EFFECT OF COMPRESSED BREAST THICKNESS ON AVERAGE GLANDULAR DOSE (AGD) DURING SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY USING FULL-FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY (FFDM)
Keywords:
Screening mammography, compressed breast thickness (CBT), average glandular dose (AGD), compression force, full-field digital mammography (FFDM)Abstract
Application of compression during mammography is crucial to reduce breast thickness and reducing average glandular dose (AGD). With increasing participation in regular breast screening programmes, the total AGD received by patient remains a concern. Therefore, this paper aimed to evaluate the effect of compressed breast thickness (CBT) on the AGD during screening mammography using full field digital mammogram (FFDM). This study involved retrospective collection of mammographic data and reports from 148 women who came for screening mammography. Mammographic parameters which include CBT, AGD, compression force and breast density for both breast on craniocaudal (CC) view and mediolateral oblique (MLO) view were recorded and analysed. There was statistically significant variation in the mammographic parameters value between CC and MLO projections but no significant variation between right and left breasts. For CC projection, a weak positive correlation was identified between CBT and AGD (r=0.115, p=0.049) and between CBT and compression force (r=0.172, p=0.003). In addition, a weak positive correlation was also found between CBT and compression force (r=0.200, p=0.001) and between CBT and AGD (r=0.292, p<0.001) in MLO projection. Reduction in CBTwas found to decrease AGD by approximately 0.007mGy/mm CBT. Adequate compression should be applied as it can reduce the CBT and consequently reduced the AGD to the patient.
References
Abdi, A. J., Fieselmann, A., Pfaff, H., Mertelmeier, T., & Larsen, L. B. (2018). Comparison of screening performance metrics and patient dose of two mammographic image acquisition modes in the Danish National Breast Cancer Screening Programme. European Journal of Radiology, 105(February), 188– 194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.06.010
Aziz, S. A. A., Saparudin, A. K. M., & H, A. Z. (2013). Evaluation of Mean Glandular Dose and Modulation Transfer Function for Different Tube Potentials and Target-Filter Combinations in Computed Radiography Mammography, 20(3), 23–30.
Baek, J. E., Kang, B. J., Kim, S. H., & Lee, H. S. (2017). Radiation dose affected by mammographic composition and breast size: First application of a radiation dose management system for full-field digital mammography in Korean women. World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 15(1),1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-017-1107-6
Balleyguier, C., Cousin, M., Dunant, A., Attard, M., Delaloge, S., & Arfi-Rouche, J. (2018). Patient-assisted compression helps for image quality reduction dose and improves patient experience in mammography. European Journal of Cancer, 103, 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2018.08.009
Broeders, M. J. M., ten Voorde, M., Veldkamp, W. J. H., van Engen, R. E., van Landsveld – Verhoeven, C., ’t Jong – Gunneman, M. N. L., … den Heeten, G. J. (2015). Comparison of a flexible versus a rigid breast compression paddle: pain experience, projected breast area, radiation dose and technical image quality. European Radiology, 25(3), 821–829.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3422-4
Chen, B., Wang, Y., Sun, X., Guo, W., Zhao, M., Cui, G., … Yu, J. (2012). Analysis of patient dose in full field digital mammography. European Journal of Radiology, 81(5), 868–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.02.027
Chijoke, W. O., Adeniji-Sofoluwe, A. T., & Jibiri, N. N. (2017). Evaluation of mean glandular dose and assessment of the risk of radiation induced carcinogenesis in women following screening mammography in a low resource setting. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences, 11(3), 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrras.2017.07.002
Dance, D. R., Skinner, C. L., Young, K. C., Beckett, J. R., & Kotre, C. J. (2000). Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol,3225.
De Groot, J. E., Broeders, M. J. M., Branderhorst, W., Den Heeten, G. J., & Grimbergen, C. A. (2013). A novel approach to mammographic breast compression: Improved standardization and reduced discomfort by controlling pressure instead of force. Medical Physics, 40(8). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4812418
Diffey, J. L. (2015). A comparison of digital mammography detectors and emerging technology. Radiography, 21(4), 315–323.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2015.06.007
European Commission. (2006). European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Annals of oncology official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology ESMO (Vol. 19). https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdm481
Gold, R. H., Bassett, L. W., & Widoff, B. E. (1990). Radiologic History Exhibit.Radiographics, 10, 1111–1131.
