This poster is published under an
open license. Please read the
disclaimer for further details.
Keywords:
Breast, Mammography, Screening, Audit and standards, Education and training, Quality assurance
Authors:
C. E. Mercer1, K. Szczepura1, J. Kelly2, S. Millington2, E. Denton3, R. Borgen4, B. Hilton4, P. Hogg1; 1Manchester/UK, 2Chester/UK, 3Norwich/UK, 4Lancs/UK
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2015/B-1026
Results
Practitioner Variability20:
The mean number of clients imaged by all practitioners at each site was assessed (Figure One and Two) by analysis of variance (ANOVA):
- Significant difference (p<0.0001) between sites ‘one and three’,
and ‘two and three’.
This holds true within each BI-RADS grade.
- Sites one and two demonstrated no significant difference (CC p>0.5,
MLO p> 0.1).
This holds true within each BI-RADS grade.
Compression Force20:
First and third quartile results at all sites were analysed:
- Significant difference (p<0.0001) between sites ‘one and three’ and sites ‘two and three’ for CC and MLO views.
Holds true within each BI-RADS grade.
- Sites one and two demonstrated no significant difference (first quartile p>0.1,
third quartile p>0.5).
Holds true within each BI-RADS grade.
Percentage changes in breast compression force from 3 screening Mammograms (Figure Three):
- MLO: Sites ‘one and three’ and ‘two and three’ demonstrated a significant difference (p<0.0001) and this holds true within each BI-RADS grade.
- CC: Sites one and two demonstrated no significant difference (p>0.2),
this holds true for each BI-RADS grade.
- No significant difference was demonstrated between sites ‘one and two’ (p>0.5).
- Site three displays low client variability over the three screens
Breast Thickness20:
Compressed breast thickness ranges at all sites were compared (Figure Four),
first and third quartile values (Figure Five) for CC and MLO.
ANOVA of mean compressed breast thickness values:
- Significant difference (p<0.0001) between ‘site one and three’ and site ‘two and three’ (CC and MLO).
- Site one and two demonstrated no significant difference in mean CC values of thickness (p>0.5) - Holds true within each BI-RADS grade.
- Practitioners at site three applied higher compression values – breast thicknesses at this centre are smallest.
ANOVA of first and third quartile compressed breast thickness values:
- Significant differences (p<0.0001) in first and third quartile breast compressed thickness values between sites ‘one and three’ and sites ‘two and three’ - holds true within each BI-RADS grade.
- Site ‘one and two’ demonstrated no significant difference in values of thickness (p>0.5) - holds true within each BI-RADS grade.