Breast compression and reported pain during mammographic screening

IntroductionWe aimed to investigate the association between breast compression and experienced pain during mammographic screening.MethodsUsing a questionnaire, we collected information on pain experienced during mammography from 1155 women screened in Akershus, February–March 2018, as a part of BreastScreen Norway. The questionnaire provided information on pain using a numeric rating scale (NRS, 0–10) and related factors. Data on compression force (Newton, N), pressure (kilopascal, kPa) and breast characteristics were extracted from the DICOM-header and a breast density software. Log-binomial regression was used to determine the relative risk (RR) of severe versus mild/moderate experienced pain associated with compression parameters, adjusting for breast characteristics and related factors.ResultsMean score of experienced pain was 2.2, whereas 6% of the women reported severe pain (≥7) during the examination. High body mass index (BMI) (≥27.3 kg/m²) was associated with a higher RR of pain scores ≥7 (RR 1.86, 95%CI 1.02–3.36) compared to medium BMI (23.7–27.2 kg/m²). Low compression pressure (4.0–10.2 kPa) was associated with a higher RR of severe pain (RR 2.93, 95%CI 1.39–6.20), compared with medium compression pressure (10.3–13.5 kPa) after adjusting for contact area, age, compressed breast thickness, volumetric breast density and BMI. The risk of severe versus mild/moderate pain (≥7 versus <7) decreased by 2% with increasing compression force (RR 0.98, 95%CI 0.97–1.00).ConclusionWomen reported low levels of pain during mammography. Further knowledge about factors affecting experienced pain is needed to personalize the examination to the individual woman.Implications for practicePain in shoulder(s) and/or neck prior to screening should be considered by the radiographers in a practical screening setting. A compression force of 100–140 N and pressure of 10.3–13.5 kPa are acceptable with respect to reported pain during mammography.     

The power and the pain: Mammographic compression research from the service-users' perspective

Purposeto explore the value service-users can add to our understanding of inter-practitioner compression variability in mammography. Imaging of the breast for the screening and detection of breast carcinoma is generally carried out by mammographic examination the technique for which includes compression of the breast. Evolving research calls into question compression practice in terms of practitioner consistency thus raising the possibility that strong compression may not be required. We were interested to know whether this was important to service-users and if such knowledge might influence their behaviour.Methodsand sample: A qualitative study involving 3 focus groups interviews (n = 4, 6 & 5). Participants were first asked to reflect on their own experiences of breast compression within the context of a breast screening examination, then interpret the results of the evolving research detailed above. We then explored whether these participants might behave differently during future mammography in light being appraised of these research findings.ResultsA grounded approach was used to analyse the data into themes. The two overarching themes were i) Service-User Empowerment, which illustrates the difficulties participants believe women would encounter in exercising power in the breast screening mammographic examination; and ii) Service User Experience of Mammography, which unearthed unanticipated aspects of the examination, other than compression, that contribute to pain and discomfort and which therefore need investigation.ConclusionInvolving service-users more collaboratively in research can help investigators understand the impact of their work and highlight patient-relevant areas for further investigation.     

Level of satisfaction during mammography screening in relation to discomfort, service provided, level of pain and breast compression

Purpose

The purpose of the present study was to identify the factors having the largest influence on the patients, experiences of mammography screening and if these factors can be generalised for different centres.

Material and methods

Three-hundred-and-ninety-three women attending mammography examination during two randomly selected days at four screening centres in the Southern Health Region of Norway were approached. A questionnaire designed to survey socio-demographic variables and their experience with mammography screening was distributed upon attendance. The answers to the questionnaire were related to the level of breast compression which was recorded for every patient. Statistical analyses were performed to assess women's satisfaction, discomfort and level of pain during mammography screening.

Results

Eighty-two percent (324/393) completed the questionnaire. Ninety-one percent were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with the service at the mammography screening centres. Still, 80% reported high level of discomfort related to the examination. ‘Moderate’, ‘strong’ or ‘intense’ pain during breast compression was reported by 25% of the women. Mean breast compression ranged from 8.5 ± 1.2 kg to15.7 ± 2.2 kg. In all, 23% of women experienced strong and intense pain at a compression of more than 16 kg, while none of the women experienced strong or intense pain for compression less than 8 kg.

