7.2.4. Image quality with breast mimicking phantom7.2.4.1. ScopeThis test is provided as an interim measure, to be used as an alternative to the tests described in Section 7.2.3in cases where quantitative analysis tools for QC are not made available to the user. Such tools are considered to beimportant as part of overall QA, and their absence is considered to be an unacceptable situation for the long term.Generally, a quantitative test is preferable, as it is more objective and reproducible. No particular phantom can berecommended. Instead, a facility could use whatever nationally or internationally recommended phantom iscurrently used for its screen film programme.— Objective: To ensure that the overall image quality has not degraded from baseline performance levels andthat there are no obvious artefacts.— Minimum frequency: Weekly.7.2.4.2. Instrumentation(1) Breast phantom containing structures mimicking those found in the breast.(2) Baseline phantom image (This should have been retained from a previous physics testing, at acceptance orcommissioning).(3) Magnifying lens (4× to 5× magnification, only for images on hard copy).7.2.4.3. Methodology(1) Place the phantom on the breast support, positioned flush with the chest wall and centred laterally.(2) Lower the compression paddle to apply a clinically realistic compression force (e.g. 80 N).(3) If there is a separate AEC sensor, confirm that it is under the phantom.(4) Make an exposure with the technique factors used in the clinical practice for a breast with characteristicsequivalent to those of the phantom. Normally this is achieved by using the automatic exposure mode.Otherwise, select the appropriate target, filter, kV, grid, density control position and operation mode(semiautomatic or automatic).(5) On the corresponding data collection sheet, record the exposure factors and technique used; for CR systems,record the EI (see Table 6).(6) Process the image using the algorithms that would be used clinically.(7) View this image in a manner similar to that used clinically. Ideally, this should be done on the radiologistworkstation. If this is not possible, it can be done on the acquisition workstation. Images should be evaluatedon the viewbox if interpretation is done from printed films.(8) Compare this image with the baseline image obtained on this system. Determine if there are artefacts that maybe confused with any of the phantom details. With suitable magnification, carefully examine the image fornon-uniform areas, the effects of dirt or dust, lines, image processing artefacts or any other type of artefact.(9) If desired, evaluate the image according to the evaluation method provided by the manufacturer 5 . Record thedata on a data collection sheet (e.g. Chart 8 in Annex I), and record the test outcome on the daily and weeklychecklist (Chart 1 in Annex I).(10) Investigate the causes of any artefacts.5A description of how this is done for the American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom is provided in thereport Quality Assurance Programme for Screen Film Mammography (IAEA Human Health Series No. 2 [34]).62
7.2.4.4. Interpretation of results and conclusionsTolerances:(1) The mAs used for the phantom exposure should be within ±10% of the baseline mAs value if the kV and filterhave not changed.(2) For CR systems, the tolerances for the EI given in Table 7 should not be exceeded.(3) There should be no significant degradation of image quality from the baseline image. Note that the imagequality assessment of the phantom should yield results that are as good as or better than those expected withhigh quality screen film mammography as tested with the same phantom.(4) There should be no blotches or regions of altered noise appearance.(5) There should be no observable lines or structural artefacts.(6) There should be no ‘bright’ or ‘dark’ pixels evident.7.2.4.5. Recommendations and corrective actionsIf results are outside the tolerances or are unacceptable, the tests should be repeated. If the results remainunacceptable, it may be appropriate to contact the responsible medical physicist for further advice on implementingthe recommendations listed below:(1) If the image quality deteriorates over time, it will be necessary to carry out other investigations to determinethe source of the change 6 . A simple review of whether appropriate settings (e.g. kV, AEC, display, processingalgorithms) have been used may reveal the source of the problem. Verify whether there has been a softwareupgrade of the system that has changed the AEC settings. Otherwise, a more serious underlying problem mayrequire the assistance of the medical physicist.(2) If any artefacts are visible that might mimic or obscure anatomic information, or if any patterns are seen, arecalibration or flat fielding of the digital detector is needed. After this has been done, repeat the artefactphantom test. If artefacts persist, contact the authorized service representative.7.2.4.6. Time frame for corrective actionImmediately: If this test fails, do not image patients until corrective action has been taken.6Due to the subjectivity associated with the observer, it is recommended that the test always be performed by the same person,using the same criteria and viewing conditions.63