Article Review
Introduction
Digital Mammography is one of the most innovative, remarkable and feasible methods for both diagnosis and evaluation of breast carcinoma. Based on a current research by the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP), the shift from conventional film based mammography to digital mammography has been associated with more life years gained (LYG) than film mammography (Van Ravesteyn, et al. 2015). In the current article, Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), have assessed and reviewed the quality evaluation criteria and process for digital mammography (DM). The key objective of Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), was to recognize potential quality assurance and control measures required for the assessment of DM images for screening of breast samples. Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro 2010, have provided key insights on the overall mammography accreditation process as stated by the American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program (ACRMAP). Based on current evidence, there are only 2 accreditation and quality assessment programs for film and digital mammography; the ACR and the European Commission Guidelines (Li, et al. 2010). Based on a review of articles from the PubMed and CINHAL databases, there were only 5 studies that utilized the ACR or the EU guidelines for clinical evaluation of mammography images (Li, et al. 2010). A team of researchers were also reported to have used the new Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) criteria for breast cancer mammography screening (Guertin, et al. 2014). All mammography assessments are regulated by the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA). In the current articles, Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), have utilized the ACR guidelines as a clinical evaluation criteria which is an excellent choice (Mainiero, et al. 2013 and Li, et al. 2010). The ACR till date is the most appropriate choice for assessing breast cancer screening images due to its wide range of evidence-based review of current medical literature and well-established consensus methodology (Mainiero, et al. 2013). Thus, the Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro 2010 have scored an excellent remark by option the ACR standard for the current review.
Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010, have clearly stated the theoretical framework with respect to accreditation process, quality evaluation, criteria for meeting requirements followed by the key categories for clinical evaluation. They have not taken into account the other guidelines such as the CAR and the EU guidelines while specifying only ACR standards for clinical evaluation. It is important for Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), to evaluate all grading criteria available and then come to a conclusion or rationale for their choice of grading. Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), also did not support the choice of opting the ACR standard with current evidence or support of any scholarly literature. The assumption of ACR as the gold standard for breast cancer screening is assumed to be incorrect based on the availability of vast literature for other grading and evaluation criteria (Guertin, et al. 2014 and Li, et al. 2010). Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), however have provided minimal evidence on the ACR standard which could have been elaborated with current evidence, Most of the papers referred were published before 2000. There are many articles on breast cancer screening and evaluation methods using the ACR standard (Adibi, et al. 2015; Yoon, et al. 2015; Ademuyiwa, et al. 2016; and Smith, et al. 2016). Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), have clearly stated the various concepts associated with breast cancer screening and the clinical image evaluation process stated by the ACR. Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), have also provided sufficient evidence to all of the 8 categories for the clinical imaging evaluation.
Research and Review
The review is not based on an argument but an overview of the ACR standard for the clinical image evaluation of breast cancer screening. Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), have been clear with the overview as per current standards for a review of grading criteria. They have provided sufficient evidence to each of the key categorises laid by the ACR which is the most referred clinical evaluation method (Reis, et al. 2013 and Walter, & Schonberg. 2014).
Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), employed a systematic review of literature and summarized information from the ACR in order to provide a brief and overview on the clinical image evaluation for mammography in breast cancer screening. Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), have also criticized certain aspects of the 8 categories mentioned in the ACR standard with supportive evidence. Based on current evidence for original article and research, Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), have done a fair job in providing information but lacked in the methodology (Raina, K., & Raina, S. 2013). Since Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), only provided information from limited sources, it would be more feasible to improve the methodology. Some of the key suggestions include comparative analysis with other grading criteria such as the EU and CAR guidelines with supportive evidence along with a personal or review of literature on the appropriateness of the ACR as a gold standard for clinical diagnosis of breast cancer screening (Lehman, et al. 2015).
Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), provided low level of evidence; based on the standards for publication and grading criteria for evidence-based literature, Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), had only 18 citations. They could have explored more evidence and current standards for mammography in breast cancer screening. It is essential for them to provide sufficient and non-biased evidence for technical reports (Patrias and Wendling. 2015). The paper also lacked latest evidence on mammography evaluation such as the EU and CAR guidelines (Guertin, et al. 2014).
Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), have clearly stated the value of the ACR standard in context to breast cancer screening with relevant evidence. They have also clearly indicated the inception of ACR standards, the key requirements to meet ACR criteria, and the importance of a standard for clinical image evaluation in mammography. Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), also voiced their opinions on the use of ACR as a standard grading criteria for breast cancer screening which depicts their value preposition to the current report. They have also provided notes on the development of new modalities in mammography, the role of the ACR in research, and the future prospects of ACR in breast cancer screening (Ravert & Huffaker. 2010).
Based upon the current literature on ACR and other guidelines, Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), have provided a unique and useful value addition to the body of evidence. There were two similar studies published recently that reviewed or compared the ACR for breast cancer screening (Gwak, et al. 2013 and Li, et al. 2010). The Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), have provided a meaningful and insightful technical analysis/report on the American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program (ACRMAP) which would help researchers, scientists, students, and healthcare professionals gain insights in the field of breast cancer screening; especially digital mammography Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010, have also summarized the article and table on all 8 evaluation categories accurately. The summary table that provides insights on all the 8 categories of clinical evaluation with key deficiencies is useful for HCPs and researchers; example deficiencies of positioning (poor visualization of posterior tissues) and compression (Non-uniform exposure levels). Thus, this paper is of significant importance to the body of literature.
