
==== Front
Cureus
Cureus
2168-8184
Cureus
2168-8184
Cureus Palo Alto (CA)

10.7759/cureus.66198
Epidemiology/Public Health
Radiology
Quality Improvement
Addressing Global Gaps in Mammography Screening for Improved Breast Cancer Detection: A Review of the Literature
Muacevic Alexander
Adler John R
Naik Shreya 1
Varghese Albert P 1
Asrar Ul Haq Andrabi Syed 1
Tivaskar Suhas 1
Luharia Anurag 1
Mishra Gaurav V 1
1 Radiology, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND
Shreya Naik to.shreyanaik@gmail.com
5 8 2024
8 2024
16 8 e6619828 6 2024
4 8 2024
Copyright © 2024, Naik et al.
2024
Naik et al.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
This article is available from https://www.cureus.com/articles/271699-addressing-global-gaps-in-mammography-screening-for-improved-breast-cancer-detection-a-review-of-the-literature
Breast cancer is the second most common cancer globally, with 2.3 million new cases annually, constituting 11.6% of all cancer cases. It is also the fourth leading cause of cancer deaths, claiming 670,000 lives a year. This high incidence of breast cancer morbidity worldwide has increased the urgent need for standardized and adequate screening methods, including clinical breast examination, self-breast examination, and mammography screening tests for non-symptomatic individuals. Mammography is considered the gold standard for breast cancer screening, with early randomized control trials showing significant reductions in mortality rates in women aged 50 and over (International Agency for Research on Cancer and American College of Radiology). Despite this, discrepancies in mammography practices across different healthcare settings regarding adherence to international standards raise concerns. A comprehensive review of the vast literature looking at the practices and norms of mammography screening worldwide highlighted several domains that present limitations to screening. These include epidemiological data deficits, lack of educational training offered to radiographers and varied image quality indices, exposure technique, method of breast compression, dose calculation, reference levels, screening frequency intervals, and diverse distribution of resources, particularly in developing countries. These factors shed light on the substantial discrepancies in the implementation and efficacy of screening programs, underscoring the necessity for future research endeavors to collaborate in creating coherent, standardized, evidence-based guidelines. Addressing these issues can enhance the feasibility, sensitivity, and accessibility of screening programs, resulting in favorable impacts on the early diagnosis and survival of breast cancer on a global scale.

breast imaging guidelines
mammography screening
breast cancer
quality assurance
quality control
==== Body
pmcIntroduction and background

Breast cancer (BC) is a pervasive global health issue, affecting one in eight women and ranking as the second most common type of cancer worldwide [1]. According to World Health Organization (WHO) reports, the disease diagnosed 2.3 million new cases worldwide and claimed 670,000 lives annually in 2022. BC is a severe malignancy where abnormal cells within the breast multiply uncontrollably, forming fatal tumors. If left unchecked, these tumor cells can invade surrounding tissue and other organs like the lungs, bones, and brain, significantly impacting survival rates [2]. Treatments for BC are more effective and are better tolerated when detected early, improving patient outcomes [2,3]. Breast X-ray imaging programs, or mammograms, can identify suspicious lesions before signs and symptoms appear, also called screening (The Atlas of Breast Cancer Early Detection by the International Agency of Research on Cancer, 2023) [4]. Earlier detection is associated with better outcomes, lower morbidity, and reduced BC-related deaths [5]. Furthermore, populations with a reasonable uptake rate in screening programs can achieve a 90% five-year survival rate in patients who received an early diagnosis attributed to screening (WHO, 2021) [6]. Therefore, screening for BC is paramount, and routine mammography effectively reduces mortality from BC [5].

Breast imaging, or mammography, a specialized technique that uses low-dose radiation to detect changes in breast tissue, was first used in the early twentieth century after the discovery of X-rays. By 1985, it was the only method recommended for asymptomatic women with an average risk of BC. Since then, it has evolved significantly and remains the reference and adopted standard for detecting breast abnormalities, particularly those caused by early cancer [4].

Despite the recognition of BC as a global health concern, there are significant disparities in screening programs between developed and developing countries and even within a particular country. While developed countries allocate human and financial resources to increase BC awareness and develop national breast screening programs with mammography, developing countries often have limited public health resources. In addition, the presence of highly prevalent infectious diseases puts pressure on the allocation of resources in this direction [5,6]. Many developed or high-income countries have established nationwide and population-based breast screening programs with solid success rates, including Australia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. For instance, in 2010-11, high-income nations like the United Kingdom's National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP), which screened 1.88 million women aged 50-70, reported a cancer detection rate of 7.8 per thousand women and 85% five-year survival for cancer patients. Australia, with the Breast Screen Programme, likewise saw a decrease in BC mortality rates since the program's inception, from 74 deaths per 100,000 women in 1991 to less than 50 deaths per 100,000 since 2010 [7].

