Author, Subjects, Keywords

Cited Author

 
 
   » By Author or Editor
 » Browse Author by Alphabet
 » By Journal
 » By Subjects
 » Malaysian Journals
 » By Type
 » By Year
 » By Latest Additions
 
 
   » By Author
 » Top 20 Authors
 » Top 20 Article
 » Top Journal Cited
 » Top Article Cited
 » Journal Citation Statistics
 » Usage Since Sept 2007


 
 
 

Login | Create Account

United States Radiological Health Activities: Inspection Results of Mammography Facilities

Spelic, D.C,, and Kaczmarek, R.V., and Hilohi, M., and Belella, S., (2007) United States Radiological Health Activities: Inspection Results of Mammography Facilities. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal, 3 (2). e35.

[img]
Preview
PDF - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
1521Kb

Official URL: http://www.biij.org/2007/2/e35/e35.pdf

Affiliations

Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, USA. Division of Mammography Quality and Radiation Programs
Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, USA. Division of Mammography Quality and Radiation Programs
Crofton SFA Inc, Maryland, USA
Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, USA. Division of Mammography Quality and Radiation Programs

Abstract

Purpose: The Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) was enacted in 1992 to set national standards for high-quality mammography, including standards for mammographic X-ray equipment, patient dose, clinical image quality, and related technical parameters. The MQSA also requires minimum qualifications for radiologic technologists, interpreting physicians and medical physicists, mandates acceptable practices for quality-control, quality-assurance, and requires processes to audit medical outcomes. This paper presents the findings of MQSA inspections of facilities, which characterize significant factors affecting mammography quality in the United States.
Materials and Methods: Trained inspectors collected data regarding X-ray technical factors, made exposure measurements for the determination of mean glandular dose (MGD), evaluated image quality, and inspected the quality of the film-processing environment. The average annual facility and total U.S. screening exam workloads were computed using workload data reported by facilities.
Results: Mammography facilities have made technical improvements as evidenced by a narrower distribution of doses, higher phantom-film background optical densities associated with higher phantom image-quality scores, and better film processing. It is estimated that approximately 36 million screening mammography exams were conducted in 2006, a rate that is almost triple the exam volume estimated for 1997. Digital mammography (DM) is now in use at approximately 14% (1,191 of 8,834) of MQSA-certified mammography facilities. The results indicate that DM can offer lower dose to the patient while providing comparable or better image quality.

Item Type:Journal
Keywords:Digital Mammography, Radiation Dose, Darkroom Fog
Subjects:R Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Nursing
ID Code:4943

1. Jans RG, Butler PF, McCrohan JL Jr et al. The status of film/screen mammography. Results of the BENT study. Radiology 1979; 132(1):197-200.

2. Conway BJ, Suleiman OH, Rueter FG et al. National survey of mammographic facilities in 1985, 1988, and 1992. Radiology 1994; 191(2):323-30.

3. Suleiman OH, Spelic DC, McCrohan JL et al. Mammography in the 1990s: the United States and Canada. Radiology 1999; 210(2):345-51.

4. Equipment. in: National Council of Radiation and Measurements. A Guide to Mammography and Other Breast Imaging Procedures. 2004. (NCRP Report; 149).

5. Gennaro G, di Maggio C. Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography. Eur Radiol 2006; 16(11):2559-66.

6. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR. Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice. Med Phys 2002; 29(5):830-4.

7. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353(17):1773-83.

8. Gotzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 2000; 355:129-34.

9. Feig SA. Adverse effects of screening mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 2004; 42(5):807-19, v.

10. United States Department of Health and Human Services. [Press Release]. 2002.

11. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 353(17):1784-92.

12. Wu X, Barnes GT, Tucker DM. Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography. Radiology 1991; 179(1):143-8.

13. Suleiman OH, Rueter FG, Antonsen RG et al. The sensitometric technique for the evaluation of processing (STEP). Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1993; 49:105-6.

14. West MS, Spelic DC. Using light sensitometry to evaluate mammography film performance. Med Phys 2000; 27(5):854-60.

15. Haus AG, Yaffe MJ, Feig SA et al. Relationship between phantom failure rates and radiation dose in mammography accreditation. Med Phys 2001; 28(11):2297-301.

16. The American College of Radiology. Mammography Quality Control Manual. American College of Radiology, 1999.

17. Young KC, Burch A, Oduko JM. Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 2001 and 2002. Br J Radiol 2005; 78(927):207-18.

18. Zoetelief J, Veldkamp WJ, Thijssen MA et al. Glandularity and mean glandular dose determined for individual women at four regional breast cancer screening units in the Netherlands. Phys Med Biol 2006; 51(7):1807-17.

19. Jamal N, Ng KH, McLean D. A study of mean glandular dose during diagnostic mammography in Malaysia and some of the factors affecting it. Br J Radiol 2003; 76(904):238-45.

20. Toledano A, Pisano E, Yaffe M et al. Relationship of Diagnostic Accuracies of Film-Screen and Digital Mammography to Breast Density in the DMIST Conducted by the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN). In: Breast Imaging (Digital Mammography: The ACRIN DMIST Results). SSA15. (92nd Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA).

Repository Staff Only: item control page
 
 
 
 
 
 
© Copyright 2007 MyAIS Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya – All Rights Reserved. Malaysian Abstracting and Indexing System is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.