Reliability of the image evaluation system PGMI

Purpose: Many countries used the PGMI (P=perfect, G=good, M=moderate, I=inadequate) classification system for assessing the quality of mammograms. Limits inherent to the subjectivity of this classification have been shown. Prior to introducing this system in Switzerland, we wanted to better understand the origin of this subjectivity in order to minimize it. Our study aimed at identifying the main determinants of the variability of the PGMI system and which criteria are the most subjected to subjectivity. Methods and Materials: A focus group composed of 2 experienced radiographers and 2 radiologists specified each PGMI criterion. Ten raters (6 radiographers and 4 radiologists) evaluated twice a panel of 40 randomly selected mammograms (20 analogic and 20 digital) according to these specified PGMI criteria. The PGMI classification was assessed and the intra- and inter-rater reliability was tested for each professional group (radiographer vs radiologist), image technology (analogic vs digital) and PGMI criterion. Results: Some 3,200 images were assessed. The intra-rater reliability appears to be weak, particularly in respect to inter-rater variability. Subjectivity appears to be largely independent of the professional group and image technology. Aspects of the PGMI classification criteria most subjected to variability were identified. Conclusion: Post-test discussions enabled to specify more precisely some criteria. This should reduce subjectivity when applying the PGMI classification system. A concomitant, important effort in training radiographers is also necessary.

Failure on clinical image quality criteria in digital mammography: how can radiographers do better?

Purpose: To assess image quality using PGMI (perfect, good, moderate, inadequate) scale in digital mammography examinations acquired in DR systems. Identify the main failures and propose corrective actions. Evaluate the most typical breast density. Methods and Materials: Clinical image quality criteria were evaluated considering mammograms acquired in 13 DR systems and classified according to PGMI scale using the criteria described in European Commission guidelines for radiographers. The breast density was assessed according to ACR recommendations. The data were collected on the acquisition system monitor to reproduce the daily practice of the radiographer. Results: The image quality criteria were evaluated in 3044 images. The criteria were fully achieved in 41% of the images that were classified as P (perfect), 31 % of the images were classified as M (moderate), 20% G (good) and 9% I (inadequate). The main cause of inadequate image quality was absence of all breast tissue in the image, skin folders in the pectoral muscle and in the infra-mammary angle. The higher number of failures occurred in MLO projections (809 out of 1022). The most represented (36%) breast type was type 2 (25-50% glandular tissue). Conclusion: Incorrect radiographic technique was frequently detected suggesting potential training needs and poor communication between the team members (radiographer and radiologists). Further correlations are necessary to identify the main causes for the failures, namely specific education and training in digital mammography and workload.