Quality assurance in mammography: Artifact analysis

Radiographics

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 503-522

  Hogge, Jacquelyn P ^a   Palmer, Carolyn H ^a   Muller, Caroline C ^a   Little, Sherrill T ^a   Smith, Deborah C ^b   Fatouros, Panos P ^a   De Paredes, Ellen Shaw ^a  

^a VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast radiography, 00.112; Breast radiography, quality assurance

Indexed keywords

ARTIFACT; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; REVIEW; STANDARD;

ARTIFACTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE;

EID: 0033091806     PISSN: 02715333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiographics.19.2.g99mr13503     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Farria DM, Bassett LW, Kimme-Smith C, DeBruhl N. Mammographic quality assurance from A to Z. RadioGraphics 1994; 14:371-385.
2. American College of Radiology. Mammography quality control manual. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1994.
3. Eklund GW, Cardenosa G, Parsons W. Assessing adequacy of mammographic image quality. Radiology 1994; 190:297-307.
4. Bassett LW. Quality determinants of mammography: clinical image evaluation. In: Kopans DB, Mendelson EB, eds. Syllabus: a categorical course in breast imaging. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 1995; 57-67.
5. Cardenosa G. Breast imaging companion. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott-Raven, 1997; 93-123.
6. Langer TL. QC troubleshooting. In: de Paredes ES, ed. Syllabus: 11th annual update in breast imaging. Richmond, Va: Medical College of Virginia, 1996; 315-337.
7. Haus AG. Screen-film image receptors and film processing. In: Haus AG, Yaffe MJ, eds. Syllabus: a categorical course in physics. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 1993; 83-99.
8. Vyborny CJ, Schmidt RA. Technical image quality and the visibility of mammographic detail. In: Haus AG, Yaffe MJ, eds. Syllabus: a categorical course in physics. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 1993; 101-109.
9. Ellis RL, Dempsey PJ, Pile NS, Bernreuter WK. Mammography of breasts in which catheter cuffs have been retained. AJR 1997; 169:713-715.
10. Beyer GA, Thorsen MK, Shaffer KA, Walker AP. Mammographic appearance of the retained Dacron cuff of a Hickman catheter. AJR 1990; 155:1203-1204.
11. Korbin CD, Denison CM, Lester S. Metallic particles on mammography after wire localization. AJR 1997; 169:1637-1638.
12. Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Thornton CM, Rosen PP. Clip placement after stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology 1997; 205:417-422.
13. Beres RA, Harrington DG, Wenzel MS. Percutaneous repair of breast pseudoaneurysm: sonographically guided embolization. AJR 1997; 169: 425-427.
14. Fajardo LL, Bird RE, Herman CR, DeAngelis GA. Placement of endovascular embolization microcoils to localize the site of breast lesions removed at stereotactic core biopsy. Radiology 1998; 206:275-278.
15. Fornage BD. Sonographic diagnosis of a retained surgical sponge in the breast. J Clin Ultrasound 1987; 15:285-288.