Conversely, many low and middle-income countries (LMICs) face significant barriers that contribute to late-stage diagnoses and higher BC mortality. These include economic constraints, cultural stigma [7], and lack of high-quality health data sources, like population-based cancer registries [8], limited access to mammography facilities, lack of BC awareness and importance of screening, and inadequate distribution of treatment facilities [9]. Owing to this, international guidelines recommend self-breast examination (SBE) and clinical breast examination (CBE), low-cost screening methods, respectively, as an alternative in LMICs. However, it often leads to late-stage detection and poor treatment outcomes [10]. Many LMICs, such as India, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, South Africa, Uzbekistan, and Indonesia, are prioritizing the implementation of population-based mammography screening with the hope of reducing BC-related deaths [11]. While certain middle-income countries, like Brazil, have implemented national screening programs, access remains uneven, particularly in rural areas. The high costs associated with diagnosis and treatment further aggravate these disparities; for example, in Kenya, the average price of breast cancer diagnosis in the private sector is thrice the public health centers, making it unaffordable for many [7]. This trend highlights the exacerbating burden and the urgent need for targeted interventions to improve access and outcomes for BC globally.

On the other hand, the ability of screening mammography to detect BC effectively and early lies in guaranteeing its accessibility and performance at the highest level for all qualified patients. This systematic approach, known as quality assurance (QA), aims to achieve the maximum image quality with the least amount of radiation. Internationally, at least more than fourteen documents providing guidance have been developed specifically concerning mammographic QA [7,12]. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom (UK), have monitored quality through a national screening program since 1988 [13]. Many other nations have similar quality monitoring programs [12]. In Australia, the Breast Screen Australia National Accreditation Standards (BSANAS) have been in effect since 2015, and among a consortium of European countries, the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis (EGQABCSD), now in its fourth edition, have been pivotal in promoting adherence to standards ensuring the quality of screening and diagnosis services for breast malignancies [12,14]. However, in the United States (US), where thirty nine million mammograms are performed annually, there is no national screening program, but the federal government mandates minimum quality standards for the performance of mammography [12].

To sum up, many countries have developed BC screening programs and guidelines, particularly in developed nations, while others lack well-developed programs or have not yet implemented screening at all [15,16]. Even in nations with established initiatives, the examination coverage remains somewhat limited. This disparity emphasizes the urgent need for targeted interventions to enhance mammography quality assurance and establish uniform, comprehensive guidelines, ensuring equitable access to early detection and treatment of BC for all women, regardless of their socioeconomic status or geographic location [16].

Given these challenges, the purpose of this review is to examine the current practices of mammography screening worldwide, identify key disparities affecting the uniformity and potential research directions toward resolving these gaps, and act as robust evidence towards proposing efficient strategies for continually improving access and quality of BC screening on a global scale.

Review

Epidemiological data

Precise epidemiological profiles are crucial for planning, executing, and assessing screening programs. These profiles provide essential baseline information, like disease incidence, population demographic data, healthcare system abilities, and screening programs' overall efficacy. Nevertheless, substantial obstacles exist in gathering and examining such data due to obvious resource and funding constraints in most developing countries [17,18]. Numerous countries confront difficulties in timely reporting and systematic registration of interval or hidden cancers (cancer cases detected outside the time frame between scheduled surveillance screenings), primarily due to fragmented healthcare systems or the lack of centralized cancer registries, skewing the perceived effectiveness of screening programs [19,20].

Moreover, present epidemiological assessments often lack the detail required to endorse personalized screening programs based on individual patient risk variables, such as family history, genetic predisposition, etc., emphasizing the need for more advanced risk-stratified data documentation [21,22]. These gaps have led to the development of more sophisticated models and strategies, such as the Global Cancer Observatory (GLOBOCAN), an online cancer forum whereby epidemiological data are collected and made available for comparison across countries to allow for decision-making [23]. However, their implementation is still limited, requiring standardized methods for data collection, personalized risk assessment, extended monitoring for interval cancers in suspected cases, and implementing uniform guidelines to enhance the effectiveness of screening programs [20,22]. International collaboration and information sharing may be critical in developing these strategies, especially in resource-constrained environments [24].

Radiographer qualification and training

According to the European guidelines for quality assurance in BC screening and diagnosis, a breast unit must have a core team composed of skilled healthcare professionals of various disciplines who have undergone specialist training in breast cancer beyond their general theoretical education [25]. Studies, however, report that most radiographers often experience a lack of confidence and adequate hands-on training, leading to truncated skills and challenges in providing accurate mammography screening [26]. Utilizing experienced and qualified radiographers in this field and training them to interpret mammograms can improve the quality of screening programs [27].

Qualifications and the training requirements for performing mammography screening for radiographers vary across the continents. In the United States, radiographers need to hold a state license or general certification from the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT) together with mammographic certification. This basic framework guarantees a general level of preparedness [28]. On the other hand, certain European nations like Estonia, Finland, Norway, Portugal, and Switzerland provide training and continued professional development (CPD) programs, but recent studies demonstrate issues screening and radiographers face in terms of resources, time, and variability across the country to country within the continent. Researchers have shown that while these programs exist, there seems to be a need for other extensive mammography knowledge such as positioning of the breast and addressing the patient [26,29].

On the other hand, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as India and Mexico provide a relatively different picture. Radiographers practicing in India must have a minimum diploma or degree in radiography and should have training in mammography. However, it can also be seen that there is an importance placed on practical experience, receiving degrees, and engaging in further education [30,31]. Mexico, for instance, provides short training with few components related to mammography, and most of the training is obtained through work experience [31]. This goes to show why training in these regions should comprise a general and standardized program.

