Literature DB >> 23239695

Pressure and breast thickness in mammography--an exploratory calibration study.

P Hogg1, M Taylor, K Szczepura, C Mercer, E Denton.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To perform a calibration study to provide data to help improve consistency in the pressure that is applied during mammography.
METHODS: Automatic readouts of breast thickness accuracy vary between mammography machines; therefore, one machine was selected for calibration. 250 randomly selected patients were invited to participate; 235 agreed, and 940 compression data sets were recorded (breast thickness, breast density and pressure). Pressure (measured in decanewtons) was increased from 5 daN through 1-daN intervals until the practitioner felt that the pressure was appropriate for imaging; at each pressure increment, breast thickness was recorded.
RESULTS: Graphs were generated and equations derived; second-order polynomial trend lines were applied using the method of least squares. No difference existed between breast densities, but a difference did exist between "small" (15×29 cm) and "medium/large" (18×24/24×30 cm) paddles. Accordingly, data were combined. Graphs show changes in thickness from 5-daN pressure for craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views for the small and medium/large paddles combined. Graphs were colour coded into three segments indicating high, intermediate and low gradients [≤-2 (light grey); -1.99 to -1 (mid-grey); and ≥-0.99 (dark grey)]. We propose that 13 daN could be an appropriate termination pressure on this mammography machine.
CONCLUSION: Using patient compression data we have calibrated a mammography machine to determine its breast compression characteristics. This calibration data could be used to guide practice to minimise pressure variations between practitioners, thereby improving patient experience and reducing potential variation in image quality. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: For the first time, pressure-thickness graphs are now available to help guide mammographers in the application of pressure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23239695      PMCID: PMC3615392          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20120222

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  7 in total

1.  The readout thickness versus the measured thickness for a range of screen film mammography and full-field digital mammography units.

Authors:  Ingrid H R Hauge; Peter Hogg; Katy Szczepura; Paul Connolly; George McGill; Claire Mercer
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Accurate estimation of compressed breast thickness in mammography.

Authors:  Gordon E Mawdsley; Albert H Tyson; Chris L Peressotti; Roberta A Jong; Martin J Yaffe
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Compression in mammography and the perception of discomfort.

Authors:  A Poulos; M Rickard
Journal:  Australas Radiol       Date:  1997-08

4.  "Mammacompliance": an objective technique for measuring capsular fibrosis.

Authors:  H Hoflehner; G Pierer; P Rehak
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 5.  Mammography pain and discomfort: a cognitive-behavioral perspective.

Authors:  Francis J Keefe; Emily R Hauck; Jennifer Egert; Barbara Rimer; Phyllis Kornguth
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 6.961

6.  Measurement of force applied during mammography.

Authors:  D C Sullivan; C A Beam; S M Goodman; D L Watt
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Reduced compression mammography to reduce breast pain.

Authors:  Koichi Chida; Yuka Komatsu; Masahiro Sai; Asuka Nakagami; Takayuki Yamada; Takuya Yamashita; Issei Mori; Tadashi Ishibashi; Shin Maruoka; Masayuki Zuguchi
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2009 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.605

  7 in total
  5 in total

1.  Analysis of motion during the breast clamping phase of mammography.

Authors:  Wang Kei Ma; Mark F McEntee; Claire Mercer; Judith Kelly; Sara Millington; Peter Hogg
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Pressure and breast thickness in mammography--what about physics? Author reply.

Authors:  P Hogg; M Taylor; K Szczepura; C Mercer; E Denton
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-05-20       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Pressure and breast thickness in mammography--what about physics?

Authors:  C A Grimbergen; G J den Heeten
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-05-20       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  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

5.  In Vivo Long-Term Monitoring of Circulating Tumor Cells Fluctuation during Medical Interventions.

Authors:  Mazen A Juratli; Eric R Siegel; Dmitry A Nedosekin; Mustafa Sarimollaoglu; Azemat Jamshidi-Parsian; Chengzhong Cai; Yulian A Menyaev; James Y Suen; Ekaterina I Galanzha; Vladimir P Zharov
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.