Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 4/2018

01-04-2018 | Breast

Breast compression parameters and mammographic density in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme

Authors: Nataliia Moshina, Marta Roman, Gunvor G. Waade, Sofie Sebuødegård, Giske Ursin, Solveig Hofvind

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 4/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate possible associations between breast compression parameters, including compression force, pressure and compressed breast thickness, and mammographic density assessed by an automated software.

Methods

We obtained data on breast compression parameters, breast volume, absolute and percentage dense volume, and body mass index for 14,698 women screened with two-view (craniocaudal, CC, and mediolateral oblique, MLO) digital mammography, in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme, 2014–2015. The Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ) was used to measure correlation between breast compression parameters, breast volume and absolute and percentage dense volume. Linear regression was used to examine associations between breast compression parameters and absolute and percentage dense volume, adjusting for breast volume, age and BMI.

Results

A fair negative correlation was observed between compression pressure and absolute dense volume (ρ = − 0.37 for CC and ρ = − 0.34 for MLO). A moderate negative correlation was identified for compressed breast thickness and percentage dense volume (ρ = − 0.56 for CC and ρ = − 0.62 for MLO). These correlations were corroborated by the corresponding associations obtained in the adjusted regression analyses.

Conclusions

Results from this study indicate that breast compression parameters may influence absolute and percentage dense volume measured by the automated software.

