Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research Article

Influence of breast compression pressure on the performance of population-based mammography screening

Authors: Katharina Holland, Ioannis Sechopoulos, Ritse M. Mann, Gerard J. den Heeten, Carla H. van Gils, Nico Karssemeijer

Published in: Breast Cancer Research | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In mammography, breast compression is applied to reduce the thickness of the breast. While it is widely accepted that firm breast compression is needed to ensure acceptable image quality, guidelines remain vague about how much compression should be applied during mammogram acquisition. A quantitative parameter indicating the desirable amount of compression is not available. Consequently, little is known about the relationship between the amount of breast compression and breast cancer detectability. The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of breast compression pressure in mammography on breast cancer screening outcomes.

Methods

We used digital image analysis methods to determine breast volume, percent dense volume, and pressure from 132,776 examinations of 57,179 women participating in the Dutch population-based biennial breast cancer screening program. Pressure was estimated by dividing the compression force by the area of the contact surface between breast and compression paddle. The data was subdivided into quintiles of pressure and the number of screen-detected cancers, interval cancers, false positives, and true negatives were determined for each group. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for correlation between examinations of the same woman and for the effect of breast density and volume when estimating sensitivity, specificity, and other performance measures. Sensitivity was computed using interval cancers occurring between two screening rounds and using interval cancers within 12 months after screening. Pair-wise testing for significant differences was performed.

Results

Percent dense volume increased with increasing pressure, while breast volume decreased. Sensitivity in quintiles with increasing pressure was 82.0%, 77.1%, 79.8%, 71.1%, and 70.8%. Sensitivity based on interval cancers within 12 months was significantly lower in the highest pressure quintile compared to the third (84.3% vs 93.9%, p = 0.034). Specificity was lower in the lowest pressure quintile (98.0%) compared to the second, third, and fourth group (98.5%, p < 0.005). Specificity of the fifth quintile was 98.4%.

