Mammographic compression--a need for mechanical standardization.

BACKGROUND A lack of consistent guidelines regarding mammographic compression has led to wide variation in its technical execution. Breast compression is accomplished by means of a compression paddle, resulting in a certain contact area between the paddle and the breast. This procedure is associated with varying levels of discomfort or pain. On current mammography systems, the only mechanical parameter available in estimating the degree of compression is the physical entity of force (daN). Recently, researchers have suggested that pressure (kPa), resulting from a specific force divided by contact area on a breast, might be a more appropriate parameter for standardization. Software has now become available which enables device-independent cross-comparisons of key mammographic metrics, such as applied compression pressure (force divided by contact area), breast density and radiation dose, between patient populations. PURPOSE To compare the current compression practice in mammography between different imaging sites in the Netherlands and the United States from a mechanical point of view, and to investigate whether the compression protocols in these countries can be improved by standardization of pressure (kPa) as an objective mechanical parameter. MATERIALS AND METHODS We retrospectively studied the available parameters of a set of 37,518 mammographic compressions (9188 women) from the Dutch national breast cancer screening programme (NL data set) and of another set of 7171 compressions (1851 women) from a breast imaging centre in Pittsburgh, PA (US data set). Both sets were processed using VolparaAnalytics and VolparaDensity to obtain the applied average force, pressure, breast thickness, breast volume, breast density and average glandular dose (AGD) as a function of the size of the contact area between the breast and the paddle. RESULTS On average, the forces and pressures applied in the NL data set were significantly higher than in the US data set. The relative standard deviation was larger in the US data set than in the NL data set. Breasts were compressed with a force in the high range of >15 daN for 31.1% and >20 kPa for 12.3% of the NL data set versus, respectively, 1.5% and 1.7% of the US data set. In the low range we encountered compressions with a pressure of <5 daN for 21.1% and <5 kPa for 21.7% of the US data set versus, respectively, 0.05% and 0.6% in the NL data set. Both the average and the standard deviation of the AGD were higher in the US data set. CONCLUSION (1) Current mammographic breast compression policies lead to a wide range of applied forces and pressures, with large variations both within and between clinical sites. (2) Pressure standardization could decrease variation, improve reproducibility, and reduce the risk of unnecessary pain, unnecessary high radiation doses and inadequate image quality.

[1]  Kamila Czene,et al.  Automated Measurement of Volumetric Mammographic Density: A Tool for Widespread Breast Cancer Risk Assessment , 2014, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[2]  S. Zackrisson,et al.  The effect of reduced breast compression in breast tomosynthesis: human observer study using clinical cases. , 2010, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[3]  Jingmei Li,et al.  Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case–control study of six alternative density assessment methods , 2014, Breast Cancer Research.

[4]  J. Baker,et al.  Can compression be reduced for breast tomosynthesis? Monte carlo study on mass and microcalcification conspicuity in tomosynthesis. , 2009, Radiology.

[5]  Constantine Gatsonis,et al.  Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  P Hogg,et al.  Practitioner compression force variability in mammography: a preliminary study. , 2013, The British journal of radiology.

[7]  Wouter J. H. Veldkamp,et al.  Comparison of a flexible versus a rigid breast compression paddle: pain experience, projected breast area, radiation dose and technical image quality , 2014, European Radiology.

[8]  C A Beam,et al.  Measurement of force applied during mammography. , 1991, Radiology.

[9]  Woutjan Branderhorst,et al.  Towards personalized compression in mammography: a comparison study between pressure- and force-standardization. , 2015, European journal of radiology.

[10]  G. W. Eklund Mammographic compression: science or art? , 1991, Radiology.

[11]  M J Yaffe AAPM tutorial. Physics of mammography: image recording process. , 1990, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[12]  C A Grimbergen,et al.  A novel approach to mammographic breast compression: Improved standardization and reduced discomfort by controlling pressure instead of force. , 2013, Medical physics.

[13]  A. Gefen,et al.  Mechanics of the normal woman's breast. , 2007, Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine.

[14]  Michael Brady,et al.  Patient Specific Dose Calculation Using Volumetric Breast Density for Mammography and Tomosynthesis , 2014, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[15]  E. Denton,et al.  Practitioner compression force variation in mammography: A 6-year study , 2013 .

[16]  J. Hendriks,et al.  The Dutch Population-Based Mammography Screening: 30-Year Experience , 2007, Breast Care.

[17]  John J Heine,et al.  Effective radiation attenuation calibration for breast density: compression thickness influences and correction , 2010, Biomedical engineering online.

[18]  F. J. Andrews,et al.  Pain during mammography: implications for breast screening programmes. , 2001, Australasian radiology.

[19]  M. Patlas,et al.  Does mammography hurt? , 2003, Journal of pain and symptom management.

[20]  Consumer Protection,et al.  European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. , 2008, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[21]  C. Grimbergen,et al.  Mammographic compression after breast conserving therapy: controlling pressure instead of force. , 2014, Medical physics.

[22]  S. MacGillivray,et al.  The effect of mammography pain on repeat participation in breast cancer screening: a systematic review. , 2013, Breast.

[23]  Vicki Livingstone,et al.  Interventions for relieving the pain and discomfort of screening mammography. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[24]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  The effect of breast compression on mass conspicuity in digital mammography. , 2008, Medical physics.