» Articles » PMID: 28108837

Can Mechanical Imaging Increase the Specificity of Mammography Screening?

Overview
Journal Eur Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 2017 Jan 22
PMID 28108837
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the effects of adding adjunct mechanical imaging to mammography breast screening. We hypothesized that mechanical imaging could detect increased local pressure caused by both malignant and benign breast lesions and that a pressure threshold for malignancy could be established. The impact of this on breast screening was investigated with regard to reductions in recall and biopsy rates.

Methods: 155 women recalled from breast screening were included in the study, which was approved by the regional ethical review board (dnr 2013/620). Mechanical imaging readings were acquired of the symptomatic breast. The relative mean pressure on the suspicious area (RMPA) was defined and a threshold for malignancy was established.

Results: Biopsy-proven invasive cancers had a median RMPA of 3.0 (interquartile range (IQR) = 3.7), significantly different from biopsy-proven benign at 1.3 (IQR = 1.0) and non-biopsied cases at 1.0 (IQR = 1.3) (P < 0.001). The lowest RMPA for invasive cancer was 1.4, with 23 biopsy-proven benign and 33 non-biopsied cases being below this limit. Had these women not been recalled, recall rates would have been reduced by 36% and biopsy rates by 32%.

Conclusions: If implemented in a screening situation, this may substantially lower the number of false positives.

Key Points: • Mechanical imaging is used as an adjunct to mammography in breast screening. • A threshold pressure can be established for malignant breast cancer. • Recalls and biopsies can be substantially reduced.

Citing Articles

Estimation of the absorbed dose in simultaneous digital breast tomosynthesis and mechanical imaging.

Bjerken A, Tomic H, Zackrisson S, Dustler M, Bakic P, Tingberg A J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2024; 12(Suppl 1):S13003.

PMID: 39055549 PMC: 11266811. DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.12.S1.S13003.


Finite element model of mechanical imaging of the breast.

Axelsson R, Tomic H, Zackrisson S, Tingberg A, Isaksson H, Bakic P J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2022; 9(3):033502.

PMID: 35647217 PMC: 9125329. DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.9.3.033502.


Science and practice of imaging physics through 50 years of SPIE Medical Imaging conferences.

Wang A, Cunningham I, Danielsson M, Fahrig R, Flohr T, Hoeschen C J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2022; 9(Suppl 1):012205.

PMID: 35309720 PMC: 8926876. DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.9.S1.012205.


Intra- and inter-rater reliability of compressed breast thickness, applied force, and pressure distribution in screening mammography.

Voigt M, Bolejko A, Dustler M Acta Radiol Open. 2022; 10(12):20584601211062078.

PMID: 35140983 PMC: 8819760. DOI: 10.1177/20584601211062078.


Comparison of sonoelastographic values of breast tissue with mammographically and ultrasonically assessed density: a cross-sectional study.

Dzoic Dominkovic M, Ivanac G, Brkljacic B Croat Med J. 2020; 61(3):223-229.

PMID: 32643338 PMC: 7358692.

References
1.
Ohuchi N, Ishida T, Kawai M, Narikawa Y, Yamamoto S, Sobue T . Randomized controlled trial on effectiveness of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-49 (J-START): research design. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2010; 41(2):275-7. PMC: 3028987. DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyq214. View

2.
Sarvazyan A . Mechanical imaging: a new technology for medical diagnostics. Int J Med Inform. 1998; 49(2):195-216. DOI: 10.1016/s1386-5056(98)00040-9. View

3.
Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K, Cooper C, Garside R, Dean S . Psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms in the UK. Evid Based Med. 2012; 18(2):54-61. DOI: 10.1136/eb-2012-100608. View

4.
Lourenco A, Barry-Brooks M, Baird G, Tuttle A, Mainiero M . Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology. 2014; 274(2):337-42. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14140317. View

5.
Domingo L, Hofvind S, Hubbard R, Roman M, Benkeser D, Sala M . Cross-national comparison of screening mammography accuracy measures in U.S., Norway, and Spain. Eur Radiol. 2015; 26(8):2520-8. PMC: 4927608. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-4074-8. View