Combined Analysis of Breast Morphometry, Compression and Volumetric Breast Density: Valuable Input to Improve Mammography Screening Using International Bench Marking

Document Type : Original Paper

Authors

1 Hassan First University of Settat, High Institute of Health Sciences, Laboratory of Sciences and Health Technologies, Settat, Morocco

2 KU Leuven, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Medical Physics and Quality Assessment, Belgium.

3 Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven

4 UZ Leuven · Department of Radiology, Belgium.

5 Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico: MILANO, Italy

6 Laboratory of high energy physics Modelisation Simulation, Faculty of Sciences, University Mohammed V, Rabat, Morocco

7 Laboratory of high energy physics Modelisation Simulation, Faculty of Sciences, University Mohammed V, Rabat, Morocco.

8 Departement of Physics, Laboratory of High Energy Physics, Modelling and Simulation, Faculty of Science, Mohammed V Agdal University, Rabat, Kingdom of Morocco

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to select parameters from a combined analysis of breast compression, breast morphometry and volumetric breast density, telling about the overall quality of breast positioning, and to apply these investigations on a Moroccan population at the start of new breast cancer screening activities. The study found that compression force in mammography varies greatly and has no specific limit. The researchers attempted to find correlations between compression force and mammographic factors to establish a range of values for standardized compression in mammography.
Material and Methods: The study was carried out in a university hospital, a candidate screening center, provided with new technology equipment, qualified staff and doctors of different specialties. Image acquisition was procured on a FFDM Siemens Inspiration system for 250 patients in diagnostic mammography and all patients’ information was collected. The data about dose, the compression force and the thickness of the compressed breast were obtained directly from the DICOM header information, applying Volpara Density software.
Results: The results show a correlation between compression force and breast density. The volume of breast tissue compared to the total volume of the breast (VBD) decreased with increasing compressed breast thickness (CBT) and age. The mean VBD was 9.3% ± 6%, the compression force was 71±15 N and the CBT was 53±11 mm.
Conclusion: The global analysis and comparison of mammographic parameters showed good similarity between Moroccan and the previous studies population. The mammographic techniques can therefore be used to Moroccan screening programs.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Boyd Nf, Dite Gs, Stone J, Gunasekara A, English Dr, McCredie Mr, et al. Heritability of mammographic density, a risk factor for breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2002 Sep 19;347(12):886-94.
  2. Wolfe JN. Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1976 Jun 1;126(6):1130-7.
  3. Kopans DB. The positive predictive value of mammography. AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 1992 Mar;158(3):521-6.
  4. Lesur A, Tristant H. Pour en finir avec la densité mammaire et le traitement hormonal substitutif de la ménopause. Reproduction humaine et hormones. 2002;15(5):341-5.
  5. Tardivon A. Densité mammaire et cancer du sein. In30° Journées de la Société Française de Sénologie et de Pathologie Mammaire (SFSPM), La Baule, 2008. Prévention du cancer du sein (mythe ou réalité?). 2008 : 93-101.
  6. Stinès J. La densité mammaire: un concept radiologique. In26° Journées de la Société française de sénologie et de pathologie mammaire (SFSPM), Nancy, 2004. Seins, hormones et antihormones 2004 Nov 10 : 150-8.
  7. Séradour B. Impact de la densité mammaire sur le dépistage. In26° Journées de la Société française de sénologie et de pathologie mammaire (SFSPM), Nancy, 2004. Seins, hormones et antihormones 2004 Nov 10: 168-74.
  8. Assi V, Warwick J, Cuzick J, Duffy SW. Clinical and epidemiological issues in mammographic density. Nature reviews Clinical oncology. 2012 Jan;9(1):33-40.
  9. Ursin G, Ma H, Wu AH, Bernstein L, Salane M, Parisky YR, et al. Mammographic density and breast cancer in three ethnic groups. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. 2003 Apr;12(4):332-8.
  10. Wolfe JN. Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer. 1976 May;37(5):2486-92.
  11. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. New England journal of medicine. 2007 Jan 18;356(3):227-36.
  12. O'Leary D, Grant T, Rainford L. Image quality and compression force: the forgotten link in optimisation of digital mammography?. Breast Cancer Research. 2011 Dec;13:1-3.
  13. Holland K, Sechopoulos I, Mann RM, Den Heeten GJ, van Gils CH, Karssemeijer N. Influence of breast compression pressure on the performance of population-based mammography screening. Breast cancer research. 2017 Dec;19:1-8.
  14. Branderhorst W, de Groot JE, Highnam R, Chan A, Böhm-Vélez M, Broeders MJ, et al. Mammographic compression–a need for mechanical standardization. European journal of radiology. 2015 Apr 1;84(4):596-602.
  15. Davey B. Pain during mammography: possible risk factors and ways to alleviate pain. Radiography. 2007 Aug 1;13(3):229-34.
  16. Whelehan P, Evans A, Wells M, MacGillivray S. The effect of mammography pain on repeat participation in breast cancer screening: a systematic review. The Breast. 2013 Aug 1;22(4):389-94.
  17. Wübker A. Explaining variations in breast cancer screening across European countries. The European Journal of Health Economics. 2014 Jun;15:497-514.
  18. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. -summary document. Oncology in Clinical Practice. 2008;4(2):74-86.
  19. Karthik L, Kumar G, Keswani T, Bhattacharyya A, Chandar SS, Bhaskara Rao KV. Protease inhibitors from marine actinobacteria as a potential source for antimalarial compound. PloS one. 2014 Mar 11;9(3):e90972.
  20. Salem C, Atallah D, Safi J, Chahine G, Haddad A, El Kassis N, et al. Breast density and breast cancer incidence in the Lebanese population: results from a retrospective multicenter study. BioMed Research International. 2017 Jul 2;2017.
  21. Akoglu H. User's guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish journal of emergency medicine. 2018 Sep 1;18(3):91-3.
  22. Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ. Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Physics in medicine & biology. 2000 Nov 1;45(11):3225.
  23. Alonzo-Proulx O, Jong RA, Yaffe MJ. Volumetric breast density characteristics as determined from digital mammograms. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2012 Oct 24;57(22):7443.
  24. Moshina N, Roman M, Waade GG, Sebuødegård S, Ursin G, Hofvind S. Breast compression parameters and mammographic density in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme. European radiology. 2018 Apr;28:1662-72.
  25. Mercer CE, Hogg P, Lawson R, Diffey J, Denton ER. Practitioner compression force variability in mammography: a preliminary study. The British journal of radiology. 2013 Feb;86(1022):20110596.
  26. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. -summary document. Oncology in Clinical Practice. 2008;4(2):74-86.
  27. Singh N, Joshi P, Gupta A, Marak JR, Singh DK. Evaluation of volumetric breast density as a risk factor for breast carcinoma in pre-and postmenopausal women, its association with hormone receptor status and breast carcinoma subtypes defined by histology and tumor markers. Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2022 Apr 5;53(1):84.
  28. Chang TY, Wu J, Liu PY, Liu YL, Luzhbin D, Lin HC. Using Breast Tissue Information and Subject-Specific Finite-Element Models to Optimize Breast Compression Parameters for Digital Mammography. Electronics. 2022 Jun 4;11(11):1784.
  29. Serwan E, Matthews D, Davies J, Chau M. Mammographic compression practices of force‐and pressure‐standardisation protocol: A scoping review. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences. 2020 Sep;67(3):233-42.

 

 

 

 

 

Iranian Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 20, Issue 3
May and June 2023
Pages 120-129

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 28 August 2021
  • Revise Date: 23 June 2022
  • Accept Date: 02 July 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics