Cargando…

Full‐field digital mammography: the ‘30% rule’ and influences on visualisation of the pectoralis major muscle on the craniocaudal view of the breast

INTRODUCTION: To investigate compliance to the ‘30% rule’ and key factors which may influence visualisation of the pectoralis major muscle (PMM) on the craniocaudal (CC) view of the breast. METHODS: A retrospective review of 2688 paired full‐field digital mammography (FFDM) CC view mammograms of wom...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Strohbach, Julia, Wilkinson, Jenny Maree, Spuur, Kelly Maree
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7476194/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32567806
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.404
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: To investigate compliance to the ‘30% rule’ and key factors which may influence visualisation of the pectoralis major muscle (PMM) on the craniocaudal (CC) view of the breast. METHODS: A retrospective review of 2688 paired full‐field digital mammography (FFDM) CC view mammograms of women attending BreastScreen NSW between August and October 2015 was undertaken. PMM visualisation and measurements of PMM width and length, compressed breast thickness, the posterior nipple line (PNL) and age were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive and inferential statistics to investigate associations between key breast measurements, age and PMM visualisation. RESULTS: PMM visualisation was reported in 10.4% of images unilaterally (one breast, left or right only), 14.1% bilaterally (both left and right breasts) and 24.5% overall (unilateral and bilateral combined). There was little or no correlations between PMM length or width and age, breast compressed thickness or PNL. Multiple logistic regression analysis found that up to 15% of the variance in visualisation of the PMM was accounted for by the predictors overall. While some predictors provided a statistically significant contribution to the model, the contribution was small and the odds ratio for all predictors approximated 1. CONCLUSION: This research could not replicate the ‘30% rule’, and visualisation of the PMM was determined not to be influenced by the variables investigated. The significance of the ‘rule’ itself must be challenged where the vast majority of images (70–85%) do not comply, and there is no requirement for repeat imaging if the ‘rule’ is not met. Further research should be undertaken to validate this study including analysis of diagnostic images for comparison.