Conclusion
Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), have also been precise, clear, and organized in the structure and content of the clinical evaluation method. They have clearly defined the study objective with supportive evidence, quality content, and organized methods,
In the past 3 decades, there was mixed opinions and reviews on digital and film mammography. Most HCPs preferred film-based mammography in the past decades but the innovation and implementation of digital mammography was associated with significant benefits and advantages (Köşüş, et al. 2010). Based on current evidence, digital mammography has key benefits such as better image quality, low radiation dose, and secure and enhanced data transfer or data archiving (Heywang-Köbrunner, Hacker, & Sedlacek, 2011). The paper would enhance the knowledge and practical skills of HCPs involved in breast cancer screening and patient management including diagnosis (Köşüş, et al. 2010). As per the American Medical Association and the Vancouver style for publication and scientific publication, Bassett, Hoyt, & Oshiro (2010), have done a fair job with respect to style, context, content, arrangement, and structure of the paper. Since this is a technical-based paper with low level of evidence, there could have been more supportive literature to support the statements. They have also been clear in their objectives and provided a detailed insight on the different categories involved in the evaluation of mammography imaging based on ACRMAP. The articles has significant importance in the field of breast cancer screening and digital screening using mammography; however more literature supportive the evidence for the ACRMAP and a comparative analysis with other guidelines is highly recommended (Milosevic, Jankovic, & Peulic. 2015)
References
Adibi, A., Golshahi, M., Sirus, M., & Kazemi, K. (2015). Breast cancer screening: Evidence
of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with unilateral mammography-negative dense breasts. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences : The Official Journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 20(3), 228–232.
Ademuyiwa, F. O., Cyr, A., Ivanovich, J., & Thomas, M. A. (2016). Managing breast cancer
in younger women: challenges and solutions. Breast Cancer : Targets and Therapy, 8, 1–12.
Gwak, Y. J., Kim, H. J., Kwak, J. Y., Son, E. J., Ko, K. H., Lee, J. H., Jang, Y.-J. (2013).
Clinical Image Evaluation of Film Mammograms in Korea: Comparison with the ACR Standard. Korean Journal of Radiology, 14(5), 701–710.
Heywang-Köbrunner, S. H., Hacker, A., & Sedlacek, S. (2011). Advantages and Disadvantages of Mammography Screening. Breast Care, 6(3), 199–207.
Köşüş, N., Köşüş, A., Duran, M., Simavlı, S., & Turhan, N. (2010). Comparison of standard
mammography with digital mammography and digital infrared thermal imaging for breast cancer screening. Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 11(3), 152–157.
Lehman CD, Wellman RD, Buist DS, Kerlikowske K, Tosteson AN, Miglioretti DL; Breast
Cancer Surveillance Consortium. (2015). Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography with and Without Computer-Aided Detection. JAMA Intern Med. 175(11):1828-37.
Li Y, Poulos A, McLean D, Rickard M. (2010). A review of methods of clinical image quality evaluation in mammography. Eur J Radiol. 74(3):e122-31.
Milosevic M, Jankovic D, Peulic A. (2015). Comparative analysis of breast cancer detection in mammograms and thermograms. Biomed Tech (Berl).60(1):49-56.
Patrias and Wendling. (2015). Chapter 4Scientific and Technical Reports. Citing Medicine:
The NLM Style Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers [Internet]. 2nd edition.
Raina, S. K., & Raina, S. (2013). Research methodology and publications: Are we following
the correct science? Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 17(6), 1135.
Ravert PK & Huffaker C. (2010). Breast cancer screening in women: An integrative literature
review. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 22(12):668-73.
Reis, C., Pascoal, A., Sakellaris, T., & Koutalonis, M. (2013). Quality assurance and quality
control in mammography: a review of available guidance worldwide. Insights into Imaging, 4(5), 539–553.
Smith RA, Andrews K, Brooks D, DeSantis CE, Fedewa SA, Lortet-Tieulent J, Manassaram-
Baptiste D, Brawley OW, Wender RC. (2016). Cancer screening in the United States, 2016: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 66(2):96-114.
Mainiero MB, Lourenco A, Mahoney MC, Newell MS, Bailey L, Barke LD, D'Orsi C, Harvey JA, Hayes MK, Huynh PT, Jokich PM, Lee SJ, Lehman CD, Mankoff DA, Nepute JA, Patel SB, Reynolds HE, Sutherland ML, Haffty BG. ACR Appropriateness Criteria Breast Cancer Screening. J Am Coll Radiol. 10(1):11-4.
Walter, L. C., & Schonberg, M. A. (2014). Screening Mammography in Older Women: A
Review. JAMA, 311(13), 1336–1347.
Van Ravesteyn, N. T., van Lier, L., Schechter, C. B., Ekwueme, D. U., Royalty, J., Miller, J.
W., de Koning, H. J. (2015). Transition From Film to Digital Mammography: Impact for Breast Cancer Screening Through the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 48(5), 535–542.
Yoon, J. H., Kim, M. J., Kim, E.-K., & Moon, H. J. (2015). Imaging Surveillance of Patients
with Breast Cancer after Primary Treatment: Current Recommendations. Korean Journal of Radiology, 16(2), 219–228.