Conclusion

Our results concur with earlier studies showing high level of satisfaction among Norwegian women undergoing breast screening. The present study clearly demonstrates that the level of compression is vital to the patients' experience of pain, but do not seem to influence their level of satisfaction with the procedure.     

Preoperative breast MR imaging in newly diagnosed breast cancer: Comparison of outcomes based on mammographic modality,breast density and breast parenchymal enhancement

PurposeTo compare the role of MR for assessment of extent of disease in women newly diagnosed with breast cancer imaged with digital mammography (DM) alone versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).MethodsRetrospective review was conducted of 401 consecutive breast MR exams (10/1/2013–7/31/2015) from women who underwent preoperative MR for newly diagnosed breast cancer by either DM or DBT, leaving 388 exams (201 DM and 187 DBT). MR detection of additional, otherwise occult, disease was stratified by modality, breast density, and background parenchymal enhancement. A true-positive finding was defined as malignancy in the ipsilateral-breast >2 cm away from the index-lesion or in the contralateral breast.Results50 additional malignancies were detected in 388 exams (12.9%), 37 ipsilateral and 13 contralateral. There was no difference in the MR detection of additional disease in women imaged by either DM versus DBT (p = 0.53). In patients with DM, there was no significant difference in the rate of MR additional cancer detection in dense versus non-dense breasts (p = 0.790). However, in patients with DBT, MR detected significantly more additional sites of malignancy in dense compared to non-dense breasts (p = 0.017). There was no difference in false-positive MR exams (p = 0.470) for DM versus DBT. For both DM and DBT cohorts, higher MR background parenchymal enhancement was associated with higher false-positive (p = 0.040) but no significant difference in true-positive exams.ConclusionsAmong patients with DBT imaging at cancer diagnosis, women with dense breasts appear to benefit more from preoperative MR than non-dense women. In women imaged only with DM, MR finds additional malignancy across all breast densities.     

Presentation of self-detected breast mass in minority women with limited access to care: Can self-examination assist in early cancer detection?

ObjectiveThe United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends against breast self-examination. However, racial disparities exist in mammogram screening. We aimed to evaluate the presentation of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer in the underserved African-American and Hispanic community to provide insight regarding breast cancer screening in this population.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included women newly diagnosed with breast cancer from 1/1/2016 to 1/1/2018 in an inner city public community hospital. Data was collected via chart review. Patients were divided based on whether they presented with self-detected breast mass. Logistic regression was used for analysis.Results59 women were newly diagnosed with breast cancer. 34 women (58%) were African-American, 20 (34%) were Hispanic, and 5 (8%) were other race. Of 59 women, 36 (61%) presented with self-detected breast mass, and only 21 (36%) reported prior mammography. For women who presented with breast mass, the odds of having prior mammography were 78% lower (OR = 0.22, 95% CI 0.07–0.69, p = 0.009), while the odds of having invasive ductal carcinoma were 4.33 times higher (OR = 4.33, 95% CI 1.09–17.25, p = 0.037), as compared to the odds for women not presenting with breast mass.ConclusionMany of our newly diagnosed breast cancer patients were African-American or Hispanic women presenting with self-detected breast mass without prior screening mammography. Further studies should evaluate whether supplemental screening methods, such as breast self-examination or clinical examination, can help with early breast cancer detection in minority women with limited access to care, and such disparities should be considered by organizations when creating screening guidelines.     

Screening mammography mitigates breast cancer disparities through early detection of triple negative breast cancer

PurposeScreening mammography improves breast cancer survival through early detection, but Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) is more difficult to detect on mammography and has lower survival compared to non-TNBC, even when detected at early stages. TNBC is twice as common among African American (AA) compared to White American (WA) women, thereby contributing to the 40% higher breast cancer mortality rates observed in AA women. The role of screening mammography in addressing breast cancer disparities is therefore worthy of study.MethodsOutcomes were evaluated for TNBC patients treated in the prospectively-maintained databases of academic cancer programs in two metropolitan cities of the Northeast and Midwest, 1998–2018.ResultsOf 756 TNBC cases, 301 (39.8%) were mammographically screen-detected. 46% of 189 AA and 38.5% of 460 WA patients had screen-detected TNBC (p = 0.16). 25.3% of 257 TNBC cases ≤50 years old had screen-detected disease compared to 47.3% of 499 TNBC cases >50 years old (p < 0.0001).220/301 (73.1%) screen-detected TNBC cases were T1 lesions versus 118/359 (32.9%) non-screen-detected cases (p < 0.0001). Screen-detected TNBC was more likely to be node-negative (51.9% v. 40.4%; p < 0.0001).Five-year overall survival was better in screen-detected TNBC compared to nonscreen-detected TNBC (92.8% v. 81.5%; p < 0.0001) in the entire cohort. The magnitude of this effect was most significant among AA patients (Fig. 1). Screening-related survival patterns were similar among AA and WA patients in both cities.ConclusionData from two different cities demonstrates the value of screening mammography to mitigate breast cancer disparities in AA women through the early detection of TNBC.     

