Influence of Breast Density on Patient's Compliance during Ultrasound Examination: Conventional Handheld Breast Ultrasound Compared to Automated Breast Ultrasound.
Automatic breast ultrasound
breast density
ultrasound
Journal
Journal of medical ultrasound
ISSN: 0929-6441
Titre abrégé: J Med Ultrasound
Pays: India
ID NLM: 9423829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
23
01
2020
revised:
10
02
2020
accepted:
15
02
2020
entrez:
4
3
2021
pubmed:
5
3
2021
medline:
5
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Our aim was to study the influence of breast density on patient's compliance during conventional handheld breast ultrasound (US) or automated breast US (ABUS), which could be used as adjunct screening modalities. Between January 2019 and June 2019, 221 patients (mean age: 53; age range: 24-89 years) underwent both US and ABUS. All participants had independently interpreted US and ABUS regarding patient compliance. The diagnostic experience with US or ABUS was described with a modified testing morbidity index (TMI). The scale ranged from 0 (worst possible experience) to 5 (acceptable experience). Standard statistics was used to compare the data of US and data of ABUS. Breast density was recorded with the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) score. The mean TMI score was 4.6 ± 0.5 for US and 4.3 ± 0.8 for ABUS. The overall difference between patients' experience on US and ABUS was statistically significant with Patient age (>40 years) is a significant predictor of decreased compliance to ABUS. Compliance of ABUS resulted lower that of US independently for breast density.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Our aim was to study the influence of breast density on patient's compliance during conventional handheld breast ultrasound (US) or automated breast US (ABUS), which could be used as adjunct screening modalities.
METHODS
METHODS
Between January 2019 and June 2019, 221 patients (mean age: 53; age range: 24-89 years) underwent both US and ABUS. All participants had independently interpreted US and ABUS regarding patient compliance. The diagnostic experience with US or ABUS was described with a modified testing morbidity index (TMI). The scale ranged from 0 (worst possible experience) to 5 (acceptable experience). Standard statistics was used to compare the data of US and data of ABUS. Breast density was recorded with the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) score.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean TMI score was 4.6 ± 0.5 for US and 4.3 ± 0.8 for ABUS. The overall difference between patients' experience on US and ABUS was statistically significant with
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Patient age (>40 years) is a significant predictor of decreased compliance to ABUS. Compliance of ABUS resulted lower that of US independently for breast density.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33659162
doi: 10.4103/JMU.JMU_13_20
pii: JMU-28-230
pmc: PMC7869737
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
230-234Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2020 Journal of Medical Ultrasound.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
There are no conflicts of interest.
Références
Cancer. 2017 Jun 1;123(11):1935-1940
pubmed: 28135395
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Dec 28;108(4):
pubmed: 26712110
Breast J. 2019 Jan;25(1):180-182
pubmed: 30580475
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2017 Mar;12(3):493-507
pubmed: 28070777
Radiol Clin North Am. 2014 May;52(3):539-46
pubmed: 24792655
J Am Coll Radiol. 2019 Feb;16(2):139-146
pubmed: 30287178
Med Clin North Am. 2017 Jul;101(4):725-741
pubmed: 28577623
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2019 Oct;100(10):579-592
pubmed: 30962169
Br J Cancer. 2018 Jun;118(12):1559-1570
pubmed: 29736009
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Mar 9;34(16):1882-1888
pubmed: 26962097
Eur Radiol. 2019 Apr;29(4):1762-1777
pubmed: 30255244
BMC Public Health. 2019 Jun 26;19(1):823
pubmed: 31242882
Eur Radiol. 2018 Feb;28(2):592-601
pubmed: 28828640
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Aug;34(8):1441-1451
pubmed: 31144277
Acad Radiol. 2018 Nov;25(11):1457-1470
pubmed: 29555568
Eur J Cancer. 2018 Nov;104:39-46
pubmed: 30316869
Int J Cancer. 2020 Aug 1;147(3):709-718
pubmed: 31675126
Breast J. 2016 Sep;22(5):541-6
pubmed: 27261096
Ultraschall Med. 2011 Oct;32(5):504-10
pubmed: 21630181
N Engl J Med. 2007 Jan 18;356(3):227-36
pubmed: 17229950
Radiol Med. 2018 Jan;123(1):1-12
pubmed: 28849324
Sci Rep. 2018 Jun 11;8(1):8882
pubmed: 29892094
Radiology. 2015 Mar;274(3):663-73
pubmed: 25329763
Eur J Radiol. 2016 Sep;85(9):1554-63
pubmed: 27501888
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013 May;22(5):946-61
pubmed: 23513042
Radiology. 2011 Sep;260(3):658-63
pubmed: 21712474