Jerry E de Groot1, Woutjan Branderhorst2, Cornelis A Grimbergen3, Gerard J den Heeten4, Mireille J M Broeders5. 1. Academic Medical Center, Room L0-151, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Academic Medical Center, Department of Biomedical Engineering & Physics, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: jerry.degroot@sigmascreening.com. 2. Academic Medical Center, Department of Biomedical Engineering & Physics, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Sigmascreening B.V., Meibergdreef 45, 1105 BA Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: w.branderhorst@amc.uva.nl. 3. Academic Medical Center, Department of Biomedical Engineering & Physics, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Sigmascreening B.V., Meibergdreef 45, 1105 BA Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: c.a.grimbergen@amc.uva.nl. 4. Academic Medical Center, Department of Radiology, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands; LRCB Dutch Reference Center for Screening, P.O. Box 6873, 6503 GJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: g.denheeten@lrcb.nl. 5. Radboud University Medical Center, Department for Health Evidence, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands; LRCB Dutch Reference Center for Screening, P.O. Box 6873, 6503 GJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: mireille.broeders@radboudumc.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare a conventional 14 decanewton (daN) force-standardized compression protocol with a personalized 10kilopascal (kPa) pressure-standardized protocol. METHODS: A new add-on contact area detector, which enables pressure-standardized compression, is validated in a double-blinded intra-individual comparison study. Breast screening participants (433) receivedone craniocaudal (CC) and one mediolateral oblique (MLO) compression for both breasts. Three of these compressions were force-standardized, and one, blinded and randomly assigned, was pressure-standardized. Participants scored their pain experience on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). Three experienced breast-screening radiologists, blinded for compression protocol, indicated which images required retakes. RESULTS: An unanticipated under-compression issue that occurred at forces below 5daN was effectively solved with minimal extra radiographer training during the study. For pressure-standardized compressions obtained at 5daN or more, the compressed breasts thickness increased on average 4.2% (MLO)-6.3% (CC), average pain scores were reduced by 10% (MLO)-17% (CC) and the proportion of women experiencing severe pain (NRS≥7) was reduced by 27% (MLO)-32% (CC), compared with force-standardized compressions (all p-values <0.05). Average glandular dose (AGD) and proportions of retakes were similar for both protocols. CONCLUSION: Pressure-standardized compressions resulted in AGD values and a retake proportion similar to force-standardized compressions, while pain was significantly reduced.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare a conventional 14 decanewton (daN) force-standardized compression protocol with a personalized 10kilopascal (kPa) pressure-standardized protocol. METHODS: A new add-on contact area detector, which enables pressure-standardized compression, is validated in a double-blinded intra-individual comparison study. Breast screening participants (433) received one craniocaudal (CC) and one mediolateral oblique (MLO) compression for both breasts. Three of these compressions were force-standardized, and one, blinded and randomly assigned, was pressure-standardized. Participants scored their pain experience on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). Three experienced breast-screening radiologists, blinded for compression protocol, indicated which images required retakes. RESULTS: An unanticipated under-compression issue that occurred at forces below 5daN was effectively solved with minimal extra radiographer training during the study. For pressure-standardized compressions obtained at 5daN or more, the compressed breasts thickness increased on average 4.2% (MLO)-6.3% (CC), average pain scores were reduced by 10% (MLO)-17% (CC) and the proportion of women experiencing severe pain (NRS≥7) was reduced by 27% (MLO)-32% (CC), compared with force-standardized compressions (all p-values <0.05). Average glandular dose (AGD) and proportions of retakes were similar for both protocols. CONCLUSION: Pressure-standardized compressions resulted in AGD values and a retake proportion similar to force-standardized compressions, while pain was significantly reduced.
Authors: Ellen Paap; Marloes Witjes; Cary van Landsveld-Verhoeven; Ruud M Pijnappel; Angela H E M Maas; Mireille J M Broeders Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Jerry E de Groot; Mireille J M Broeders; Cornelis A Grimbergen; Gerard J den Heeten Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2015-03-15 Impact factor: 2.809
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