Assessing the impact of binaural and non-binaural auditory beat intervention to pain and compression in mammography

IntroductionPain and discomfort has a negative impact on a patient's overall experience and may impact on subsequent re-attendance to mammography. Pain during mammography remains a significant issue. Assessment of interventions to reduce levels of pain associated with mammography are essential to increase attendance to breast services and improve user experience.MethodsParticipants (n = 60) were invited to take part in the study at one hospital Trust within the UK. Postal invitations were sent 2 weeks prior to appointment to patients older than 40 years with previous mammography attendance at the same Trust to allow for comparison of previous and current pain scores/compression values. Patients were randomised into 3 groups: Binaural music (BM), non-binaural music (NBM) and standard care (C). A numerical rating scale (NRS) was used to rate pain.ResultsPatient tolerance is increased by the application of both the non-binaural and binaural music. Binaural music was most effective in improving patient tolerance (p = 0.02). When applied compression increased some patients recorded less pain, which may have implications to image quality and radiation dose for patients. Binaural music reduces the perception of mammographic pain within this data set.Conclusion5 min exposure to binaural music improves patient experience and tolerance for mammography which could be utilised to improve attendance rates in screening and symptomatic services.Implications for practiceThere is an indication for further research looking at application prior and during interventional biopsies. Music intervention can be offered to patients in the severe pain category who refuse mammography. It is acknowledged from these findings that the introduction of BM and NBM prior to mammography would be a low risk, cost effective intervention within the hospital setting.     

Stereotactic Breast Biopsy With Benign Results Does Not Negatively Affect Future Screening Adherence

PurposeTo evaluate whether false-positive stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVAB) affects subsequent mammographic screening adherence.Materials and MethodsThis Institutional Review Board–approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective review of women with SVAB was performed between 2012 and 2014. Patient age, clinical history, biopsy pathology, and first postbiopsy screening mammogram were reviewed. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher’s exact, Mann-Whitney, and χ² tests.ResultsThere were 913 SVABs performed in 2012 to 2014 for imaging detected lesions; of these, malignant or high-risk lesions or biopsies resulting in a recommendation of surgical excision were excluded, leaving 395 SVABs yielding benign pathology in 395 women. Findings were matched with a control population consisting of 45,126 women who had a BI-RADS 1 or 2 screening mammogram and did not undergo breast biopsy. In all, 191 of 395 (48.4%) women with a biopsy with benign results and 22,668 of 45,126 (50.2%) women without biopsy returned for annual follow-up >9 months and ≤18 months after the index examination (P = .479). In addition, 57 of 395 (14.4%) women with a biopsy with benign results and 3,336 of 45,126 (7.4%) women without biopsy returned for annual follow-up >18 months after the index examination (P < .001). Older women, women with personal history of breast cancer, and women with postbiopsy complication after benign SVAB were more likely to return for screening (P = .026, P = .028, and P = .026, respectively).ConclusionThe findings in our study suggest that SVABs with benign results do not negatively impact screening mammography adherence. The previously described “harms” of false-positive mammography and biopsy may be exaggerated.     