Conclusion

Results suggest that if too much pressure is applied during mammography this may reduce sensitivity. In contrast, if pressure is low this may decrease specificity.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Chen B, Wang Y, Sun X, et al. Analysis of patient dose in full field digital mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:868–72.CrossRefPubMed Chen B, Wang Y, Sun X, et al. Analysis of patient dose in full field digital mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:868–72.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Heine J, Cao K, Thomas JA. Effective radiation attenuation calibration for breast density: compression thickness influences and correction. Biomed Eng Online. 2010;9:73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Heine J, Cao K, Thomas JA. Effective radiation attenuation calibration for breast density: compression thickness influences and correction. Biomed Eng Online. 2010;9:73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Kopans DB. Breast imaging. 3rd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. pp. 254–6. Kopans DB. Breast imaging. 3rd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. pp. 254–6.
4.
go back to reference Saunders Jr RS, Samei E. The effect of breast compression on mass conspicuity in digital mammography. Med Phys. 2008;35:4464–73.CrossRefPubMed Saunders Jr RS, Samei E. The effect of breast compression on mass conspicuity in digital mammography. Med Phys. 2008;35:4464–73.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Branderhorst W, de Groot JE, Highnam R, et al. Mammographic compression—a need for mechanical standardization. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:596–602.CrossRefPubMed Branderhorst W, de Groot JE, Highnam R, et al. Mammographic compression—a need for mechanical standardization. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:596–602.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A, 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;94:362–9.CrossRef Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A, 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;94:362–9.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference O’Leary D, Grand T, Rainford L. Image quality and compression force: the forgotten link in optimisation of digital mammography? Breast Cancer Res. 2011;13:P10.CrossRefPubMedCentral O’Leary D, Grand T, Rainford L. Image quality and compression force: the forgotten link in optimisation of digital mammography? Breast Cancer Res. 2011;13:P10.CrossRefPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Mercer CE, Hogg P, Lawson R, Diffey J, Denton ERE. Practitioner compression force variability in mammography: a preliminary study. Br J Radiol. 2013;86:20110596.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mercer CE, Hogg P, Lawson R, Diffey J, Denton ERE. Practitioner compression force variability in mammography: a preliminary study. Br J Radiol. 2013;86:20110596.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Mercer CE, Szczepura K, Kelly J, et al. A 6-year study of mammographic compression force: practitioner variability within and between screening sites. Radiography. 2015;21:68–73.CrossRef Mercer CE, Szczepura K, Kelly J, et al. A 6-year study of mammographic compression force: practitioner variability within and between screening sites. Radiography. 2015;21:68–73.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Waade GG, Moshina N, Sæbuødegård S, Hogg P, Hofvind S. Compression forces used in the Norwegian breast cancer screening program. Br J Radiol. 2017;90:20160770.CrossRefPubMed Waade GG, Moshina N, Sæbuødegård S, Hogg P, Hofvind S. Compression forces used in the Norwegian breast cancer screening program. Br J Radiol. 2017;90:20160770.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Davey B. Pain during mammography: possible risk factors and ways to alleviate pain. Radiography. 2007;13:229–34.CrossRef Davey B. Pain during mammography: possible risk factors and ways to alleviate pain. Radiography. 2007;13:229–34.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Dullum JR, Lewis EC, Mayer JA. Rates and correlates of discomfort associated with mammography. Radiology. 2000;214:547–52.CrossRefPubMed Dullum JR, Lewis EC, Mayer JA. Rates and correlates of discomfort associated with mammography. Radiology. 2000;214:547–52.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Keefe FJ, Hauck ER, Egert J, Rimer B, Kornguth P. Mammography pain and discomfort: a cognitive-behavioral perspective. Pain. 1994;56:247–60.CrossRefPubMed Keefe FJ, Hauck ER, Egert J, Rimer B, Kornguth P. Mammography pain and discomfort: a cognitive-behavioral perspective. Pain. 1994;56:247–60.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Whelehan P, Evans A, Wells M, Macgillivray S. The effect of mammography pain on repeat participation in breast cancer screening: a systematic review. Breast. 2013;22:389–94.CrossRefPubMed Whelehan P, Evans A, Wells M, Macgillivray S. The effect of mammography pain on repeat participation in breast cancer screening: a systematic review. Breast. 2013;22:389–94.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference de Groot JE, Branderhorst W, Grimbergen CA, den Heeten GJ, Broeders MJM. Towards personalized compression in mammography: a comparison study between pressure- and force-standardization. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:384–91.CrossRefPubMed de Groot JE, Branderhorst W, Grimbergen CA, den Heeten GJ, Broeders MJM. Towards personalized compression in mammography: a comparison study between pressure- and force-standardization. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:384–91.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference de Groot JE, Broeders MJM, Branderhorst W, den Heeten GJ, Grimbergen CA. A novel approach to mammographic breast compression: improved standardization and reduced discomfort by controlling pressure instead of force. Med Phys. 2013;40:081901.CrossRefPubMed de Groot JE, Broeders MJM, Branderhorst W, den Heeten GJ, Grimbergen CA. A novel approach to mammographic breast compression: improved standardization and reduced discomfort by controlling pressure instead of force. Med Phys. 2013;40:081901.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, Karsa LV. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2008. p. 172. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, Karsa LV. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2008. p. 172.
