Abstract
This chapter introduces the problem of lack of standardization of compression – variability of compression force exists between and within practitioners. This variability could have an impact on image quality, radiation dose, the woman’s experience and consequently re-attendance rates. The approach to compression force application has not changed greatly over the last few decades, so little progress has been made to resolve the issue. A new approach, based upon pressure, has recently appeared in the literature; consequently we invited the authors of this chapter to outline it. In outlining the pressure based approach they use new data to compare clinical practice of mammographic compression in two countries: the Netherlands, where a minimum force of 12 decanewton (daN) is maintained, and in the United States (U.S.) where no target force is specified. Within this chapter two large data sets (Netherlands: n = 13,610; U.S.: n = 7,179) of mammography DICOM files were retrospectively analyzed using dedicated software (VolparaAnalytics and VolparaDensity, Volpara Solutions, Wellington, New Zealand). Data is analyzed as function of breast size (contact area) in order to examine in what way practitioners adjust the compression to individual breast size. Given that new data is used to outline the pressure based approach this chapter follows a similar format to a journal article.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, Von Karsa L, editors. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2008.
Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992. Mammography facilities requirement for accrediting bodies, and quality standards and certifying requirements. Fed Regist. 1993;58:67565–72.
Saunders Jr RS, Samei E. The effect of breast compression on mass conspicuity in digital mammography. Med Phys. 2008;35(10):4464–73.
Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. Radiology. 2005;234(2):353–62.
Heine JJ, Cao K, Thomas JA. Effective radiation attenuation calibration for breast density: compression thickness influences and correction. Biomed Eng Online. 2010;9:73.
Mercer CE, Hogg P, Lawson R, Diffey J, Denton ER. Practitioner compression force variability in mammography: a preliminary study. Br J Radiol. 2013;86(1022):20110596.
Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A, Moran C, Berns EA, Yaffe MJ, 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;194(2):362–9.
Sullivan DC, Beam CA, Goodman SM, Watt DL. Measurement of force applied during mammography. Radiology. 1991;181(2):355–7.
Gefen A, Dilmoney B. Mechanics of the normal woman’s breast. Technol Health Care. 2007;15(4):259–71.
de Groot JE, Broeders MJ, 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(8):081901.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Groot, J.E. et al. (2015). Mammographic Compression: A Need for Mechanical Standardisation. In: Hogg, P., Kelly, J., Mercer, C. (eds) Digital Mammography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04831-4_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04831-4_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04830-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04831-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)