Compression force and radiation dose in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program

PurposeCompression force is used in mammography to reduce breast thickness and by that decrease radiation dose and improve image quality. There are no evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal compression force. We analyzed compression force and radiation dose between screening centers in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP), as a first step towards establishing evidence-based recommendations for compression force.Materials and methodsThe study included information from 17 951 randomly selected screening examinations among women screened with equipment from four different venors at fourteen breast centers in the NBCSP, January-March 2014. We analyzed the applied compression force and radiation dose used on craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral-oblique (MLO) view on left breast, by breast centers and vendors.ResultsMean compression force used in the screening program was 116N (CC: 108N, MLO: 125N). The maximum difference in mean compression force between the centers was 63N for CC and 57N for MLO. Mean radiation dose for each image was 1.09 mGy (CC: 1.04mGy, MLO: 1.14mGy), varying from 0.55 mGy to 1.31 mGy between the centers. Compression force alone had a negligible impact on radiation dose (r² = 0.8%, p = < 0.001).ConclusionWe observed substantial variations in mean compression forces between the breast centers. Breast characteristics and differences in automated exposure control between vendors might explain the low association between compression force and radiation dose. Further knowledge about different automated exposure controls and the impact of compression force on dose and image quality is needed to establish individualised and evidence-based recommendations for compression force.     

Reduced compression mammography to reduce breast pain

This study evaluated whether reduced compression mammography to relieve breast tenderness is feasible. Women can better tolerate a compression force of approximately 90 N in mammography. The breast thickness increased approximately 3 mm when the compression force was reduced to 90 N, and although the radiation dose increased approximately 20%, the image quality was identical to that with standard compression. Many patients experience breast pain with a compression force of 120 N. Reduced compression force mammography is acceptable in women whose breasts are particularly sensitive.     

Tubulolobular carcinoma of the breast: Clinical,mammographic and sonographic findings

PurposeTo determine and quantitate radiologic characteristics of tubulolobular carcinoma of the breast and to report clinical and pathologic findings.Materials and methodsA retrospective review of records of 2872 women who received a diagnosis of breast carcinoma between January 1988 and January 2006 revealed 26 histopathologically proven tubulolobular carcinoma of the breast. Analysis included history; findings at physical examination, mammography, and sonography (US) at the time of diagnosis and in postoperative follow-up, and histopathological results.ResultsAt physical examination, palpable mass was present in 85% (n = 22) of the patients. The mammographic findings were mass in 17 (65%), asymmetric focal density in 2 (8%), architectural distortion in 2 (8%) and negative mammograms in 5 (19%) of the 26 patients. US depicted 25 masses in 24 patients, all of which were hypoechoic, with spiculated (n = 13) or microlobulated (n = 12) margins. The cancer was clinically occult in 12% (n = 3), mammographically occult in 19% (n = 5), and radiologically occult in 4% (n = 1) of the patients. Histologically, the mean size of the tumor was 1.7 cm and 18 (69%) patients were node negative.ConclusionTubulolobular carcinoma of the breast usually manifests clinically as a firm, immobile mass and mammographically as a spiculated or ill-defined, irregular, isodense mass without microcalcifications. Common findings on sonography include a homogeneously hypoechoic, spiculated or microlobulated mass with posterior acoustic shadowing or normal acoustic transmission. Tubulolobular carcinoma should be included in the differential diagnosis for breast masses with these imaging features.     

Practitioner compression force variation in mammography: A 6-year study

The application of breast compression in mammography may be more heavily influenced by the practitioner rather than the client. This could affect image quality and will affect client experience. This study builds on previous research to establish if mammography practitioners vary in the compression force they apply over a six-year period.This longitudinal study assessed 3 consecutive analogue screens of 500 clients within one screening centre in the UK. Recorded data included: practitioner code, applied compression force (daN), breast thickness (mm), BI-RADS^® density category and breast dose. Exclusion criteria included: previous breast surgery, previous/ongoing assessment, breast implants. 344 met inclusion criteria. Data analysis: assessed variation of compression force (daN) and breast thickness (mm) over 3 sequential screens to determine whether compression force and breast thickness were affected by practitioner variations.Compression force over the 3 screens varied significantly; variation was highly dependent upon the practitioner who performed the mammogram. Significant thickness and compression force differences over the 3 screens were noted for the same client (<0.0001). The amount of compression force applied was highly dependent upon the practitioner. Practitioners fell into one of three practitioner compression groups by their compression force mean values; high (mean 12.6 daN), intermediate (mean 8.9 daN) and low (mean 6.7 daN).For the same client, when the same practitioner performed the 3 screens, maximum compression force variations were low and not significantly different (p > 0.31). When practitioners from different compression force groups performed 3 screens, maximum compression force variations were higher and significantly different (p < 0.0001).The amount of compression force used is highly dependent upon practitioner rather than client. This has implications for radiation dose, patient experience and image quality consistency.     

