The purpose of this study was to assess local diagnostic reference levels (LDRLs) for full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) mammography in India. Data from 1500 women were collected from five different mammography facilities in major cities in Tamil Nadu, India. The mean of mean glandular dose were used to arrive at an LDRL. The noted mean compressed breast thickness was 55.26 ± 3.4. The recorded mean MGDs for the five centres were 3.1 ± 0.1 and 3.8 ± 0.2 mGy for FFDM and DBT, respectively. The 75th percentile value for all five centers is 3.3 and 4.0 mGy for FFDM and DBT, respectively. The LDRLs found in the current study were also compared with those from earlier studies conducted in other nations, such as the United Kingdom, Malaysia, Morocco, and Ghana. The present study is the first of its kind to determine the LDRL for the FFDM and DBT scanners operating in the Tamil Nadu region, India, and is proposed as a starting point that will allow professionals to evaluate and optimize their practice. Furthermore, similar studies in other regions of India are necessary in order to establish National DRLs.
The systematic monitoring of image quality and radiation dose is an ultimate solution to ensuring the continuously high quality of mammography examination. At present several protocols exist around the world, and different test objects are used for quality control (QC) of the physical and technical aspects of screen-film mammography. This situation may lead to differences in radiation image quality and dose reported. This article reviews the global QC perspective for the physical and technical aspects of screen-film mammography with regard to image quality and radiation dose. It points out issues that must be resolved in terms of radiation dose and that also affect the comparison.
Rationale and objectives: Target recall rates are often used as a performance indicator in mammography screening programs with the intention of reducing false positive decisions, over diagnosis and anxiety for participants. However, the relationship between target recall rates and cancer detection is unclear, especially when readers are directed to adhere to a predetermined rate. The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of setting different recall rates on radiologist’s performance. Materials and Methods: Institutional ethics approval was granted and informed consent was obtained from each participating radiologist. Five experienced breast imaging radiologists read a single test set of 200 mammographic cases (20 abnormal and 180 normal). The radiologists were asked to identify each case that they required to be recalled in three different recall conditions; free recall, 15% and 10% and mark the location of any suspicious lesions. Results: Wide variability in recall rates was observed when reading at free recall, ranging from 18.5% to 34.0%. Readers demonstrated significantly reduced performance when reading at prescribed recall rates, with lower sensitivity (H=12.891, P=0.002), case location sensitivity (H=12.512, P=0.002) and ROC AUC (H=11.601, P=0.003) albeit with an increased specificity (H=12.704, P=0.002). However, no significant changes were evident in lesion location sensitivity (H=1.982, P=0.371) and JAFROC FOM (H=1.820, P=0.403). Conclusion: In this laboratory study, reducing the number of recalled cases to 10% significantly reduced radiologists’ performance with lower detection sensitivity, although a significant improvement in specificity was observed.
After years of establishment of computed radiography (CR) and digital radiography (DR), manufacturers have introduced exposure indicator/index (EI) as a feedback mechanism for patient dose. However, EI consistency is uncertain for CR. Most manufacturers recommended EI values in a range of numbers for all examination, instead of giving the exact range for a specific body part, raising a concern of inappropriate exposure given to the patient in clinical practice. The aims of this study were to investigate the EI consistency in DR systems produced in constant exposure parameters and clinical condition, and to determine the interaction between the anatomical part and EI. A phantom study of skull, chest, abdomen and hand was carried out and four systems were used for comparison-Fuji CR, Carestream CR, Siemens DR and Carestream DR. For each projection, the phantom positioning and exposure parameters were set according to the standard clinical practice. All exposure parameters and clinical conditions were kept constant. Twenty (20) exposures were taken for each projection and the EI was recorded. Findings showed that EI is not consistent in DR systems despite constant exposure parameters and clinical condition except in Siemens DR, through skull examination. Statistical analysis showed a significant interaction between anatomical parts and EI values (P < 0.05). EI alone was proven to be less reliable to provide technologist a correct feedback on exposure level. The interaction between anatomical parts and EI values intensifies the need for an anatomical-specific EI values set by all manufacturers for accurate feedback on the exposure parameters used and the detector entrance dose.