Thus, to narrow these gaps and improve mammographic quality all over the world, coordinated actions with ongoing quality control, patient tracking, effective communication for patient follow-up, and provider feedback, all associated with significant and ongoing operating costs, are needed [26,32]. Promoting structured training with long-term assessment systems, as shown in some research findings, is essential to avoid the problems highlighted above [33]. Using tools such as the Perfect, Good, Moderate, Inadequate (PGMI) scale can improve image quality and satisfaction among radiographers [34]. Furthermore, expanding the role of radiographers in screening programs, such as interpreting the images, an approach implemented in the United Kingdom, can significantly increase cancer detection rates and improve service provision [35]. Across nations, comparative investigations are also critical to pinpointing the structure of the practices and developing a constitution of evidence-based policies [26].

Image quality parameters protocol

A standardized protocol accounting for various image quality characteristics remains imperative for mammography screening due to its reliance on technical conditions. While several European and American nations have made significant progress in standardizing image quality parameters by adopting globally approved protocols, many are yet to do so [25]. The absence of protocol uniformity lies in many countries, contributing to variations in image quality and cancer detection rates [26]. Metsala et al. revealed that European centers simultaneously used various protocols, ranging from locally, nationally, and internationally developed standards, challenging the clinical performance and cancer detection rate of screening mammography. They also emphasize that it leads to diverse practices in crucial factors such as positioning, image contrast, breast compression, interprofessional working, positioning sheet usage, and quality control programs, causing suboptimal clinical performance comparisons and screening practices [26]. Outdated international standards, particularly regarding positioning for fundamental views, further contribute to these issues, as highlighted by Sweeney et al. [36].

Therefore, establishing a comprehensive, internationally recognized image quality protocol is essential to address these technical intricacies of mammography screening. Such a protocol must include defined minimum technical requirements for mammography equipment with specified calibration requirements and frequency; guidelines for interprofessional collaboration [25]; healthcare provider expertise criteria including qualification and competencies [26]; specific image quality parameters like breast compression, image contrast, and noise with quantitative measures; comprehensive quality-control tests and audits methods [33], and standardized positioning techniques based on updated guidelines [36]. Implementation could involve forming an international task force of experts or collaborating with international organizations, conducting multicenter validation studies [26], and developing standardized training modules for radiographers [26,37]. The protocol should also incorporate distinct roles and responsibilities for the advanced practice of radiographers and a system of regular updates to keep pace with recent additions and advancements [36,37]. This will address the diverse practices currently observed worldwide, leading to improved cancer detection rates and patient outcomes.

Automatic exposure control (AEC) optimization

Automatic exposure control (AEC) is a faster and more convenient approach to adapting exposure to a patient in screening mammography. It can optimize two critical aspects: exposure parameter adjustment for a scan as per the breast thickness and density, and minimal dose exposure to the breast during screening. Manufacturers provide several AEC modes, allowing specific adjustments and customization on the image's contrast to noise ratio (CNR) and the minimal dose depending on the screening patient's characteristics [38]. However, despite these advancements, several barriers and obstacles hinder the consistent and optimal use of AEC globally. A recent European pilot study with five countries also demonstrated the heterogeneous AEC usage patterns among radiographers and found that half of the radiographers utilized manufacturer-specific dose-saving modes, while the other half considered multiple AEC modes [39]. The primary reasons highlighted were in line with other studies, that is, variable options for AEC were available, but lack of guidelines on the most optimal parameters and modes of AEC according to the requirement and setting, lack of comprehensive training on its usage leading to inconsistent application, different manufacturers providing numerous AEC modes with their own preferences, complicating standardization efforts, and creating obstacles for radiographers when switching between systems [39,40].

Research is ongoing to compare the effectiveness of AEC and manual optimization by radiographers. Some studies have found that manual optimization allows operators to account for a broader range of factors compared to AEC, such as breast size, composition, etc., and achieve similar image quality with lower radiation doses, especially for smaller breasts [41]. These findings suggest that while AEC provides a standardized approach, skilled radiographers' manual adjustments of exposure to a patient can sometimes surpass automated settings.

Thus, integrating AEC technology with radiographer expertise in fine-tuning and adapting these settings cannot be understated. To overcome these challenges, efforts should focus on standardizing AEC protocols across manufacturers and centers and improving radiographer education on AEC modes and their effects on dose and image quality [42]. Additionally, enhancing collaboration between radiographers, medical physicists, and radiologists to optimize technical parameters and conducting comprehensive studies to find the right balance between automation modes and technologist expertise are needed to maximize the benefits of AEC and achieve the best possible image quality with minimal radiation exposure during screening [39,42,43].

Target-filter combination

The target and filter combination choice significantly affects mammography's image quality and radiation dose [42,44]. Most commonly, tungsten or molybdenum targets with rhodium, silver, tin, and molybdenum filters are available, which, on an optimal selection, can reduce glandular dose to the breast during screening. Selecting the optimal target-filter combination for each patient can be complex, as it depends on various factors such as breast thickness, density, and composition. There's a lack of consensus on which combinations are best suited for different breast types, highlighting the need for more comprehensive research in this area [45,46].

Several studies have investigated the performance of different target-filter combinations. Nunes et al. reported that tungsten-rhodium (W-Rh) combinations produce better image contrast and visibility across breast thicknesses and densities at lower radiation doses. They also noted that this combination maintains mean glandular dose (MGD) by 30% compared to the traditional combinations, thereby rendering it the optimal choice for breast imaging, especially for thinner breasts [47]. Similarly, Ghomalkar et al. observed that the W-Rh reduced MGD by 60% compared to the tungsten-silver (W-Ag) combination at low exposure settings while also offering superior signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) [48]. However, these studies had a small sample size or specific imaging conditions like exposure settings and equipment used, thus affecting their generalizability.

