Mammographic image quality criteria: A literature review identifies differences between evidence based and historic criteria

Abstract

Objective Detection of breast cancer through mammographic imaging is dependent on optimal breast positioning and quality images. The aim of the literature review was to explore and analyse international quality standards to establish the origin and validity of craniocaudal (CC) positioning image quality criteria. Method A thematic review of journals, books, professional organisation guidelines and breast screening programme documents was conducted. A focus was placed on positioning evaluation criteria for the CC view, the theme of the author’s PhD research. The comprehensive search was further advanced through review of in-text citations, references, and bibliographies. (1) Results Three key articles by Eklund and Cardenosa (1992)(2), Bassett, Hirbawi, DeBruhl, and Hayes (1993)(3), and Eklund, Cardenosa, and Parsons (1994)(4) were identified as key to the review. Discussion Analysis of the literature confirmed that international quality standards continue to differ in image quality criteria. Most literature continues to cite the three early publications without critical evaluation. This suggests that at least some mammographic image evaluation is based on historic criteria, rather than being fully evidence based. This may impact upon clinical image assessment comparisons and effective research into mammography. Conclusion The lack of quantitative metrics and differences in criteria for the CC view may challenge objective evaluation and reproducibility for optimal positioning and image quality. References 1. Sweeney R-JI, Lewis SJ, Hogg P, McEntee MF. A review of mammographic positioning image quality criteria for the craniocaudal projection. The British Journal of Radiology. 2018;91(1082):20170611. 2. Eklund GW, Cardenosa G. The art of mammographic positioning. Radiologic Clinics of North America. 1992;30(1):21-53. 3. Bassett LW, Hirbawi IA, DeBruhl N, Hayes MK. Mammographic positioning: evaluation from the view box. Radiology. 1993;188(3):803-6. 4. Eklund GW, Cardenosa G, Parsons W. Assessing adequacy of mammographic image quality. Radiology. 1994;190(2):297-307.