Compression force variability in mammography in Ghana – A baseline study

IntroductionBreast compression during mammographic examinations improves image quality and patient management. Several studies have been conducted to assess compression force variability among practitioners in order to establish compression guidelines. However, no such study has been conducted in Ghana. This study aims to investigate the compression force variability in mammography in Ghana.MethodsThis retrospective study used data gathered from 1071 screening and diagnostic mammography patients from January, 2018–December, 2019. Data were gathered by seven radiographers at three centers. Compression force, breast thickness and practitioners' years of work experience were recorded. Compression force variability among practitioners and the correlation between compression force and breast thickness were investigated.ResultsMean compression force values recorded for craniocaudal (CC) (17.2 daN) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) (18.2 daN), were within the recommended values used by western countries. Most of the mammograms performed – 80% – were within the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) range. However, 65% were above the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme (NBCSP) range. Compression forces varied significantly (p = 0.0001) among practitioners. Compression forces increased significantly (p = 0.0001) with the years of work experience. A weak negative correlation (r = ?0.144) and a weak positive correlation (r = 0.142) were established between compression force and breast thickness for CC and MLO projections respectively.ConclusionThis initial study confirmed that although wide variations in compression force exist among practitioners in Ghana, most practitioners used compression forces broadly within the range set by the NHSBSP. As no national guidelines for compression force currently exist in Ghana, provision of these may help to reduce the range of variations recorded.Implications for practiceConfirmation of variations in compression will guide future practice to minimize image quality disparities and improve quality of care.     

Influence of additional breast ultrasound on cancer detection in a cohort study for quality assurance in breast diagnosis—analysis of 102,577 diagnostic procedures

Purpose  

To determine the value of a breast ultrasound (US) examination in addition to mammography in cases of American College of Radiology (ACR) tissue pattern III and IV in symptomatic women and women at risk.     

Mode of detection matters: Differences in screen-detected versus symptomatic breast cancers

ObjectiveAlthough extensive analyses evaluating screening mammography for breast cancer have been published, some utilized databases do not distinguish between modes of detection, which confounds the conclusions made about the impact of screening mammography.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of women at our institution with pathologically-proven breast cancer from January 2015 to April 2018 was conducted. Subjects were categorized by their mode of diagnosis: screening or non-screening. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatments were compared between detection methods using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables and chi-squared or Fisher's exact test.Results1026 breast cancers were analyzed. 80.8% of screen-detected breast cancers were invasive. Compared to symptomatically detected cancers, screen-detected were smaller (median size 8 mm vs. 15 mm, p < 0.001), less invasive (80.8% vs. 94.3), had a lower pathologic grade (29% grade 3 vs. 45.7%, p < 0.001), a lower clinical stage, and less aggressive histology (51.9% low Ki67 vs. 30.5%, and 88.2% HER2 negative vs. 76.6%, p < 0.001). Screen-detected cancers were less likely to have extramammary disease (13.2% positive lymph nodes vs. 34.0% and 0.4% distant metastases vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001). Women with screen-detected cancers were more likely to undergo conservative treatment (74.8% underwent lumpectomy vs. 59.9%, and 80.0% received no chemotherapy vs. 51.3%, p < 0.001).ConclusionIn this study, while the vast majority of screen-detected cancers were invasive, they were more likely to be smaller, less aggressive, and a lower pathologic grade and clinical stage. Furthermore, women with screen-detected cancers were less likely to have extramammary disease and more likely to undergo conservative treatment.     

Comparison of the diagnostic performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), ultrasound and mammography for detection of breast cancer based on tumor type,breast density and patient's history: A review