18.
go back to reference Brenner RJ. Asymmetric densities of the breast: strategies for imaging evaluation. Semin Roentgenol. 2001;36(3):201–16.CrossRefPubMed Brenner RJ. Asymmetric densities of the breast: strategies for imaging evaluation. Semin Roentgenol. 2001;36(3):201–16.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Giess CS, Chikarmane SA, Sippo DA, Birdwell RL. Breast MR imaging for equivocal mammographic findings: help or hindrance? Radiographics. 2016;36:943–58.CrossRefPubMed Giess CS, Chikarmane SA, Sippo DA, Birdwell RL. Breast MR imaging for equivocal mammographic findings: help or hindrance? Radiographics. 2016;36:943–58.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Heywang-Koebrunner SH, Schreer I, Barter S. Diagnostic breast imaging. 3rd ed. Stuttgart, Germany: Georg Thieme Verlag; 2014. Heywang-Koebrunner SH, Schreer I, Barter S. Diagnostic breast imaging. 3rd ed. Stuttgart, Germany: Georg Thieme Verlag; 2014.
21.
go back to reference Snoeren PR, Karssemeijer N. Thickness correction of mammographic images by means of a global parameter model of the compressed breast. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2004;23:799–806.CrossRefPubMed Snoeren PR, Karssemeijer N. Thickness correction of mammographic images by means of a global parameter model of the compressed breast. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2004;23:799–806.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Branderhorst W, de Groot JE, van Lier MGJTB, Highnam RP, den Heeten GJ, Grimbergen CA. Technical note: validation of two methods to determine contact area between breast and compression paddle in mammography. Medicalphysics. 2017;44:4040–4. Branderhorst W, de Groot JE, van Lier MGJTB, Highnam RP, den Heeten GJ, Grimbergen CA. Technical note: validation of two methods to determine contact area between breast and compression paddle in mammography. Medicalphysics. 2017;44:4040–4.
23.
go back to reference Holland K, Sechopoulos I, den Heeten GJ, Mann RM, Karssemeijer N. Performance of breast cancer screening depends on mammographic compression. In: Tingberg A et al., editors. Breast imaging. Cham: Springer; 2016: p. 183–9. Holland K, Sechopoulos I, den Heeten GJ, Mann RM, Karssemeijer N. Performance of breast cancer screening depends on mammographic compression. In: Tingberg A et al., editors. Breast imaging. Cham: Springer; 2016: p. 183–9.
24.
go back to reference Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Tosteson ANA, et al. Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:673–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Tosteson ANA, et al. Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:673–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Prummel MV, Muradali D, Shumak R, et al. Digital compared with screen-film mammography: measures of diagnostic accuracy among women screened in the Ontario Breast Screening Program. Radiology. 2016;278:365–73.CrossRefPubMed Prummel MV, Muradali D, Shumak R, et al. Digital compared with screen-film mammography: measures of diagnostic accuracy among women screened in the Ontario Breast Screening Program. Radiology. 2016;278:365–73.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Wanders JOP, Holland K, Veldhuis WB, et al. Volumetric breast density affects performance of digital screening mammography. Breast Cancer Research Treatment. 2017;162:95–103.CrossRefPubMed Wanders JOP, Holland K, Veldhuis WB, et al. Volumetric breast density affects performance of digital screening mammography. Breast Cancer Research Treatment. 2017;162:95–103.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Hofvind S, Vacek PM, Skelly J, Weaver DL, Geller BM. Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1082–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hofvind S, Vacek PM, Skelly J, Weaver DL, Geller BM. Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1082–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
30.
go back to reference Highnam R, Brady M. Mammographic image analysis. Chapter 9. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1999. p. 159. Highnam R, Brady M. Mammographic image analysis. Chapter 9. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1999. p. 159.
31.
go back to reference Moshina N, Sæbuødegård S, Hofvind S. 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. 2017;163:605–13.CrossRefPubMed Moshina N, Sæbuødegård S, Hofvind S. 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. 2017;163:605–13.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Dustler M, Andersson I, Brorson H, et al. Breast compression in mammography: pressure distribution patterns. Acta Radiol. 2012;53:973–80.CrossRefPubMed Dustler M, Andersson I, Brorson H, et al. Breast compression in mammography: pressure distribution patterns. Acta Radiol. 2012;53:973–80.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Influence of breast compression pressure on the performance of population-based mammography screening
Authors
Katharina Holland
Ioannis Sechopoulos
Ritse M. Mann
Gerard J. den Heeten
Carla H. van Gils
Nico Karssemeijer
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Breast Cancer Research / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1465-542X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-017-0917-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Breast Cancer Research 1/2017 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine