Literature DB >> 22949732

Breast compression in mammography: pressure distribution patterns.

Magnus Dustler1, Ingvar Andersson, Håkan Brorson, Patrik Fröjd, Sören Mattsson, Anders Tingberg, Sophia Zackrisson, Daniel Förnvik.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Breast compression is important in mammography in order to improve image quality, better separate tissue components, and reduce absorbed dose to the breast. In this study we use a method to measure and visualize the distribution of pressure over a compressed breast in mammography.
PURPOSE: To measure and describe the pressure distribution over the breast as a result of applied breast compression in mammography.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and three women aged 40.7-74.3 years (median, 48.9 years) invited for mammographic screening consented to take part in this study. They were subjected to two additional breast compressions of the left breast (standard force and approximately 50% reduction). Pressure images of the compressed breast were obtained using force sensing resistor (FSR) sensors placed underneath the compression plate. Subjects rated their experience of pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS).
RESULTS: Four pressure patterns were identified, fitting 81 of the 103 breasts, which were grouped accordingly. The remaining 22 breasts were found to correspond to a combination of any two patterns. Two groups (43 breasts) showed pressure mainly over the juxtathoracic part of the breast, had significantly greater breast thickness (P = 0.003) and had a lower mean pressure over dense tissue (P < 0.0001) than those with more evenly distributed pressure. Reducing compression force increased average breast thickness by 1.8 mm (P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: The distribution of pressure differed greatly between breasts. In a large proportion of breasts the compression plate did not provide optimal compression of the breast, the compression force being absorbed in juxtathoracic structures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22949732     DOI: 10.1258/ar.2012.120238

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Radiol        ISSN: 0284-1851            Impact factor:   1.990


  13 in total

1.  What is the minimum amount of simulated breast movement required for visual detection of blurring? An exploratory investigation.

Authors:  W K Ma; R Aspin; J Kelly; S Millington; P Hogg
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Compression forces used in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Gunvor G Waade; Nataliia Moshina; Sofie Sebuødegård; Peter Hogg; Solveig Hofvind
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-02-17       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Self-compression Technique vs Standard Compression in Mammography: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Philippe Henrot; Martine Boisserie-Lacroix; Véronique Boute; Philippe Troufléau; Bruno Boyer; Grégory Lesanne; Véronique Gillon; Emmanuel Desandes; Edith Netter; Maryam Saadate; Anne Tardivon; Christine Grentzinger; Julia Salleron; Guillaume Oldrini
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 4.  A review of mammographic positioning image quality criteria for the craniocaudal projection.

Authors:  Rhonda-Joy I Sweeney; Sarah J Lewis; Peter Hogg; Mark F McEntee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Finite element model of mechanical imaging of the breast.

Authors:  Rebecca Axelsson; Hanna Tomic; Sophia Zackrisson; Anders Tingberg; Hanna Isaksson; Predrag R Bakic; Magnus Dustler
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2022-05-23

6.  Characterization of the imaging settings in screening mammography using a tracking and reporting system: A multi-center and multi-vendor analysis.

Authors:  Bruno Barufaldi; Samantha P Zuckerman; Regina B Medeiros; Andrew D Maidment; Homero Schiabel
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 2.685

7.  No evidence for shedding of circulating tumor cells to the peripheral venous blood as a result of mammographic breast compression.

Authors:  Daniel Förnvik; Ingvar Andersson; Magnus Dustler; Roy Ehrnström; Lisa Rydén; Anders Tingberg; Sophia Zackrisson; Kristina Aaltonen
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Comparison of a flexible versus a rigid breast compression paddle: pain experience, projected breast area, radiation dose and technical image quality.

Authors:  Mireille J M Broeders; Marloes Ten Voorde; Wouter J H Veldkamp; Ruben E van Engen; Cary van Landsveld-Verhoeven; Machteld N L 't Jong-Gunneman; Jos de Win; Kitty Droogh-de Greve; Ellen Paap; Gerard J den Heeten
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  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
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  Can mechanical imaging increase the specificity of mammography screening?

Authors:  Magnus Dustler; Daniel Förnvik; Pontus Timberg; Ingvar Andersson; Hannie Petersson; Håkan Brorson; Anders Tingberg; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-01-20       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.