Background/Objectives: Image quality of mammograms in breast cancer screening is strongly operator-dependent, particularly in the mediolateral oblique (MLO) projection where adequate visualisation of the pectoralis major muscle serves as a surrogate marker of posterior tissue inclusion. Current positioning assessment is predominantly qualitative and subject to inter-observer variability. This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate pectoral muscle visualisation and compression force variability among radiographers participating in a national screening programme. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted at Clinical Hospital Center Rijeka in January and February 2020. A total of 464 digital MLO mammograms were analysed. Images from nine radiographers were randomly retrieved from the institutional Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS). Pectoral muscle length and width were measured using a standard clinical workstation with an integrated distance measurement tool. Additional variables included radiographer gender, breast side (LMLO vs. RMLO), imaging order, and applied compression force. Statistical analyses included Welch’s ANOVA, one-way ANOVA, t-tests, and appropriate post hoc comparisons. Results: Across all MLO projections, the combined mean pectoral muscle width was 41.0 ± 11.4 mm and the mean length was 134.3 ± 21.7 mm. Significant inter-operator differences were observed in pectoral muscle width (p 0.05). Compression force differed significantly among radiographers (p < 0.001), ranging from 117.0 ± 18.3 N to 184.8 ± 33.9 N. Conclusions: This study demonstrates significant inter-operator variability in both pectoral muscle visualisation and applied compression force during MLO mammography. These findings indicate that important technical aspects of mammographic examination remain strongly operator-dependent and highlight the need for more consistent positioning practices within screening programmes. Quantitative measurement of pectoral muscle dimensions may serve as a practical and objective approach for monitoring positioning quality and supporting quality assurance in routine clinical practice.
Karić et al. (Sun,) studied this question.