Patient Experience of Women With Dense Breasts Undergoing Screening Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.

IF 2 Q3 ONCOLOGY Journal of Breast Imaging Pub Date : 2024-05-27 DOI:10.1093/jbi/wbae012
Matthew M Miller, Shanna Mayorov, Ramapriya Ganti, Jonathan V Nguyen, Carrie M Rochman, Matthew Caley, Jessie Jahjah, Kathy Repich, James T Patrie, Roger T Anderson, Jennifer A Harvey, Timothy B Rooney
{"title":"Patient Experience of Women With Dense Breasts Undergoing Screening Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.","authors":"Matthew M Miller, Shanna Mayorov, Ramapriya Ganti, Jonathan V Nguyen, Carrie M Rochman, Matthew Caley, Jessie Jahjah, Kathy Repich, James T Patrie, Roger T Anderson, Jennifer A Harvey, Timothy B Rooney","doi":"10.1093/jbi/wbae012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We investigated patient experience with screening contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) to determine whether a general population of women with dense breasts would accept CEM in a screening setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this institutional review board-approved prospective study, patients with heterogeneous and extremely dense breasts on their mammogram were invited to undergo screening CEM and complete pre-CEM and post-CEM surveys. On the pre-CEM survey, patients were asked about their attitudes regarding supplemental screening in general. On the post-CEM survey, patients were asked about their experience undergoing screening CEM, including causes and severity of any discomfort and whether they would consider undergoing screening CEM again in the future or recommend it to a friend.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred sixty-three women were surveyed before and after screening CEM. Most patients, 97.5% (159/163), reported minimal or no unpleasantness associated with undergoing screening CEM. In addition, 91.4% (149/163) said they would probably or very likely undergo screening CEM in the future if it cost the same as a traditional screening mammogram, and 95.1% (155/163) said they would probably or very likely recommend screening CEM to a friend. Patients in this study, who were all willing to undergo CEM, more frequently reported a family history of breast cancer than a comparison cohort of women with dense breasts (58.2% vs 47.1%, P = .027).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients from a general population of women with dense breasts reported a positive experience undergoing screening CEM, suggesting screening CEM might be well received by this patient population, particularly if the cost was comparable with traditional screening mammography.</p>","PeriodicalId":43134,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Breast Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Breast Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbae012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: We investigated patient experience with screening contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) to determine whether a general population of women with dense breasts would accept CEM in a screening setting.

Methods: In this institutional review board-approved prospective study, patients with heterogeneous and extremely dense breasts on their mammogram were invited to undergo screening CEM and complete pre-CEM and post-CEM surveys. On the pre-CEM survey, patients were asked about their attitudes regarding supplemental screening in general. On the post-CEM survey, patients were asked about their experience undergoing screening CEM, including causes and severity of any discomfort and whether they would consider undergoing screening CEM again in the future or recommend it to a friend.

Results: One hundred sixty-three women were surveyed before and after screening CEM. Most patients, 97.5% (159/163), reported minimal or no unpleasantness associated with undergoing screening CEM. In addition, 91.4% (149/163) said they would probably or very likely undergo screening CEM in the future if it cost the same as a traditional screening mammogram, and 95.1% (155/163) said they would probably or very likely recommend screening CEM to a friend. Patients in this study, who were all willing to undergo CEM, more frequently reported a family history of breast cancer than a comparison cohort of women with dense breasts (58.2% vs 47.1%, P = .027).

Conclusion: Patients from a general population of women with dense breasts reported a positive experience undergoing screening CEM, suggesting screening CEM might be well received by this patient population, particularly if the cost was comparable with traditional screening mammography.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
乳房致密的妇女接受对比增强乳腺 X 射线照相术筛查的患者体验。
目的我们调查了患者对造影剂增强乳腺 X 线照相术(CEM)筛查的体验,以确定乳房致密的普通女性是否会接受 CEM 筛查:在这项经机构审查委员会批准的前瞻性研究中,乳房X光检查中乳房密度不均匀和极度致密的患者被邀请接受CEM筛查,并完成CEM前和CEM后调查。在 CEM 前的调查中,患者被问及他们对补充筛查的总体态度。在 CEM 后调查中,患者被问及她们接受 CEM 筛查的经历,包括任何不适的原因和严重程度,以及她们将来是否会考虑再次接受 CEM 筛查或向朋友推荐:163 名妇女在接受 CEM 筛查前后接受了调查。大多数患者(97.5%,159/163)表示,接受 CEM 筛查带来的不适感很小或没有。此外,91.4%(149/163)的患者表示,如果CEM筛查的费用与传统乳腺X光检查相同,她们将来可能或很可能会接受CEM筛查;95.1%(155/163)的患者表示,她们可能或很可能会向朋友推荐CEM筛查。本研究中的患者都愿意接受 CEM 筛查,她们报告有乳腺癌家族史的比例高于乳房致密的女性对比队列(58.2% vs 47.1%,P = .027):结论:乳房致密的普通女性患者在接受CEM筛查时表现积极,这表明CEM筛查可能会受到这类患者的欢迎,尤其是在费用与传统乳房X光筛查相当的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
81
期刊最新文献
Performance of Abbreviated Breast MRI in High-Risk Patients in a Tertiary Care Academic Medical Center. Developing a Career as a Clinician-Educator in Breast Imaging. Unknown Case: Non-mass Enhancement on Baseline MRI. Developing Financial Acumen as a Breast Imaging Radiologist. Methodological Considerations in Evaluating Breast Cancer Screening Studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1