The performance of molybdenum-based combinations has reported contrasting results, adding further complexity with mixed results. Varjonen et al. and Izhidar et al. found that molybdenum-molybdenum (Mo-Mo) and molybdenum-rhodium (Mo-Rh) combinations provide reasonable image quality but do not achieve the same level of dose reduction as W-Rh. Their findings support the conclusion that W-Rh is superior in reducing MGD while maintaining high image quality [44,49]. Others, like Aminah et al., demonstrated that Mo-Rh may be suitable for specific breast thicknesses, but the W-Rh combination outperforms it across a broader range of breast compositions [43]. Additionally, Biegala et al. reported a significant 23.6% reduction in MGD with W-Rh compared to Mo-Mo and Mo-Rh combinations, emphasizing its practical benefits in clinical settings [50]. These studies focused on comparing only a few named combinations and different evaluation methodologies, leaving gaps in our understanding of how these combinations perform in various conditions.

Although W-Rh demonstrates promising results, the current evidence base is insufficient, with limited comparative evaluations of target filter combinations to make universal recommendations. More large-scale multivariate studies comparing all available combinations, evidence-based guidelines for selecting target-filter combinations considering patient-specific factors, and specialized training for radiographers and medical physicists are consequently warranted [45,51].

Repeat and reject film analysis

Repeat and reject analysis is a vital quality control measure in mammography screening, evaluating images that are discarded or repeated due to various technical or quality issues. Despite the transition to digital systems for screening, image rejection and repetition rates still exceed established standards, leading to increased radiation exposure, resource utilization, cost, and patient discomfort [52,53]. A study by C. Prieto et al. at a university hospital evaluating the retake rates in digital mammography found that central issues for image rejection were incorrect positioning, closely larger breasts requiring multiple exposures, use of small flat panel detectors, and other technical reasons [54]. This problem has previously been demonstrated in studies with screen film, computed radiography, and, more recently, digital breast tomosynthesis [52,54,55]. Conversely, studies have also shown that radiographers without specific mammography qualifications rejected more images than those with specialization [52].

Healthcare facilities in many countries have enforced quarterly analysis, log maintenance, planning training sessions, and the correct use of technique charts, improving optimal repeat and recall rates and elevating screening outcomes. Challenges persist regardless, due to practice variability and the absence of universal guidelines [53,56]. To address this challenge, widespread implementation of schemes such as quarterly analysis, standardized reporting systems, training sessions, and ensuring appropriate repeat and rejection criteria selection can encourage effectiveness and research on screening programs [53,54].

Breast compression methods

Proper breast compression methods during patient positioning are widely incorporated and indispensable for enhancing detection sensitivity in mammography screening. It helps reduce breast tissue overlap, reducing radiation dose, and improving image quality [57]. Unfortunately, present methods lack standardization and reference standards to evaluate compression force uniformity, contributing to a patchwork approach among practitioners and healthcare institutions. Moreover, radiographers often rely on their own experience and subjective interpretations of the established recommendations when employing breast compression, limiting mammographic examinations' reproducibility [58,59].

Recent research establishes that compression pressure, measured in kilopascals, can be a more reproducibly reliable, physiologically relevant, and patient-specific parameter than force for a uniform application of breast compression. It can account for the force applied, the contact area of the breast, breast size, and stiffness differences while reducing patient discomfort and radiation exposure compared to compression force, increasing the willingness of women to participate in screening programs [59,60]. This pressure-based standardization protocol has also demonstrated potential efficacy in improving image quality and diagnostic yield. Nonetheless, there is an urge to conduct evidence-based comparative surveys on compression force and pressure-guided approaches, seeking patient feedback and establishing relevant future breast compression strategies [60,61].

Glandular dose estimation methods

Mean glandular dose (MGD) or average glandular dose (AGD) is an essential parameter that governs the risk versus benefit of screening mammography and refers to the glandular dose absorbed in the breast tissue [24]. Nevertheless, inconsistencies arise in the evaluation of MGD due to the difference in the breast characteristics, density, and composition, varied measurement techniques used by different mammography system vendors such as Philips, Fujifilm, Hologic, and General Electric (GE), and lack of comparative evaluation of these techniques [62]. This subjective approach leads to global disparity among radiographers, underlining the requirement for higher quality assurance for dose estimation methods [63].

Several investigations are exploring new methods and metrics that can be feasibly standardized and provide accurate dose estimation, including modifications to the traditional MGD estimation and breast-specific dose models that can be conditioned with country-specific variability of breast tissue density and their sensitivity to radiation [64,65]. Furthermore, a recent metric, average absorbed breast dose (2ABD), has been proposed as a potential replacement for typical MGD assessment, with a 2017 study depicting it as more precise and effective in reporting doses [66]. However, extensive research is needed to substantiate a uniform dose estimation method by comparing estimated doses to actual measurements, evaluating the new metrics, developing breast characteristics-specific dose models, conducting regular dose estimation audits, and collaborating to standardize processes across different vendors [65,67].

Screening frequency

Robust quality control recommendations for screening frequency have been shown to significantly reduce mortality rates by up to 30% and increase the efficiency of mammography [68]. However, its guidelines are sometimes diverse and conflicting, with most guidelines having a consensus that mammography is the gold standard screening modality for average-risk women. For this risk group, most of the guidelines suggest annual or biennial mammographic screening at 40-74 years, while screening should particularly focus on 50-69 years [68,69]. For instance, the American Cancer Society (ACR) recommends annual screening starting at age forty-five. In contrast, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommend yearly screening starting at age forty, and the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) states that women should begin annual screening at forty and continue until their life expectancy reaches five to seven years [70,71]. This lack of uniformity in recommendations, especially for women in their forties, creates confusion and potentially impacts screening adherence [69].

To address these challenges, several potential solutions are being explored, such as standardizing screening recommendations based on the latest evidence and ongoing research to better understand the balance of benefits and harms of mammography screening, particularly in younger women [68]. Efforts are also being made to improve adherence to screening recommendations through patient education, provider training, and addressing barriers to the feasibility. Nevertheless, more studies assessing the impact of screening intervals on mortality and false-positive rates, developing risk-group-based protocols, improving patient education, and international conferences can help harmonize screening recommendations [71,72].

Resource constraints

LMIC breast cancer incidence is lower than in high-income countries, despite higher mortality rates due to apparent resource constraints than in high-resource nations [73-75]. Olivera Ciraj-Bjelac et al. and Erkin Aribal et al. identified some of these resource challenges, which include a lack of trained personnel, poor quality control facilities, and compromised access to essential supplies for screening. These limitations compromise the feasibility of implementing large-scale screening programs, exacerbating the existing dearth of awareness about breast cancer among the general population [76,77].

Some LMICs have adopted alternative screening strategies that may be more realistic and cost-effective, such as clinical breast examination with targeted ultrasonography, reducing the uptake of mammography screening, but this cannot be stated as the definitive solution [78,79]. Hence, to prioritize breast cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries, it is prudent to concentrate on more dependable interventions such as executing breast health awareness campaigns, establishing collaborations with affluent nations, and using telemedicine and mobile screening units in underserved regions [75,80].

Diagnostic reference levels

Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) are a highly effective quality assurance tool for optimizing doses in radiological examinations across different countries and institutions. They provide a benchmark for comparing facilities, adjusting their dose levels, and identifying trade-offs [81-83]. Currently, DRLs are determined using the third quartile values of mean doses observed on a sample of standard-sized patients in each radiography room, which allows for the identification of abnormally high doses and the establishment of national DRL values; however, this method is only applicable to systems from specific manufacturers, leading to inconsistencies that make comparisons between countries and facilities difficult. Additionally, variations exist in data collection methods (patient data or phantoms), and calculating the doses and infrequent updates of DRLs further complicate reliable DRL establishment and its optimized practices [82,84].

In certain nations, DRLs are being regularly implemented and updated, with studies stating that with their use, radiation doses could be significantly reduced [85]. Despite these efforts to establish international consensus on DRL protocols and methodologies for mammography, an in-depth inquiry into patient-specific DRLs, standardizing protocols, data collection procedures, and instituting a universal dose calculation method are warranted [86]. Finally, promoting a systematic approach for regular DRL review updates and facility participation in national and international dose surveys can improve radiation dose optimization during screening [38,86].

Conclusions

This review highlights several critical areas that need improvement in mammography screening programs globally. Some major obstacles involve diverse approaches for data collection requirements in epidemiology, mainly in developing nations; training and qualifications of radiographers; setting standardized protocols for image quality and breast compression; optimizing exposure control and target-filter combinations; analysis of repeated and rejected images; methods for estimating doses; recommendations for screening frequency; dealing with limited resources in low- and middle-income countries; and establishing uniform diagnostic levels.

Despite several advancements in screening programs, including updated frameworks, certified mammography radiographers, and new standards for dose measurement, there are still hurdles that the current methodology has not overcome. To maximize the efficiency and benefits to the patients, more studies are required to formulate guidelines for standardization and detailed protocols for initial data gathering, image quality parameters, and estimation of the dose. Additionally, further investigation is needed on identifying optimal screening frequencies for different population subgroups, defining guidelines for practice in low-resource environments, enhancing instruction of radiographers on proper routine protocols, and the integrated utilization of automated and manual control modes. More exploration is also required to establish the relevant target-filter combinations, breast compression strategies, and methods of dose assessment. Such endeavors, along with international cooperation to overcome the resource limitations in low and middle-income countries, will pave the way for devising better screening policies, enhancing image quality, reducing hazards, and leveraging breast screening and patient care globally.

Disclosures

Author Contributions

Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following:

Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work.

Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work.

Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Concept and design:  Shreya Naik, Albert P. Varghese, Syed Asrar Ul Haq Andrabi, Suhas Tivaskar, Anurag Luharia, Gaurav V. Mishra

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data:  Shreya Naik

Drafting of the manuscript:  Shreya Naik, Albert P. Varghese, Syed Asrar Ul Haq Andrabi, Suhas Tivaskar, Anurag Luharia, Gaurav V. Mishra

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content:  Shreya Naik, Albert P. Varghese, Syed Asrar Ul Haq Andrabi

Supervision:  Shreya Naik, Suhas Tivaskar, Anurag Luharia, Gaurav V. Mishra
==== Refs
References

1 Mammography StatPearls [Internet] Reeves RA Kaufman T Treasure Island (FL) StatPearls Publishing 2014 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559310/
2 Breast Cancer Quant Imaging Med Surg 7 2024 Brueggmann D Grimstein M Solbach C Klingelhoefer D Bendels MH Jaque J Groneberg DA 143 11 2024 https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/breast-cancer
3 Global challenges in breast cancer detection and treatment Breast Barrios CH 0 6 62 Suppl 1 2022
4 Atlas of Breast Cancer Early Detection: IARC Cancerbase No. 17 Healthcare Kantharia S Gadgil A Cherian S Basu P Lucas E 1596 Lyon, France International Agency for Research on Cancer 11 2023 https://screening.iarc.fr/atlasbreast.php 37297735
5 Global perceptions of women on breast cancer and barriers to screening Curr Oncol Rep Mascara M Constantinou C 74 23 2021 33937940
6 A rapid review of COVID-19's global impact on breast cancer screening participation rates and volumes from January to December 2020 Elife Lee R Xu W Dozier M McQuillan R Theodoratou E Figueroa J 0 12 2023
7 Quality assurance in mammography: an overview Eur J Radiol Feigin K 110935 165 2023 37354771
8 Cancer control in low-and middle-income countries: is it time to consider screening? J Glob Oncol Shah SC Kayamba V Peek RM Jr Heimburger D 1 8 5 2019
9 Screening for breast cancer: cost-effective solutions for low-& middle-income countries Indian J Med Res Mishra GA Pimple SA Mittra I Badwe RA 229 236 154 2021 34854430
10 Women’s Imaging in Global Health Radiology Radiology in Global Health Mullen LA Harvey SC Pollack EB Khandelwal N Singh T 261 281 Switzerland Springer 1 2019
11 Prioritizing mammography screening in developing countries: are we putting the cart before the horse? Ann Surg Oncol Raghavan N Jatoi I 1430 1432 31 2024 38112888
12 Quality assurance and quality control in mammography: a review of available guidance worldwide Insights Imaging Reis C Pascoal A Sakellaris T Koutalonis M 539 553 4 2013 23912879
13 Breast cancer - UK national screening committee (UK NSC) - GOV.UK Cancers (Basel) 7 2024 Lim YX Lim ZL Ho PJ Li J 4218 14 2024 https://view-health-screening-recommendations.service.gov.uk/breast-cancer/
14 BreastScreen Australia national data by factors of interest for risk-based screening: routinely reported data and opportunities for enhancement Aust N Z J Public Health Carle C Velentzis LS Nickson C 230 236 46 2022 35112749
15 Global cancer control: responding to the growing burden, rising costs and inequalities in access ESMO Open Prager GW Braga S Bystricky B 0 3 2018
16 Advances in breast cancer screening modalities and status of global screening programs Chronic Dis Transl Med Luo C Wang L Zhang Y 112 123 8 2022 https://mednexus.org/doi/full/10.1002/cdt3.21 35774423
17 Breast Cancer Screening IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention, Vol. 15 IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Cancer-Preventive Interventions Lyon, France International Agency for Research on Cancer 2016 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546556/
18 Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening BreastCheck (ed): BreastCheck, Ireland 5 2024 BreastCheck BreastCheck Ireland BreastCheck 2015 https://www.breastcheck.ie/_fileupload/documents/NCSS-PUB-Q-4-Rev04.1-Guidelines-for-QA-in-Mammography-Screening.pdf
19 The epidemiology, radiology and biological characteristics of interval breast cancers in population mammography screening NPJ Breast Cancer Houssami N Hunter K 12 3 2017 28649652
20 Interval cancer audit and disclosure in breast screening programmes: an international survey J Med Screen Fitzpatrick P Byrne H Flanagan F 36 41 30 2023 36071637
21 The current status of risk-stratified breast screening Br J Cancer Clift AK Dodwell D Lord S Petrou S Brady SM Collins GS Hippisley-Cox J 533 550 126 2022 34703006
22 Epidemiology of breast cancer-current figures and trends Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Eisemann N Waldmann A Katalinic A 130 135 73 2013 24771909
23 Global Cancer Observatory (formerly Cancer Mondial) 7 2024 2024 https://mdl.library.utoronto.ca/collections/numeric-data/global-cancer-observatory-formerly-cancer-mondial
24 German mammography screening program: quality assurance Dtsch Arztebl Int Blettner M Zeissig SR 779 780 109 2012 23264825
25 European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis: Fourth Edition, Supplements 5 2024 Perry N Europäische Kommission 1 Luxembourg Office for Official Publ. of the Europ. Communities 28 2013 https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2772/13196
26 European radiographers' challenges from mammography education and clinical practice - an integrative review Insights Imaging Metsälä E Richli Meystre N Pires Jorge J Henner A Kukkes T Sá Dos Reis C 329 343 8 2017 28303552
27 Identification of factors associated with diagnostic performance variation in reporting of mammograms: a review Radiography (Lond) Clerkin N Ski CF Brennan PC Strudwick R 340 346 29 2023 36731351
28 What is ARRT certification & registration? 7 2024 2024 https://www.arrt.org/pages/about-the-profession/arrt-certification-and-registration
29 Challenges in mammography education and training today: the perspectives of radiography teachers/mentors and students in five European countries Radiography (Lond) Strøm B Pires Jorge JA Richli Meystre N Henner A Kukkes T Metsälä E Sà Dos Reis C 41 46 24 2018 29306374
30 Quality assurance guidelines for breast imaging-breast imaging society, India Indian J Breast Imaging Chakrabarthi S Singla V Renganathan R 48 71 1 2023
31 Radiographers supporting radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography: a viable strategy to meet the shortage in the number of radiologists BMC Cancer Torres-Mejía G Smith RA Carranza-Flores Mde L 410 15 2015 25975383
32 Breast cancer early detection: a phased approach to implementation Cancer Ginsburg O Yip CH Brooks A 2379 2393 126 Suppl 10 2020 32348566
33 Sustaining mammography image quality with a technologist coaching program in the era of the enhancing quality using the inspection program (EQUIP) J Breast Imaging Kozlov A Larson D DeMartini WB Pal S Cowart P Strain A Ikeda DM 675 684 5 2023 38141238
34 Effect of image quality and motivation of radiographer teams in mammography after dedicated training and the use of an evaluation tool like PGMI Radiography (Lond) Santner T Santner W Gutzeit A 1124 1129 27 2021 34120844
35 The diagnostic accuracy of radiographers assessing screening mammograms: a systematic review Radiography Moran S Warren-Forward H 137 146 22 2016
36 A review of mammographic positioning image quality criteria for the craniocaudal projection Br J Radiol Sweeney RI Lewis SJ Hogg P McEntee MF 20170611 91 2018 29125335
37 Radiography advanced practice in the United Arab Emirates: the perceptions and readiness of mammographers J Multidiscip Healthc Abuzaid MM Hamad W Elshami W Tekin H Ali W Khayal S 753 758 13 2020 32801738
38 Average glandular dose (AGD) and radiation dose optimization in screen-film and digital x-ray mammography Appl Sci Suliman II Mohamed S Mahadi A 11901 13 2023
39 Characterization of radiographers' mammography practice in five European countries: a pilot study Insights Imaging Richli Meystre N Henner A Sà Dos Reis C Strøm B Pires Jorge JA Kukkes T Metsälä E 31 10 2019 30868292
40 Investigation of exposure factors for various breast composition and thicknesses in digital screening mammography related to breast dose Med Princ Pract Alkhalifah K Brindhaban A 211 216 27 2018 29514152
41 Optimization of image quality and dose in digital mammography J Digit Imaging Fausto AM Lopes MC de Sousa MC Furquim TA Mol AW Velasco FG 185 196 30 2017 27896452
42 Overview of the radiographers' practice in 65 healthcare centers using digital mammography systems in Portugal Insights Imaging Sá Dos Reis C Pascoal A Radu L de Oliveira MF Alves J 345 355 8 2017 28303553
43 Optimal beam quality selection based on contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose in digital mammography Australas Phys Eng Sci Med Aminah M Ng KH Abdullah BJ Jamal N 329 334 33 2010 20938762
44 Determination of tube output (kVp) and exposure mode for breast phantom of various thicknesses/glandularity for digital mammography Malays J Med Sci IZ K KA KC KR V SU T 40 49 22 2015 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4390773/
45 Image quality and radiation dose for fibrofatty breast using target/filter combinations in two digital mammography systems J Clin Imaging Sci Alkhalifah K Asbeutah A Brindhaban A 56 10 2020 33024611
46 Assessment of breast doses in mammography screening Bangladesh J Nucl Med Maimani A Kinsara AA Al Taayeb B Molla NI 161 167 18 2018
47 Effect of target/filter combination on the mean glandular dose and contrast-detail threshold: a phantom study Radiography (Lond) Nunes RS Batista WO 272 278 27 2021 32861599
48 Assessment of mean glandular dose in mammography system with different anode-filter combinations using MCNP code Iran J Radiol Gholamkar L Mowlavi AA Sadeghi M Athari M 0 13 2016
49 Optimizing the Target-Filter Combination in Digital Mammography in the Sense of Image Quality and Average Glandular Dose Digital Mammography Varjonen M Strömmer P 570 576 Berlin, Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 5116 2008
50 Effect of anode/filter combination on average glandular dose in mammography J Med Phys Biegała M Jakubowska T Markowska K 45 51 40 2015 26150687
51 Effect of filter on average glandular dose and image quality in digital mammography J Phys Songsaeng C Krisanachinda A Theerakul K 12039 694 2015
52 Mammographic image reject rate analysis and cause - a National Maltese Study Radiography (Lond) Mercieca N Portelli JL Jadva-Patel H 25 31 23 2017 28290336
53 Interim recommendations for a digital mammography quality assurance program Australas Phys Eng Sci Med McLean ID Heggie JC Herley J Thomson FJ Grewal RK 65 100 30 2007 17682397
54 Experience in retake analysis for digital mammography at a university hospital Radiat Prot Dosimetry Prieto C Ten JI Montes M Ciudad MJ Fernández J Vano E Arrazola J 354 358 165 2015 25821211
55 Comparison of screening full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis technical recalls J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Salkowski LR Elezaby M Fowler AM Burnside E Woods RW Strigel RM 31403 6 2019
56 The "sweet spot" revisited: optimal recall rates for cancer detection 7 of 8 with 2D and 3D digital screening mammography in the Metro Chicago Breast Cancer Registry AJR Am J Roentgenol Rauscher GH Murphy AM Qiu Q Dolecek TA Tossas K Liu Y Alsheik NH 894 902 216 2021 33566635
57 Influence of breast compression pressure on the performance of population-based mammography screening Breast Cancer Res Holland K Sechopoulos I Mann RM den Heeten GJ van Gils CH Karssemeijer N 126 19 2017 29183348
58 Mammographic compression practices of force- and pressure-standardisation protocol: a scoping review J Med Radiat Sci Serwan E Matthews D Davies J Chau M 233 242 67 2020 32420700
59 Pressure-standardised mammography does not affect visibility, contrast and sharpness of stable lesions Eur J Radiol de Groot JE Hopman IG van Lier MG Branderhorst W Grimbergen CA den Heeten GJ 289 295 86 2017 28027762
60 Mammographic unit compression force: acceptance test and quality control protocols Radiology Tanner RL 45 48 184 1992 1609101
61 Using breast tissue information and subject-specific finite-element models to optimize breast compression parameters for digital mammography Electronics Chang TY Wu J Liu PY Liu YL Luzhbin D Lin HC 1784 11 2022
62 Mean glandular dose in digital mammography: a dose calculation method comparison J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Suleiman ME Brennan PC McEntee MF 13502 4 2017
63 Integrating mammographic breast density in glandular dose calculation Br J Radiol Suleiman ME Brennan PC Ekpo E Kench P McEntee MF 20180032 91 2018 29400552
64 Screening digital breast tomosynthesis: radiation dose among patients with breast implants J Breast Imaging Vu NQ Bice C Garrett J 694 700 3 2021 38424937
65 Prediction of glandularity and breast radiation dose from mammography results in Japanese women Med Biol Eng Comput Yamamuro M Asai Y Yamada K Ozaki Y Matsumoto M Murakami T 289 298 57 2019 30099671
66 Average absorbed breast dose in mammography: a new possible dose index matching the requirements of the European Directive 2013/59/EURATOM Eur Radiol Exp Traino AC Sottocornola C Barca P Marini C Aringhieri G Caramella D Fantacci ME 28 1 2017 29708206
67 Breast glandularity and mean glandular dose assessment using a deep learning framework: virtual patients study Phys Med Massera RT Tomal A 264 277 83 2021 33984580
68 Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening in Average-Risk Women 5 2024 2017 https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-bulletin/articles/2017/07/breast-cancer-risk-assessment-and-screening-in-average-risk-women
69 Screening for breast cancer: a comparative review of guidelines Life (Basel) Katsika L Boureka E Kalogiannidis I 777 14 2024 38929759
70 Breast screening revisited J Family Med Prim Care Agrawal A Tripathi P Sahu A Daftary J 340 344 3 2014 25657940
71 Evidence of benefit from mammography screening of average-risk women ages 40-49 years: science, metrics, and value judgments J Breast Imaging Feig SA 78 83 1 2019 38424920
72 Strategies to identify women at high risk of advanced breast cancer during routine screening for discussion of supplemental imaging JAMA Intern Med Kerlikowske K Sprague BL Tosteson AN 1230 1239 179 2019 31260054
73 Breast cancer screening in low-and middle-income countries: a perspective from Malawi J Glob Oncol Gutnik LA Matanje-Mwagomba B Msosa V 4 8 2 2016 28717676
74 Breast cancer screening in low and middle-income countries Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol Newman LA 15 23 83 2022 35589536
75 Fighting breast cancer in low-and-middle-income countries - what must we do to get every woman screened on regular basis? Sci Afr Manson EN Achel DG 0 21 2023
76 Mammography radiation dose: initial results from Serbia based on mean glandular dose assessment for phantoms and patients Radiat Prot Dosimetry Ciraj-Bjelac O Beciric S Arandjic D Kosutic D Kovacevic M 75 80 140 2010 20159918
77 Improvement of early detection of breast cancer through collaborative multi-country efforts: observational clinical study Eur J Radiol Aribal E Mora P Chaturvedi AK 31 38 115 2019 31084756
78 Accuracy of mammography and clinical breast examination in the implementation of breast cancer screening programs in Colombia Prev Med Alba LH Díaz S Gamboa O 19 25 115 2018 30092313
79 Cost-effectiveness of clinical breast examination screening programme among HER2-positive breast cancer patients: a modelling study Breast Cancer Ngan TT Browne S Goodwin M Van Minh H Donnelly M O'Neill C 68 76 30 2023 36028594
80 Barriers to screening mammography Health Psychol Rev Sarma EA 42 62 9 2015 25793490
81 Glandular doses and diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for Saudi breast cancer screening programme (2012-2021) Radiat Prot Dosimetry Albeshan SM Alhulail AA Almuqbil MM 467 472 200 2024 38324508
82 The local diagnostic reference levels for breast screening using digital mammography at Songklanagarind Hospital J Assoc Med Sci Songsaeng C Chanwetwirot P Kaewkum U Thiangsook W 7 11 55 2022
83 Diagnostic reference levels in screening mammography centers in Slovakia Radiat Prot Dosimetry Šalát D Nikodemová D Klepanec A Lehotská V Šalátová A 537 539 198 2022 36005968
84 ICRP Publication 135: diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging Ann ICRP Vañó E Miller DL Martin CJ 1 144 46 2017
85 New diagnostic reference level for full-field digital mammography units Radiat Prot Dosimetry Hauge IH Bredholt K Olerud HM 181 192 157 2013 23771960
86 Mammography diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) in Ghana Radiography (Lond) Dzidzornu E Angmorterh SK Ofori-Manteaw BB Aboagye S Dzefi-Tettey K Ofori EK 611 616 27 2021 33342686
