Abstract Purpose Breast compression during mammography is one of a number of essential components in the production of an optimally diagnostic mammogram. Breast compression optimises image quality and hence the visualisation of small lesions by reducing breast thickness (Barnes G, editor. Mammography equipment: compression, scatter control, and automatic exposure control. In: Haus A, Yaffe M, editors. Syllabus: a categorical course in physics. Oak Brook: RSNA Publications; 1993). The amount of applied compression is currently determined by subjective criteria relating to physical characteristics of the breast. The aim of this study was to develop breast compressibility curves and use them to develop objective criteria for applying compression force. Methods The study was conducted at a breast screening service in Sydney, Australia. Thirty-one women attending regular breast screening participated in the study. Breast compressibility curves were constructed and the categorisation of firm and soft breasts was carried out by adapting a method used to evaluate breast implant surgery (Plast Reconstr Surg 92 (1993) 1078). These curves were compared to the breast compression applied during the mammogram. The categorisations were related to the amount of breast thickness reduction following the application of the first 30N of compression force. Results The difference between the breast thickness reduction demonstrated by the curves and the actual mammogram was sufficient to compromise image quality. The potential for breast compressibility can be identified by the radiographer when the first 30N of breast compression are applied. Conclusions The differences in breast thickness reduction demonstrated in this study using current criteria for the application of breast compression have the potential to compromise small cancer detection in breast screening. A new perspective focusing on minimising breast thickness should be the goal in mammography. Minimising breast thickness will ensure that image quality and hence the potential for small cancer detection are maximised.
[1]
A. Thilander,et al.
The impact of anatomic variations on absorbed radiation doses in mammography
,
1993
.
[2]
Gini Wentz,et al.
Mammography for Radiologic Technologists
,
1992
.
[3]
Mary Rickard,et al.
Breast compression in mammography: how much is enough?
,
2003,
Australasian radiology.
[4]
H. Hayes,et al.
Indentation Tonometry of Breasts
,
1979,
Plastic and reconstructive surgery.
[5]
Francis J. Keefe,et al.
Mammography pain and discomfort: a cognitive-behavioral perspective
,
1994,
Pain.
[6]
J. Owsley,et al.
Symposium on Aesthetic Surgery of the Breast
,
1979
.
[7]
P. Schnur,et al.
Objective Clinical Assessment of Fibrous Capsular Contracture
,
1982,
Plastic and reconstructive surgery.
[8]
M A Helvie,et al.
Breast thickness in routine mammograms: effect on image quality and radiation dose.
,
1994,
AJR. American journal of roentgenology.
[9]
G. Pierer,et al.
"Mammacompliance": an objective technique for measuring capsular fibrosis.
,
1993,
Plastic and reconstructive surgery.
[10]
D B Kopans,et al.
Mammographic density and physical assessment of the breast.
,
1987,
AJR. American journal of roentgenology.