RESUMO
PURPOSE: Mammographic density has been demonstrated to predict breast cancer risk. It has been proposed that it could be used for stratifying screening pathways and recommending additional imaging. Volumetric density tools use the recorded compressed breast thickness (CBT) of the breast measured at the x-ray unit in their calculation; however, the accuracy of the recorded thickness can vary. The aim of this study was to investigate whether inaccuracies in recorded CBT impact upon volumetric density classification and to examine whether the current quality control (QC) standard is sufficient for assessing mammographic density. METHODS: Raw data from 52 digital screening mammograms were included in the study. For each image, the clinically recorded CBT was artificially increased and decreased in increments of 1 mm to simulate measurement error, until ±15% from the recorded CBT was reached. New images were created for each 1 mm step in thickness resulting in a total of 974 images which then had volpara density grade (VDG) and volumetric density percentage assigned. RESULTS: A change in VDG was observed in 38.5% (n = 20) of mammograms when applying ±15% error to the recorded CBT and 11.5% (n = 6) was within the QC standard prescribed error of ±5 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The current QC standard of ±5 mm error in recorded CBT creates the potential for error in mammographic density measurement. This may lead to inaccurate classification of mammographic density. The current QC standard for assessing mammographic density should be reconsidered.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To establish a simple method to determine breast readout accuracy on mammography units. METHODS: A thickness measuring device (TMD) was used in conjunction with a breast phantom. This phantom had compression characteristics similar to human female breast tissue. The phantom was compressed, and the thickness was measured using TMD and mammography unit readout. Measurements were performed on a range of screen film mammography (SFM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) units (8 units in total; 6 different models/manufacturers) for two different sized paddles and two different compression forces (60 and 100 N). RESULTS: The difference between machine readout and TMD for the breast area, when applying 100 N compression force, for nonflexible paddles was largest for GE Senographe DMR+ (24 cm × 30 cm paddle: +14.3%). For flexible paddles the largest difference occurred for Hologic Lorad Selenia (18 cm × 24 cm paddle: +26.0%). CONCLUSIONS: None of the units assessed were found to have perfect correlation between measured and readout thickness. TMD measures and thickness readouts were different for the duplicate units from two different models/manufacturers.
