OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to show that compressed breast thickness on mammograms in overweight and obese women exceeds the thickness in normal-weight women and that increased thickness results in image degradation. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Three hundred consecutive routine mammograms were reviewed. Patients were categorized according to body mass index. Compression thickness, compressive force, kilovoltage, and milliampere-seconds were recorded. Geometric unsharpness and contrast degradation were calculated for each body mass index category. RESULTS: Body mass index categories were lean (3%), normal (36%), overweight (36%), and obese (25%). Body mass index was directly correlated with compressed thickness. In the mediolateral oblique view, the mean thickness of the obese category exceeded normal thickness by 18 mm (p < 0.01), corresponding to a 32% increase in geometric unsharpness. Mean obese thickness exceeded lean thickness by 33 mm (p < 0.01), corresponding to a 79% increase in unsharpness. Similar trends were observed for the craniocaudal view. In the mediolateral oblique projection, there was an increase of 1.0 kVp (p < 0.01) for obese compared with normal and 1.7 kVp (p < 0.01) between lean and obese, corresponding, respectively, to a 16% and a 25% decrease in image contrast because of scatter and kilovoltage changes. Milliampere-seconds increased by 47% on the mediolateral oblique images in the obese category compared with normal body mass index. CONCLUSION: An increased body mass index was associated with greater compressed breast thickness, resulting in increased geometric unsharpness, decreased image contrast, and greater potential for motion unsharpness.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to show that compressed breast thickness on mammograms in overweight and obesewomen exceeds the thickness in normal-weight women and that increased thickness results in image degradation. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Three hundred consecutive routine mammograms were reviewed. Patients were categorized according to body mass index. Compression thickness, compressive force, kilovoltage, and milliampere-seconds were recorded. Geometric unsharpness and contrast degradation were calculated for each body mass index category. RESULTS: Body mass index categories were lean (3%), normal (36%), overweight (36%), and obese (25%). Body mass index was directly correlated with compressed thickness. In the mediolateral oblique view, the mean thickness of the obese category exceeded normal thickness by 18 mm (p < 0.01), corresponding to a 32% increase in geometric unsharpness. Mean obese thickness exceeded lean thickness by 33 mm (p < 0.01), corresponding to a 79% increase in unsharpness. Similar trends were observed for the craniocaudal view. In the mediolateral oblique projection, there was an increase of 1.0 kVp (p < 0.01) for obese compared with normal and 1.7 kVp (p < 0.01) between lean and obese, corresponding, respectively, to a 16% and a 25% decrease in image contrast because of scatter and kilovoltage changes. Milliampere-seconds increased by 47% on the mediolateral oblique images in the obese category compared with normal body mass index. CONCLUSION: An increased body mass index was associated with greater compressed breast thickness, resulting in increased geometric unsharpness, decreased image contrast, and greater potential for motion unsharpness.
Authors: Shannon M Conroy; Christy G Woolcott; Karin R Koga; Celia Byrne; Chisato Nagata; Giske Ursin; Celine M Vachon; Martin J Yaffe; Ian Pagano; Gertraud Maskarinec Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2011-09-17 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Edgar Tapia; Diana Evelyn Villa-Guillen; Pavani Chalasani; Sara Centuori; Denise J Roe; Jose Guillen-Rodriguez; Chuan Huang; Jean-Phillippe Galons; Cynthia A Thomson; Maria Altbach; Jesse Trujillo; Liane Pinto; Jessica A Martinez; Amit M Algotar; H-H Sherry Chow Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Patricia A Carney; Linn A Abraham; William E Barlow; Joseph R Egger; Jessica S Fosse; Gary R Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Carl J D'Orsi; Prashni Paliwal; Stephen H Taplin Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2004-05-24
Authors: Gertraud Maskarinec; Michelle Ciba; Dan Ju; John A Shepherd; Thomas Ernst; Anna H Wu; Kristine R Monroe; Unhee Lim; Lynne R Wilkens; Loïc Le Marchand Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Braden Miller; Hunter Chalfant; Alexandra Thomas; Elizabeth Wellberg; Christina Henson; Molly W McNally; William E Grizzle; Ajay Jain; Lacey R McNally Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 5.923