ObjectivesReview available guidance for quality assurance (QA) in mammography and discuss its contribution to harmonise practices worldwide.MethodsLiterature search was performed on different sources to identify guidance documents for QA in mammography available worldwide in international bodies, healthcare providers, professional/scientific associations. The guidance documents identified were reviewed and a selection was compared for type of guidance (clinical/technical), technology and proposed QA methodologies focusing on dose and image quality (IQ) performance assessment.ResultsFourteen protocols (targeted at conventional and digital mammography) were reviewed. All included recommendations for testing acquisition, processing and display systems associated with mammographic equipment. All guidance reviewed highlighted the importance of dose assessment and testing the Automatic Exposure Control (AEC) system. Recommended tests for assessment of IQ showed variations in the proposed methodologies. Recommended testing focused on assessment of low-contrast detection, spatial resolution and noise. QC of image display is recommended following the American Association of Physicists in Medicine guidelines.ConclusionsThe existing QA guidance for mammography is derived from key documents (American College of Radiology and European Union guidelines) and proposes similar tests despite the variations in detail and methodologies. Studies reported on QA data should provide detail on experimental technique to allow robust data comparison. Countries aiming to implement a mammography/QA program may select/prioritise the tests depending on available technology and resources.Main messages•An effective QA program should be practical to implement in a clinical setting.•QA should address the various stages of the imaging chain: acquisition, processing and display.•AEC system QC testing is simple to implement and provides information on equipment performance.

Background: To investigate lateral lumbar spine radiography technical parameters for reduction of effective dose whilst maintaining image quality (IQ). Methods: Thirty-six radiograms of an anthropomorphic phantom were acquired using different exposure parameters: source-to-detector distance (SDD) (100, 130 or 150 cm), tube potential (75, 85 or 95 kVp), tube current × exposure time product (4.5, 9, 18 mAs) and additional copper (Cu) filter (no filter, 0.1-, 0.2-, or 0.3-mm thickness. IQ was assessed using an objective approach (contrast-to-noise-ratio [CNR] calculation and magnification measurement) and a perceptual approach (six observers); ED was estimated using the PCXMC 2.0 software. Descriptive statistics, paired t test, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used. Results: The highest ED (0.022 mSv) was found with 100 cm SSD, 75 kVp, 18 mAs, and without Cu filter, whilst the highest CNR (7.23) was achieved at 130 cm SSD, 75 kVp, 18 mAs, and without Cu filter. The lowest ED and CNR were generated at 150 cm SDD, 95 kVp, 4.5 mAs, and 0.3-mm Cu filter. All observers identified the relevant anatomical structures on all images with the lowest ED and IQ. The intra-observer (0.61-0.79) and inter-observer (0.55-0.82) ICC ranged from moderate to excellent. Conclusion: All relevant anatomical structures were identified on the lateral lumbar spine radiographs despite using low-dose protocols. The lowest ED (0.002 mSv) was obtained with 150 cm SDD, 95 kVp, 4.5 mAs, and 0.3-mm Cu filter. Further technical and clinical studies are needed to verify these preliminary findings.