Hauge, I. H. R., Pedersen, K., Olerud, H. M., Hole, E. O., & Hofvind, S. (2014). The risk of radiation-induced breast cancers due to biennial mammographic screening in women aged 50-69 years is minimal. Acta Radiologica, 55(10), 1174–1179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185113514051
Hauge, I., Pedersen, K., Sanderud, A., Hofvind, S., & Olerud, H. (2012). Patient dose from screen-film and full-field digital mammography in a population based screening programme. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 148(1), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nc0000
Hendrick, R. E., Pisano, E. D., Averbukh, A., Moran, C., Eric, A., Yaffe, M. J., … Acharyya, S. (2011). 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, 194(2), 362–369. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.2114.Comparison
Holland, K., Sechopoulos, I., Mann, R. M., den Heeten, G. J., van Gils, C. H., & Karssemeijer, N. (2017). Influence of breast compression pressure on the performance of population-based mammography screening. Breast Cancer Research, 19(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-017-0917-3
Juel, I. M., Skaane, P., Hoff, S. R., Johannessen, G., & Hofvind, S. (2010). Screen- film mammography versus full-field digital mammography in a population- based screening program: The Sogn and Fjordane study. Acta Radiologica, 51(9), 962–968.https://doi.org/10.3109/02841851.2010.504969
Kawaguchi, A., Kobayashi, M., Suzuki, M., Otsuka, T., Hattori, S., & Suzuki, S. (n.d.). Average Glandular Dose and Entrance Surface Dose in Mammography, 1–7.
Korf, a, Herbst, C., & Rae, W. (2009). The relationship between compression force, image quality and radiation dose in mammography. South African Journal of Radiology, (December), 86–92. Retrieved from http://www.ajol.info/index.php/sajr/article/view/50391
Kunosic, S., Ceke, D., Kopric, M., & Lincender, L. (2010). Determination of mean glandular dose from routine mammography for two age groups of patients, 4(1), 125–132.
M, A. A., I.T, N. S., A, N. H., Z.A, A., & W, M. (2016). Malaysian National Cancer Registry Report 2007-2011. National Cancer Institute, 1, 1–228.https://doi.org/MOH/P/KN/01.16(AR)
Michell,M.J.,Iqbal,A.,Wasan,R.K.,Evans,D.R.,Peacock,C.,Lawinski,C.P.,… Whelehan, P. (2012). A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clinical Radiology, 67(10), 976–981.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2012.03.009
Moshina, N., Sebuødegård, S., Holen, Å. S., Waade, G. G., Tsuruda, K., & Hofvind,S. (2018). The impact of compression force and pressure at prevalent screening on subsequent re-attendance in a national screening program. Preventive Medicine, 108(January), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.01.008
Neal, C. H., Coletti, M. C., Joe, A., Jeffries, D. O., Helvie, M. A., Ch, N., … Ma, H. (2013). Does Digital Mammography Increase Detection of High-Risk Breast Lesions Presenting as Calcifications?, (November), 1148–1154. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10195
Nguyen, J. V., Williams, M. B., Patrie, J. T., & Harvey, J. A. (2018). Do women with dense breasts have higher radiation dose during screening mammography? Breast Journal, 24(1), 35–40.https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12833
Niroshani, H. S., Hathurusinghe, H. D. N. S., & Tudugala., R. (2017). Evaluation of Agd in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Relative To Those in Two-View-Full- Field Digital Mammography. International Journal of Advanced Research, 5(3), 197–201. https://doi.org/10.21474/ijar01/3503
Özdemir, A. (2007). Clinical evaluation of breast dose and the factors affecting breast dose in screen-film mammography. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, 13(3),134–139.
Popli, M. B., Teotia, R., Narang, M., & Krishna, H. (2014). Breast Positioning during Mammography : Mistakes to be Avoided, 119–124. https://doi.org/10.4137/BCBCr.s17617.RECEIVED
Poulos, A., & McLean, D. (2004). The application of breast compression in mammography: A new perspective. Radiography, 10(2), 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2004.02.012
Poulos, A., McLean, D., Rickard, M., & Heard, R. (2003). Breast compression in mammography: How much is enough? Australasian Radiology, 47(2), 121–126.https://doi.org/10.1046/j.00048461.2003.01139.x
Preventive, U. S., & Force, T. (2008). Annals of Internal Medicine Clinical Guidelines. Annals of Internal Medicine, 149(3), 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1059/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00009
United States Federal Drug Administration (FDA). (1992). Mammography Quality Standards Act. Public Law 102539, 1–25.Ursin, G., Hovanessian-Larsen, L., Parisky, Y. R., Pike, M. C., & Wu, A. H. (2005). Greatly increased occurrence of breast cancers in areas of mammographically dense tissue. Breast Cancer Research, 7(5), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr1260
Waade, G. G., Sanderud, A., & Hofvind, S. (2017). Compression force and radiation dose in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. European Journal of Radiology, 88, 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.12.025
Wideman, T. H., Zautra, A. J., & Edwards, R. R. (2014). Benefits of Screening Mammography,154(11), 2262–2265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2013.06.005.Re-Thinking
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Journal of Academia

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.