Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jun 4;9(2):E607-E612.
doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20200211. Print 2021 Apr-Jun.

Evaluation of the quality of mammographic breast positioning: a quality improvement study

Julie Rouette  1 , Noémie Elfassy  1 , Nathaniel Bouganim  1 , Hui Yin  1 , Nathaniel Lasry  1 , Laurent Azoulay  2
Affiliations

Evaluation of the quality of mammographic breast positioning: a quality improvement study

Julie Rouette et al. CMAJ Open. .

Abstract

Background: Although there are concerns that inadequate breast positioning in mammographic examinations may lead to cancers being missed, few studies have examined the quality of breast positioning, especially in the Canadian context. Our objective was to assess the quality of breast positioning in mammographic examinations in a Quebec-wide representative sample of technologists.

Methods: This quality improvement study was part of a professional inspection launched by the Ordre des technologues en imagerie médicale, en radio-oncologie et en électrophysiologie médicale du Québec among its members. The inspection was conducted between May and July 2017 on a proportionate stratified random sample of all active technologists certified in mammography in Quebec. Each technologist provided images from 15 consecutive mammographic examinations they performed in the previous 6 months. The quality of positioning was then evaluated by senior technologists using a quality assessment tool specifically developed for this inspection. A technologist was deemed to have failed the professional inspection when at least 7 of the 15 mammographic examinations were scored as critical failures. Proportions were calculated accounting for sampling weights and correction for finite population.

Results: Among the 520 technologists certified in mammography in Quebec, 76 technologists (14.6%) were randomly selected for the professional inspection and contributed images from 1127 mammographic examinations. Thirty-eight technologists (weighted percentage 50.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 37.6% to 63.0%) failed the professional inspection. Overall, 492 mammographic examinations (43.7%, 95% CI 38.6% to 48.8%) had at least 1 image scored as a critical failure.

Interpretation: Half of the technologists performing mammographic examinations in Quebec who participated in this study failed the inspection, and a substantial proportion of their mammographic examinations demonstrated critical failures in breast positioning. Overall, our findings are concordant with those of previous studies and highlight the need for additional investigations assessing the quality of breast positioning in mammographic examinations in other jurisdictions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: Julie Rouette has received consulting fees from Biogen for work unrelated to this study. Nathaniel Bouganim has received consulting fees from Amgen, Novartis and Roche for work unrelated to this study. Nathaniel Lasry is a shareholder of iMD Research, which received a contract to assist with the design of the professional inspection of technologists from the Ordre des technologues en imagerie médicale, en radio-oncologie et en électrophysiologie médicale du Québec. Laurent Azoulay has received consulting fees from Janssen and Pfizer for work unrelated to this study. No other competing interests were declared.

References

    1. Canadian Cancer Statistics Advisory Committee. Canadian cancer statistics 2019. Toronto: Canadian Cancer Society; 2019.
    1. Fuller MS, Lee CI, Elmore JG. Breast cancer screening: an evidence-based update. Med Clin North Am. 2015;99:451–68. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:168–75. - PubMed
    1. Richli Meystre N, Henner A, Sà Dos Reis C, et al. Characterization of radiographers’ mammography practice in five European countries: a pilot study. Insights Imaging. 2019;10:31. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Guertin M-H, Théberge I, Zomahoun HTV, et al. Mammography clinical image quality and the false positive rate in a Canadian breast cancer screening program. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2018;69:169–75. - PubMed

Publication types

Grants and funding