In 2001 the ACPSEM published a position paper on quality assurance in screen film mammography which was subsequently adopted as a basis for the quality assurance programs of both the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) and of BreastScreen Australia. Since then the clinical implementation of digital mammography has been realised and it has become evident that existing screen-film protocols were not appropriate to assure the required image quality needed for reliable diagnosis or to address the new dose implications resulting from digital technology. In addition, the advantages and responsibilities inherent in teleradiology are most critical in mammography and also need to be addressed. The current document is the result of a review of current overseas practice and local experience in these areas. At this time the technology of digital imaging is undergoing significant development and there is still a lack of full international consensus about some of the detailed quality control (QC) tests that should be included in quality assurance (QA) programs. This document describes the current status in digital mammography QA and recommends test procedures that may be suitable in the Australasian environment. For completeness, this document also includes a review of the QA programs required for the various types of digital biopsy units used in mammography. In the future, international harmonisation of digital quality assurance in mammography and changes in the technology may require a review of this document. Version 2.0 represented the first of these updates and key changes related to image quality evaluation, ghost image evaluation and interpretation of signal to noise ratio measurements. In Version 3.0 some significant changes, made in light of further experience gained in testing digital mammography equipment were introduced. In Version 4.0, further changes have been made, most notably digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) testing and QC have been addressed. Some additional testing for conventional projection imaging has been added in order that sites may have the capability to undertake dose surveys to confirm compliance with diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) that may be established at the National or State level. A key recommendation is that dosimetry calculations are now to be undertaken using the methodology of Dance et al. Some minor changes to existing facility QC tests have been made to ensure the suggested procedures align with those most recently adopted by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists and BreastScreen Australia. Future updates of this document may be provided as deemed necessary in electronic format on the ACPSEM's website ( https://www.acpsem.org.au/whatacpsemdoes/standards-position-papers and see also http://www.ranzcr.edu.au/quality-a-safety/radiology/practice-quality-activities/mqap ).

Objective The purpose of this study is to measure the prevalence of graded disc degeneration, spondylolisthesis, transitional segmentation and the distribution of sacral slope in patients 21 to 65 years of age with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Methods This retrospective study analyzed 247 digital lumbar radiographic series obtained during a randomized controlled trial of chiropractic patients with CLBP. CLBP was defined as pain in the low back lasting 12 weeks or longer. Radiographic findings of disc degeneration, spondylolisthesis, and lumbosacral transitional segmentation were graded by 2 authors using established classification criteria. Sacral slope was measured with a digital tool contained within imaging software. Results Lumbosacral transitional segments graded I – IV (Castellvi classification) were present in 14% of cases. Lumbar disc degeneration was most prevalent at L3-4 (49%) followed by L4-5 (42%), L2-3 (41%), L5-S1 (37%), and L1-2 (29%). Isthmic spondylolisthesis was present in 5% of cases with L5 the most common location. Degenerative spondylolisthesis demonstrated a prevalence rate of 18%, most commonly occurring at L4. The prevalence of degenerative spondylolisthesis was 51% for females aged 50–59 and 24% for males in the same age range. Conclusions Moderate-severe disc degeneration, multi-level disc narrowing, and degenerative spondylolisthesis were common in individuals with CLBP over age 40. Isthmic spondylolisthesis was not more prevalent than what has been reported in other populations. Transitional segmentation was identified in a minority of participants with some of these exhibiting accessory joints or fusion. Mean sacral slope in individuals with CLBP was not substantially different from mean slopes reported in other populations.

In 1989 the ACPSEM published a position paper entitled "A Quality Assurance Programme for Mass Screening in Mammography". This paper described test parameters and performance specifications for the equipment related aspects of a mammography quality assurance program. Advice on test equipment selection was also provided. In the intervening period of time there have been considerable advances in mammography technology creating a need to review a number of the paper's recommendations. There have also been considerable developments in the mammography quality assurance (QA) field, not the least of which includes the American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program (ACR-MAP) and the similarly structured Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists' Mammography Accreditation Program (RANZCR-MAP). In light of these developments it was decided by the Radiology Interest Group to review the ACPSEM position on those aspects of mammography QA that fall within the medical physicist's area of expertise. This document represents the outcome of those deliberations.

The image quality and dose parameters from a 2004 Siemens Axiom Artis dBC cardiac biplane with flat panel detector were evaluated and compared to similar parameters evaluated for a 1977 Toshiba DPF 2000A biplane cardiac unit with a conventional image intensifier. Image quality assessment was performed with the Westmead test object; using solid water as a patient equivalent absorber. The patient dose comparison of the two systems is based on dose area product meter readings for 1512 patient cases recorded over 6 months following installation of the Siemens flat panel digital unit. The image quality results indicate that: (a) high contrast resolution was better with the digital flat panel unit, (b) low contrast resolution is similar between systems, and (c) the threshold contrast of the flat panel system is the same or inferior to that of the image intensifier system. Input dose to the surface of the flat panel detector showed a strong dependence on field size, similar to the behaviour of image intensifier system. For the most common clinical procedure--Left Heart Study via Judkins--the average total dose area product reading was 64.0 Gy-cm2 against 67.7 Gy-cm2 for the digital and conventional units respectively (p = 0.27) indicating no significant difference in dose performance between the two x-ray machines.

In 2001 the ACPSEM published a position paper on quality assurance in screen film mammography which was subsequently adopted as a basis for the quality assurance programs of both the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) and of BreastScreen Australia. Since then the clinical implementation of digital mammography has been realised and it has become evident that existing screen-film protocols were not appropriate to assure the required image quality needed for reliable diagnosis or to address the new dose implications resulting from digital technology. In addition, the advantages and responsibilities inherent in teleradiology are most critical in mammography and also need to be addressed. The current document is the result of a review of current overseas practice and local experience in these areas. At this time the technology of digital imaging is undergoing significant development and there is still a lack of full international consensus about some of the detailed Quality Control tests that should be included in quality assurance (QA) programs. This document describes the current status in digital mammography QA and recommends test procedures that may be suitable in the Australasian environment. For completeness, this document also includes a review of the QA programs required for the various types of digital biopsy units used in mammography. In the future, international harmonisation of digital quality assurance in mammography and changes in the technology may require a review of this document. Accordingly, updates of this document will be provided as deemed necessary in electronic format on the ACPSEM's website (see http://www.acpsem.org.au/au/subgroup/radiology/RadiologySG_index.html).