Analysis of Technical Repeat Studies in Screening Mammography

Abstract Objective To identify causes of technical repeats, determine whether differences exist between mobile and fixed mammography units, evaluate the rate improvement on repeat imaging. Methods IRB approval was obtained for retrospective review Enhancing Quality Using Inspection Program (EQUIP) logs screening repeats performed from March 2017 to December 2018 at a hospital breast imaging center April units. Frequency tables Fisher’s exact tests were used statistical analysis. Results Technical deficiencies reported in 483 cases reviewed by two or three auditors. Auditors identified no 31 cases, which excluded. The remaining 452 assigned recall category: motion, positioning/excluded tissue, skin folds, artifacts, undercompression, contrast (under/overexposure). Motion most common category (253/452, 56.0%). Positioning/excluded tissue second reason (150/452, 33.2%). Statistically significant mammograms versus units motion (94/143, 65.7% vs 159/309, 51.5%, respectively, P = 0.0058), folds (16/143, 11.2% 15/309, 4.8%, 0.02), (30/143, 21% 120/309, 38.8%, 0.00016). Most recalls improved with (auditor 1: 451/483, 93% auditor 2: 387/483, 80%). Conclusion are reasons recalls. differ patients imaged likely because each location’s patient population.