Key points

• A fair correlation was identified between compression pressure and absolute dense volume
• A moderate correlation was identified between compressed breast thickness and percentage dense volume
• Breast compression may influence automated density estimates
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Kopans DB (2006) Mammography and the normal breast. Breast imaging. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 357–363
2.
McCormack VA, dos Santos SI (2006) Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 15:1159–1169CrossRef
3.
Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL et al (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1081–1087CrossRefPubMed
4.
Kavanagh AM, Byrnes GB, Nickson C et al (2008) Using mammographic density to improve breast cancer screening outcomes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 17:2818–2824CrossRef
5.
Moshina N, Ursin G, Roman M, Sebuodegard S, Hofvind S (2016) Positive predictive values by mammographic density and screening mode in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Eur J Radiol 85:248–254CrossRefPubMed
6.
Wanders JO, Holland K, Veldhuis WB et al (2017) Volumetric breast density affects performance of digital screening mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 162:95–103CrossRefPubMed
7.
Desreux J, Bleret V, Lifrange E (2012) Should we individualize breast cancer screening? Maturitas 73:202–205CrossRefPubMed
8.
Brand JS, Czene K, Shepherd JA et al (2014) Automated measurement of volumetric mammographic density: a tool for widespread breast cancer risk assessment. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 23:1764–1772CrossRef
9.
Eng A, Gallant Z, Shepherd J et al (2014) Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case-control study of six alternative density assessment methods. Breast Cancer Res 16:439CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Damases CN, Brennan PC, Mello-Thoms C, McEntee MF (2016) Mammographic breast density assessment using automated volumetric software and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) categorization by expert radiologists. Acad Radiol 23:70–77CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Shepherd JA, Kerlikowske K, Ma L et al (2011) Volume of mammographic density and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 20:1473–1482CrossRef
13.
Destounis S, Johnston L, Highnam R, Arieno A, Morgan R, Chan A (2017) Using volumetric breast density to quantify the potential masking risk of mammographic density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:222–227CrossRefPubMed
14.
Highnam R, Brady M, Yaffe MJ, Karssemeijer N, Harvey J (2010) Robust breast composition measurement - Volpara™. In: Martí J, Freixenet J, Oliver A (eds) Lecture notes in computer science: 10th international workshop on digital mammography. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 342–349
15.
Waade GG, Highnam R, Hauge IHR et al (2016) Impact of errors in recorded compressed breast thickness measurements on volumetric density classification using volpara v1.5.0 software. Med Phys 43:2870–2876CrossRefPubMed
16.
Hartman K, Highnam R, Warren R, Jackson V (2008) Volumetric Assessment of breast tissue composition from FFDM images. In: Krupinski EA (ed) Digital mammography: 9th international workshop, IWDM 2008 Tucson, AZ, USA, July 20–23, 2008 Proceedings. Springer, Berlin, pp 33–39CrossRef
17.
18.
Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. European Communities, Luxemburg
19.
Hogg P, Kelly J, Mercer C (2015) Digital mammography: a holistic approach. Springer, London
20.
Branderhorst W, de Groot JE, Highnam R et al (2015) Mammographic compression--a need for mechanical standardization. Eur J Radiol 84:596–602CrossRefPubMed
21.
de Groot JE, Branderhorst W, Grimbergen CA, den Heeten GJ, Broeders MJ (2015) Towards personalized compression in mammography: a comparison study between pressure- and force-standardization. Eur J Radiol 84:384–391CrossRefPubMed
22.
Mercer CE, Hogg P, Szczepura K, Denton ERE (2013) Practitioner compression force variation in mammography: a 6-year study. Radiography 19:200–206CrossRef
23.
Wilkinson JSM, Sønnesyn MV, Gullien R, Sagstad S, Hofvind S (2014) Kompresjonskraft i mammografiscreeningen i Oslo [Compression force in mammography screening in Oslo]. Hold Pusten:11–15
24.
Kopans DB (2008) Basic physics and doubts about relationship between mammographically determined tissue density and breast cancer risk. Radiology 246:348–353CrossRefPubMed
25.
Poulos A, Rickard M (1997) Compression in mammography and the perception of discomfort. Australas Radiol 41:247–252CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
28.
29.
Hofvind S, Geller B, Vacek PM, Thoresen S, Skaane P (2007) Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Eur J Epidemiol 22:447–455CrossRefPubMed
30.
31.
Ghetti C, Borrini A, Ortenzia O, Rossi R, Ordonez PL (2008) Physical characteristics of GE Senographe Essential and DS digital mammography detectors. Med Phys 35:456–463CrossRefPubMed
32.
Highnam R, Pan X, Warren R, Jeffreys M, Smith GD, Brady M (2006) Breast composition measurements using retrospective standard mammogram form (SMF). Phys Med Biol 51:2695CrossRefPubMed
33.
van Engeland S, Snoeren PR, Huisman H, Boetes C, Karssemeijer N (2006) Volumetric breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 25:273–282CrossRefPubMed
34.
Cheddad A, Czene K, Eriksson M et al (2014) Area and volumetric density estimation in processed full-field digital mammograms for risk assessment of breast cancer. PLoS One 9:e110690CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Colton T (1974) Statistics in medicine. Little, Brown and Company, Boston
36.
Dustler M, Andersson I, Brorson H et al (2012) Breast compression in mammography: pressure distribution patterns. Acta Radiol 53:973–980CrossRefPubMed
37.
38.
Mercer CE, Hogg P, Lawson R, Diffey J, Denton ERE (2013) Practitioner compression force variability in mammography: a preliminary study. Br J Radiol 86:20110596CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Stuedal A, Ma H, Bernstein L, Pike MC, Ursin G (2008) Does breast size modify the association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk? Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 17:621–627CrossRef
40.
41.
Khan-Perez J, Harkness E, Mercer C et al (2014) Volumetric breast density and radiographic parameters. In: Fujita H, Hara T, Muramatsu C (eds) Breast imaging: 12th international workshop, IWDM 2014, Gifu City, Japan, June 29–July 2, 2014 Proceedings. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 265–272
42.
Khan-Perez J, Mercer C, Bydder M et al (2013) Breast compression, compressed breast thickness and volumetric breast density. Breast Cancer Res 15:P10CrossRefPubMedCentral
43.
Olson JE, Sellers TA, Scott CG et al (2012) The influence of mammogram acquisition on the mammographic density and breast cancer association in the Mayo Mammography Health Study cohort. Breast Cancer Res 14:R147CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Gubern-Merida A, Kallenberg M, Platel B, Mann RM, Marti R, Karssemeijer N (2014) Volumetric breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms: a validation study. PLoS One 9:e85952CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
van der Waal D, den Heeten GJ, Pijnappel RM et al (2015) Comparing visually assessed BI-RADS breast density and automated volumetric breast density software: a cross-sectional study in a breast cancer screening setting. PLoS One 10:e0136667CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Moshina N, Sebuodegard S, Hofvind S (2017) Is breast compression associated with breast cancer detection and other early performance measures in a population-based breast cancer screening program? Breast Cancer Res Treat 163:605–613CrossRefPubMed
47.
48.
Branderhorst W, de Groot JE, Neeter LM et al (2016) Force balancing in mammographic compression. Med Phys 43:518CrossRefPubMed
49.
Heine JJ, Cao K, Thomas JA (2010) Effective radiation attenuation calibration for breast density: compression thickness influences and correction. Biomed Eng Online 9:73CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Broeders MJM, ten Voorde M, Veldkamp WJH et al (2015) Comparison of a flexible versus a rigid breast compression paddle: pain experience, projected breast area, radiation dose and technical image quality. Eur Radiol 25:821–829CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Breast compression parameters and mammographic density in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme
Authors
Nataliia Moshina
Marta Roman
Gunvor G. Waade
Sofie Sebuødegård
Giske Ursin
Solveig Hofvind
Publication date
01-04-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5104-5

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

European Radiology 4/2018 Go to the issue

Neuro

Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging derived maps may distinguish between low and high grade gliomas before surgery

Gastrointestinal

CT texture features of liver parenchyma for predicting development of metastatic disease and overall survival in patients with colorectal cancer

Gastrointestinal

Management of subcentimetre arterially enhancing and hepatobiliary hypointense lesions on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI in patients at risk for HCC

Contrast Media

Acute kidney injury in patients with nephrotic syndrome undergoing contrast-enhanced CT for suspected venous thromboembolism: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study

Vascular-Interventional

In memoriam Prof. Erik Boijsen

Head and Neck

Diagnostic and prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET, CT, and MRI in perineural spread of head and neck malignancies