Abstract
Objective
To investigate whether having the nipple imaged in profile was associated with breast characteristics or compression parameters, and whether it affected selected outcomes in screening with standard digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis.
Methods
In this IRB-approved retrospective study, results from 87 450 examinations (174 900 breasts) performed as part of BreastScreen Norway, 2016–2019, were compared by nipple in profile status and screening technique using descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated for outcomes of interest, including age, breast volume, volumetric breast density, and compression force as covariates.
Results
Achieving the nipple in profile versus not in profile was associated with lower breast volume (845.1 cm3 versus 1059.9 cm3, P < 0.01) and higher mammographic density (5.6% versus 4.4%, P < 0.01). Lower compression force and higher compression pressure were applied to breasts with the nipple in profile (106.6 N and 11.5 kPa) compared to the nipple not in profile (110.8 N and 10.5 kPa, P < 0.01 for both). The adjusted odds ratio was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.88–1.02; P = 0.15) for recall and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.77–1.10; P = 0.36) for screen-detected cancer for nipple in profile versus not in profile.
Conclusion
Breast characteristics and compression parameters might hamper imaging of the nipple in profile. However, whether the nipple was in profile or not on the screening mammograms did not influence the odds of recall or screen-detected cancer, regardless of screening technique.
Automated Breast Volume Assessment Derived From Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images Compared to Mastectomy Specimen Weight and Its Applications in Cosmetic Optimisation