Mammographic positioning quality of newly trained versus experienced radiographers in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to compare mammographic positioning quality of new (NR) versus experienced screening radiographers (ER) in the Netherlands. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Before starting to work in breast screening, NR must complete an education programme including a theoretical course (four days), practical training (six weeks), and a portfolio-review of 50 mammographic screening examinations performed by the radiographer. Furthermore, Dutch screening has an extensive system of quality assurance, including an audit-review of positioning quality of mammograms by ER. We analysed 13,520 portfolio views (NR) and 14,896 audit views (ER) based on pre-specified criteria, e.g., depiction of inframammary angle. RESULTS: Overall positioning was more adequate for NR than ER (CC views: 97% versus 86%, p = 0.00; MLO views: 92% versus 84%, p = 0.00). NR scored better for most of the CC-criteria and showed, for instance, less folds (inadequate: 10% versus 16%, p = 0.00). In contrast, NR encountered more difficulties for MLO views in, for example, depiction of infra-mammary angle (inadequate: 38% versus 34%, p = 0.00). Overall, mammograms from NR were more often considered adequate, because of less severe errors. CONCLUSION: NR perform better than ER in overall positioning technique. These results stress the need for continuous monitoring and training in breast screening programmes to keep positioning skills up to date. KEY POINTS: • We evaluated positioning quality of new and experienced Dutch screening radiographers. • New radiographers outperform their experienced colleagues in mammographic positioning quality. • New radiographers make less severe errors compared to experienced colleagues. • There is a need for a continuous individual monitoring and feedback system.

Value of audits in breast cancer screening quality assurance programmes.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to retrospectively evaluate the results of all audits performed in the past and to assess their value in the quality assurance of the Dutch breast cancer screening programme. METHODS: The audit team of the Dutch Reference Centre for Screening (LRCB) conducts triennial audits of all 17 reading units. During audits, screening outcomes like recall rates and detection rates are assessed and a radiological review is performed. This study investigates and compares the results of four audit series: 1996-2000, 2001-2005, 2003-2007 and 2010-2013. RESULTS: The analysis shows increased recall rates (from 0.66%, 1.07%, 1.22% to 1.58%), increased detection rates (from 3.3, 4.5, 4.8 to 5.4 per 1000) and increased sensitivity (from 64.5%, 68.7%, 70.5% to 71.6%), over the four audit series. The percentage of 'missed cancers' among interval cancers and advanced screen-detected cancers did not change (p = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Our audits not only provide an opportunity for assessing screening outcomes, but also provide moments of self-reflection with peers. For radiologists, an accurate understanding of their performance is essential to identify points of improvement. We therefore recommend a radiological review of screening examinations and immediate feedback as part of an audit. KEY POINTS: • Radiological review and immediate feedback are recommended as part of an audit. • For breast screening radiologists, audits provide moments of self-reflection with peers. • Radiological review of screening examinations provides insights in recall behaviour. • Accurate understanding of radiologists' performance is essential to identify points of improvement.

Mammography with and without radiolucent positioning sheets: Comparison of projected breast area, pain experience, radiation dose and technical image quality.

PURPOSE: To compare projected breast area, image quality, pain experience and radiation dose between mammography performed with and without radiolucent positioning sheets. METHODS: 184 women screened in the Dutch breast screening programme (May-June 2012) provided written informed consent to have one additional image taken with positioning sheets. 5 cases were excluded (missing data). Pain was scored using the Numeric Rating Scale. Radiation dose was estimated using the Dance model and projected breast area using computer software. Two radiologists and two radiographers assessed image quality. RESULTS: With positioning sheets significantly more pectoral muscle, lateral and medial breast tissue was projected (CC-views) and more and deeper depicted pectoral muscle (MLO-views). In contrast, visibility of white and darker areas was better on images without positioning sheets, radiologists were therefore better able to detect abnormalities (MLO-views). Women experienced more pain with positioning sheets (MLO-views only, mean difference NRS 0.98; SD 1.71; p=0,00). CONCLUSION: Mammograms with positioning sheets showed more breast tissue. Increased breast thickness after compression with sheets resulted in less visibility of white and darker areas and thus reduced detection of abnormalities. Also, women experienced more pain (MLO-views) due to the sheet material. A practical consideration is the fact that more subcutaneous fat tissue and skin are being pulled forward leading to folds in the nipple area. On balance, improvement to the current design is required before implementation in screening practice can be considered.