Comparison of technical parameters and women's experience between self-compression and standard compression modes in mammography screening: a single-blind randomized clinical trial.
Mammogram
Satisfaction
Screening
Self-compression
Women’s experience
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2022
Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
04
10
2021
accepted:
29
03
2022
revised:
19
03
2022
pubmed:
11
5
2022
medline:
19
11
2022
entrez:
10
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We compared the compression force, breast thickness, and glandular dose, as well as the severity of discomfort and women's experience between the patient-assisted compression (PAC) and standard compression (SC) modes. We conducted a prospective randomized controlled study at Hospital del Mar in Barcelona, Spain. We included 448 asymptomatic women aged 50 to 69 years old, attending their screening round from December 2017 to December 2019. Mammograms included the two bilateral views. In each woman, one breast was studied with SC and the other with PAC. The mode used in each breast was selected following a randomized list. Compression force, breast thickness, and average glandular dose were obtained for each of the 1792 images. We also recorded the degree of discomfort and women's experience, after mammogram acquisitions, using a predefined survey. Higher compression forces were obtained with PAC than with SC (99.27 N vs 83.25 N, p < 0.001). Breast thickness mode (56.11 mm vs 57.52 mm, p = 0.015) and glandular dose (1.34 mGy vs 1.37 mGy, p = 0.018) were lower in PAC. The discomfort score was slightly higher with PAC (mean 3.94 vs 3.69, p = 0.042), but in the satisfaction survey, more women reported that PAC caused less discomfort. Additionally, 63.2% of women (289/448) preferred PAC. PAC achieved higher compression forces without impairing the other technical imaging parameters and enhanced women's experience of screening mammography. We believe there were no clinically significant differences in the severity of discomfort between the two modes. • Self-compression allows higher compression forces than the standard compression mode. • Self-compression does not affect technical imaging parameters. • Self-compression improved women's experience of screening mammography when standard compression was used on one breast and self-compression on the other.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35536390
doi: 10.1007/s00330-022-08835-y
pii: 10.1007/s00330-022-08835-y
doi:
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7480-7487Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.
Références
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al (2021) Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71(3):209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660
doi: 10.3322/caac.21660
Canelo-Aybar C, Ferreira DS, Ballesteros M et al (2021) Benefits and harms of breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer. J Med Screen. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969141321993866
Whelehan P, Evans A, Wells M, Macgillivray S (2013) The effect of mammography pain on repeat participation in breast cancer screening: a systematic review. Breast 22:389–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2013.03.003
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2013.03.003
Bj L, Martin M (1992) Breast pain associated with mammographic compression. Australas Radiol 36(2):120–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.1992.tb03095.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1673.1992.tb03095.x
Poulos A, Rickard M (1997) Compression in mammography and the perception of discomfort. Australas Radiol 41(3):247–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.1997.tb00668.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1673.1997.tb00668.x
Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition—summary document. Ann Oncol 19(4):614–622. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdm481
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdm481
Moshina N, Sebuødegård S, Hofvind S (2017) Is breast compression associated with breast cancer detection and other early performance measures in a population-based breast cancer screening program? Breast Cancer Res Treat 163(3):605–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4214-8
doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4214-8
Holland K, Sechopoulos I, Mann RM, den Heeten GJ, van Gils CH, Karssemeijer N (2017) Influence of breast compression pressure on the performance of population-based mammography screening. Breast Cancer Res 19(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-017-0917-3
doi: 10.1186/s13058-017-0917-3
Poulos A, McLean D, Rickard M, Heard R (2003) Breast compression in mammography: how much is enough? Australas Radiol 47(2):121–126. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0004-8461.2003.01139.x
doi: 10.1046/j.0004-8461.2003.01139.x
Miller D, Livingstone V, Herbison P (2008) Interventions for relieving the pain and discomfort of screening mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002942.pub2
Serwan E, Matthews D, Davies J, Mn C (2020) Mammographic compression practices of force- and pressure-standardisation protocol: a scoping review. J Med Radiat Sci 67(3):233–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.400
doi: 10.1002/jmrs.400
Feder K, Grunert JH (2017) Is individualizing breast compression during mammography useful?—Investigations of pain indications during mammography relating to compression force and surface area of the compressed breast. Rofo 189(01):39–48. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-119450
Moshina N, Sagstad S, Sebuødegård S et al (2020) Breast compression and reported pain during mammographic screening. Radiography 26(2):133–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2019.10.003
doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2019.10.003
De Groot JE, Branderhorst W, Grimbergen CA, Den Heeten GJ, Broeders MJM (2015) Towards personalized compression in mammography: a comparison study between pressure- and force-standardization. Eur J Radiol 84:384–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.12.005
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.12.005
Jeukens CRLPN, van Dijk T, Berben C, Wildberger JE, Lobbes MBI (2019) Evaluation of pressure-controlled mammography compression paddles with respect to force-controlled compression paddles in clinical practice. Eur Radiol 29(5):2545–2552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5953-6
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5953-6
de Groot JE, Hopman IGM, van Lier MGJTB, Branderhorst W, Grimbergen CA, den Heeten GJ (2017) Pressure-standardised mammography does not affect visibility, contrast and sharpness of stable lesions. Eur J Radiol 86:289–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.11.030
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.11.030
Moshina N, Sebuødegård S, Evensen KT, Hantho C, Iden KA, Hofvind S (2019) Breast compression and experienced pain during mammography by use of three different compression paddles. Eur J Radiol 115(2018):59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.04.006
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.04.006
Broeders MJM, ten Voorde M, Veldkamp WJH et al (2015) Comparison of a flexible versus a rigid breast compression paddle: pain experience, projected breast area, radiation dose and technical image quality. Eur Radiol 25(3):821–829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3422-4
doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3422-4
Kornguth J, Sullivan C, Rimer K, Stout L, Conaway R (1993) Impact of patient-controlled compression on the mammography experience. Radiology 186(1):99–102. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.186.1.8416595
doi: 10.1148/radiology.186.1.8416595
Balleyguier C, Cousin M, Dunant A, Attard M, Delaloge S, Arfi-Rouche J (2018) Patient-assisted compression helps for image quality reduction dose and improves patient experience in mammography. Eur J Cancer 103:137–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2018.08.009
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.08.009
Henrot P, Boisserie-Lacroix M, Boute V et al (2019) Self-compression technique vs standard compression in mammography: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 179(3):407–414. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7169
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7169
Ulus S, Kovan Ö, Arslan A, Elpen P, Arıbal E (2019) A new technical mode in mammography: self-compression improves satisfaction. Eur J Breast Health 15(4):207–212. https://doi.org/10.5152/ejbh.2019.4480
doi: 10.5152/ejbh.2019.4480
Alukic E, Bravhar P, Mekis N (2021) Does the use of self-compression in mammography affect compression force, breast thickness, and mean glandular dose? Eur J Radiol 139:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109694
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109694
Wang X, Ji X (2020) Sample size estimation in clinical research. Chest 158(1):S12–S20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.010
doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.010
Perez-Leon D, Posso M, Louro J et al (2021) Does the patientassisted compression mode affect the mammography quality? A within-woman randomized controlled trial. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08834-z