Mammographic Compression: A Need for Mechanical Standardisation

Groot, Jerry E. de; Branderhorst, Woutjan; Highnam, Ralph; Chan, Ariane; Böhm-Vélez, Marcela; Broeders, Mireille J. M.; Grimbergen, C.A.; Heeten, Gerard J. den

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-04831-4_22

Cited by 2 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The retained articles consisted of a mixture of quantitative study methods. There were six prospective 8,9,14,20–22 and eleven retrospective studies, 1,6,7,10,12,13,15–17,23,24 with one case–control study 5 . Publication dates ranged from 2004 to 2019, with the last publication being a 2019 retrospective cohort study 24 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Publication dates ranged from 2004 to 2019, with the last publication being a 2019 retrospective cohort study 24 . Eleven studies were sourced from the Netherlands, 5–8,10,12–14,20,21,23 with one remaining publication originating from Malaysia, 24 two from Norway, 1,22 three from the United Kingdom 15–17 and one from Australia 9 . Twelve studies focussed on an asymptomatic screening population; 1,6,7,9,12,14–17,20,22,23 however, three studies investigated a diagnostic/post‐intervention population; 5,8,21 and three studies considered both screening/diagnostic populations simultaneously 10,13,24 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eleven studies were sourced from the Netherlands, 5–8,10,12–14,20,21,23 with one remaining publication originating from Malaysia, 24 two from Norway, 1,22 three from the United Kingdom 15–17 and one from Australia 9 . Twelve studies focussed on an asymptomatic screening population; 1,6,7,9,12,14–17,20,22,23 however, three studies investigated a diagnostic/post‐intervention population; 5,8,21 and three studies considered both screening/diagnostic populations simultaneously 10,13,24 . Twelve studies 1,5,7,8,10,13–16,20,22,24 investigated both standard mammographic views (cranio‐caudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO)), two studies investigated only the MLO view, 6,12 and one study investigated only the CC view 23 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twelve studies focussed on an asymptomatic screening population; 1,6,7,9,12,14–17,20,22,23 however, three studies investigated a diagnostic/post‐intervention population; 5,8,21 and three studies considered both screening/diagnostic populations simultaneously 10,13,24 . Twelve studies 1,5,7,8,10,13–16,20,22,24 investigated both standard mammographic views (cranio‐caudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO)), two studies investigated only the MLO view, 6,12 and one study investigated only the CC view 23 . Two studies 22,23 were conducted from an equipment‐based perspective, focussing mainly on the compression paddle.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, mammography is the preliminary imaging modality used in most diagnostic settings (depending on patient age); calcium deposits, most frequently benign, can be indicative of potentially cancerous pathological change, which are usually seen clearly on a mammogram 4,5 . Breast compression is necessary for any successful mammographic examination; many sources discuss the effect of a uniform breast tissue thickness on improving image contrast and quality, with an associated reduction in radiation dose, geometric/motion blurring and tissue superimposition 1,5–14 . Whilst ultimately aiding in the detection of pathology, the discomfort attributed to breast compression remains the highest reason for patient non‐compliance with screening programs and lack of diagnostic lesion visibility 9,15,16 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Mammographic compression practices of force‐ and pressure‐standardisation protocol: A scoping review

Serwan

Matthews

Davies

et al. 2020

J of Medical Radiation Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction As an efficient, effective and moderately inexpensive modality, mammography has been implemented as a cancer screening tool and in diagnostic management. However, appropriate breast compression is necessary for optimal outcomes. Current key measures of compression force are subjective and variable, giving rise to the concept of a ‘personalised’ pressure‐standardisation protocol. Methods A scoping review of the literature was performed using the Arksey and O’Malley framework to explore the existing force‐ and pressure‐standardisation protocols in clinical application. A comprehensive search strategy and standardised study selection and evaluation were completed. This synthesis of existing knowledge can lead to the implementation of mechanically standardised mammographic compression pressure as a feasible tailored approach to clinical practice. Four databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus) were searched from the databases’ inception to 13 December 2019 for relevant information, and eighteen articles were selected for analysis. Results In addition to current protocol comparison, emerging key concepts include the reasoning behind standardisation, the benefits of improved diagnostic outcomes/decreased pain with negligible change in image quality and average glandular dose (AGD), and the recommendation of a 10kPa (approximate) pressure‐standardisation protocol. Research to date is largely based abroad (Netherlands), with a strong focus on screening practices. Consequently, several gaps in the current literature were identified as potential directions for future investigation. Conclusions As a suggested mammographic guideline, compression pressures of approximately 10kPa aid in image acquisition reproducibility both within and between women; pain levels decrease, with minimal variations to breast thickness, AGD and image quality.

show abstract