ann Intern Med 2016; 164(4): 244-55.
- Skaane P, Skjennald A, Young K, Egge E, Jebsen I, Sager EM, et al. Follow-up and final results of the Oslo I Study comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading. Acta Radiol 2005; 46(7): 679-89.
- Rauscher GH, Murphy AM, Orsi JM, Dupuy DM, Grabler PM, Weldon CB. Beyond the mammography quality standards act: Measuring the quality of breast cancer screening programs. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202(1): 145-51.
- Sirous M, Shahnani PS, Sirous A. Investigation of Frequency Distribution of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) classification and epidemiological factors related to breast cancer in Iran: A 7-year study (2010-2016). Adv Biomed Res 2018; 7: 56.
- Reis C, Pascoal A, Sakellaris T, Koutalonis M. Quality assurance and quality control in mammography: a review of available guidance worldwide. Insights Imaging 2013; 4(5): 539-53.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. MQSA National Statistics [Online]. [cited 2019 Jan 7]; Available from: URL: https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/mqsa-insights/mqsa-national-statistics
- Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. Ann Oncol 2008; 19(4): 614-22.
- Young KC, Cook JJH, Oduko JM. Use of the European protocol to optimise a digital mammography system. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2006 p. 362-9.
- Marshall NW, Mackenzie A, Honey ID. Quality control measurements for digital x-ray detectors. Phys Med Biol 2011; 56(4): 979-99.
- Gennaro G, Avramova-Cholakova S, Azzalini A, Luisa CM, Chevalier M, Ciraj O, et al. Quality controls in digital mammography protocol of the EFOMP Mammo Working group. Phys Med 2018; 48: 55-64.
- Pedersen K, Landmark ID. Trial of a proposed protocol for constancy control of digital mammography systems. Med Phys 2009; 36(12): 5537-46.
- Yaffe MJ, Bloomquist AK, Mawdsley GE, Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Fajardo LL, et al. Quality control for digital mammography: part II. Recommendations from the ACRIN DMIST trial. Med Phys 2006; 33(3): 737-52.
- Camargo-Mendoza RlE, Poletti ME, Costa AM, Caldas LVE. Measurement of some dosimetric parameters for two mammography systems using thermoluminescent dosimetry. Radiation Measurements 2011; 46(12): 2086-9.
- Odle TG. Radiation Dose in Breast Imaging. Radiol Technol 2018; 89(4): 371M-90M.
- Osteras BH, Skaane P, Gullien R, Martinsen ACT. Average glandular dose in paired digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis acquisitions in a population based screening program: effects of measuring breast density, air kerma and beam quality. Phys Med Biol 2018; 63(3): 035006.
- Dance DR, Young KC, van Engen RE. Further factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol 2009; 54(14): 4361-72.
)