ObjectiveBreast cancer is the most common malignancy in women. Mammography and ultrasound are commonly used in a clinical environment as the first choice for breast cancer detection. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) has been reported to reveal additional information. In the following review MRI, Ultrasound (US) and Mammography (MM) are all compared in terms of their diagnostic performance on breast cancer detection, depending on tumor type, breast density and patient's history.Key findingsEvaluating each modality alone, MRI provided an overall sensitivity and specificity of 94.6% (range 85.7%–100%) and 74.2% (range 25%–100%) respectively, while mammography showed that the overall sensitivity was at 54.5% (range 27%–86.8%) and specificity was 85.5% (range 62.9%–98.8%). The overall sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound was 67.2% (range 26.9%–87.5%) and 76.8% (range 18.8%–96.9%). When combining the results of all three techniques, it resulted in a sensitivity of 97.7% (range 95%–100%) and a specificity of 63.3% (range 37.1%–87.5%). In addition, contrast-enhanced mammography (CE-MM) and MRI (CE-MRI) illustrated an overall sensitivity and specificity for CE-MM was 90.5% (range 80.9%–100%) and 52.6% (range 15%–76.1%) and for CE-MRI, the overall sensitivity and specificity was 91.5% (range 89.1%–93.8%) and 64.7% (range 43.7%–85.7%).ConclusionAs modalities alone, the highest sensitivity has been observed for MRI and the lowest sensitivity for mammography regardless breast type, density, and history. Sensitivity is even more increased from the combination of US + MRI or MM + MRI or MRI + MM + US. The specificity seems to be affected by the size, type of the tumor and patient's history, however based on breast density, the highest specificity was observed by US alone.Implications for practiceBreast cancer screening is of outmost importance and identifying the best technique will improve cancer management. Combining techniques increases diagnostic ability compared with using modalities alone. CE-MM can be a viable option in dense breast tissue when there are contraindications to MRI as it also has high sensitivity based on the type of breast cancer.     

Tomosynthesis as a screening tool for breast cancer: A systematic review

BackgroundMammography is an important screening tool for reducing breast cancer mortality. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) can potentially be integrated with mammography to aid in cancer detection.MethodUsing the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review of current literature was conducted to identify issues relating to the use of tomosynthesis as a screening tool together with mammography.FindingsUsing tomosynthesis with digital mammography (DM) increases breast cancer detection, reduces recall rates and increases the positive predictive value of those cases recalled. Invasive cancer detection is significantly improved in tomosynthesis compared to mammography, and has improved success for women with heterogeneous or extremely dense breasts.ConclusionTomosynthesis reduces some limitations of mammography at the time of screening that until recently were most often addressed by ultrasound at later work-up. Tomosynthesis can potentially be adopted alongside mammography as a screening tool.     

Partial vs. whole breast irradiation in a community hospital: A retrospective cohort analysis of 200 patients

PurposeWe compared patients undergoing partial breast irradiation (PBI) with the MammoSite applicator (Cytyc Corp., Marlborough, MA) to a similar group of patients who underwent whole breast irradiation with external beam radiotherapy.Methods and MaterialsStage 0–IIA breast cancer patients satisfying American Brachytherapy Society selection criteria and receiving accelerated PBI with the MammoSite system (n = 100) were compared for toxicities with similarly staged patients receiving whole breast irradiation using tangential portals (n = 100). The MammoSite applicator treatment was prescribed to a total dose of 34 Gy. External beam doses generally ranged from 60 to 66 Gy.ResultsBased on common toxicity criteria scores for acute toxicities, MammoSite patients experienced less cutaneous toxicity, fatigue, and breast pain and had higher Karnofsky performance status scores during the acute period than external beam patients but experienced more seroma pain during followup. These results were both statistically significant and clinically meaningful.ConclusionsIn our institutional experience, PBI using the MammoSite applicator produces less acute toxicity than external beam radiotherapy of the whole breast but is associated with an increased incidence of seroma pain. The rate of disease recurrence in both cohorts was low.     

Does an increase in compression force really improve visual image quality in mammography? – An initial investigation

ObjectiveLiterature speculates that visual image quality (IQ) and compression force levels may be directly related. This small study investigates whether a relationship exists between compression force levels and visual IQ.MethodTo investigate how visual IQ varies with different levels of compression force, 39 clients were selected over a 6 year screening period that had received markedly different amounts of compression force on each of their three sequential screens. Images for the 3 screening episodes for all women were scored visually using 3 different IQ scales.ResultsCorrelation coefficients between the 3 IQ scales were positive and high (0.82, 0.9 and 0.85). For the scales, the IQ scores their correlation does not vary significantly, even though different compression levels had been applied. Kappa IQ scale 1: 0.92, 0.89, 0.89. ANOVA IQ scale 2: p = 0.98, p = 0.55, p = 0.56. ICC IQ scale 3: 0.97, 0.93, 0.91.ConclusionFor the 39 clients there is no difference in visual IQ when different amounts of compression are applied. We believe that further work should be conducted into compression force and image quality as ‘higher levels’ of compression force may not be justified in the attainment of suitable visual image quality.