Patient-assisted compression helps for image quality reduction dose and improves patient experience in mammography

Patient- vs Technologist-Controlled Mammography Compression: A Prospective Comparative Study of Patient Discomfort and Breast Compression Thickness

OBJECTIVE

We assess whether mammographic patient-assisted compression (PAC) has an impact on breast compression thickness and patient discomfort compared with technologist-assisted compression (TAC).

METHODS

A total of 382 female patients between ages 40 and 90 years undergoing screening mammography from February 2020 to June 2021 were recruited via informational pamphlet to participate in this IRB-approved study. Patients without prior baseline mammograms were excluded. The participating patients were randomly assigned to the PAC or TAC study group. Pre- and postmammogram surveys assessed expected pain and experienced pain, respectively, using a 100-mm visual analogue scale and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Breast compression thickness values from the most recent mammogram were compared with the patient's recent prior mammogram.

RESULTS

Between the 2 groups, there was no significant difference between the expected level of pain prior to the mammogram (P = .97). While both study groups reported a lower level of experienced pain than was expected, the difference was greater for the PAC group (P <.0001). Additionally, the PAC group reported significantly lower experienced pain during mammography compared with the TAC group (P = .014). The correlation of trait/state anxiety scores with pre- and postmammogram pain scores was weak among the groups. Lastly, the mean breast compression thickness values for standard screening mammographic views showed no significant difference in the PAC group when compared with the patient's prior mammogram.

CONCLUSION

Involving patients in compression reduces their pain independent of the patient's state anxiety during mammography while having no effect on breast compression thickness. Implementing PAC could improve the mammography experience.

Strategies enhancing the patient experience in mammography: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

A positive experience in mammography is essential for increasing patient attendance and reattendance at these examinations, whether conducted for diagnostic or screening purposes. Mammograms indeed facilitate early disease detection, enhance the potential for cure, and consequently reduce breast cancer mortality. The main objective of this review was to identify and map the strategies aiming to improve the patient experience in diagnostic and screening mammography.

METHODS

This scoping review was performed following the JBI methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Searches were performed through databases of MEDLINE, Embase.com, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, and three clinical trial registries. This review considered studies evaluating the effect of interventions, occurring within the mammography department, on the patient experience.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 8113 citations of which 60, matching the inclusion criteria, were included. The strategies were classified into eight categories. The most represented one was breast compression and positioning, followed by relaxation techniques and analgesic care, communication and information, screening equipment, examination procedures, patient-related factors, physical environment, and finally staff characteristics. The studied outcomes related to patient experience were mainly pain, anxiety, comfort, and satisfaction. Other types of outcomes were also considered in the studies such as image quality, technical parameters, or radiation dose. Most studies were conducted by radiographers, on female patients, and none mentioned the inclusion of male or transgender patients.

CONCLUSION

This review outlined a diversity of strategies to improve patient experience, although technique-based interventions were predominant. Further research is warranted, notably on psychological strategies, and on men and transgender people.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This scoping review provides guidance to healthcare providers and services for better patient/client-centered care.

Adding a nonpainful end to reduce pain recollection of Pap smear screening: a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT

The pain experienced during Pap tests is a crucial gap in reducing cervical cancer burden. This study sought to investigate whether adding a nonpainful step at the end of Pap tests helps women recall less pain. We conducted a randomized controlled trial on women aged 30 to 70 years at a cervical cancer screening center. A nonpainful step was added at the end of Pap test in the modified Pap group. The outcomes included recalled pain after Pap smear screening, real-time pain, and 1-year willingness to receive further Pap tests. Among 266 subjects in the intention-to-treat analysis, the modified Pap group (n = 133) experienced lower 5-minute recalled pain than the traditional Pap group on a 1 to 5 numeric scale (mean [SD], 1.50 [0.77] vs 2.02 [1.12]; P < 0.001) and a 0 to 10 visual analog scale (2.12 [1.79] vs 3.12 [2.23]; P < 0.001). In exploratory subgroup analyses, the association between the modified Pap test and reduced 5-minute recalled pain was not affected by predicted pain, demographic, or socioeconomic characteristics, but it was more apparent in postmenopausal women. Consistently, the modified Pap test attenuated 1-year recalled pain on both pain scales. Furthermore, the modified Pap test increased 1-year willingness grade to receive further Pap tests (adjusted β [SE], 2.11 [0.27]; P < 0.001). In conclusion, adding a nonpainful step at the end of Pap smear screening reduces on-site and long-term recalled pain and strengthens willingness to undergo subsequent Pap tests regularly. The modified Pap test contributes to cervical cancer screening participation.

Does the patient-assisted compression mode affect the mammography quality? A within-woman randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate the image quality of a mammography screening device using the patient-assisted compression (PAC) compared with the standard compression (SC) mode.

METHODS

This prospective within-woman, randomized controlled trial was conducted between September 2017 and December 2019. Participants were asymptomatic women aged 50 to 69 years attending their second or subsequent screening mammography round. By random assignment, one breast underwent the SC and the other breast, the PAC. Image quality was evaluated as perfect, good, moderate, or inadequate (PGMI) on 10 criteria for the craniocaudal (CC) view and 8 criteria for the mediolateral oblique (MLO) view. Pearson's chi-square test, with Yates' correction if pertinent, was performed to compare image quality between compression modes.

RESULTS

A total of 444 participants were included (mean [± standard deviation] age, 60 [± 4.9] years). There were no differences in the percentages of PGMI between the PAC and SC modes for the CC view (perfect, 37% [162/444] vs 37% [163/444]; good, 1% [5/444] vs 2% [9/444]; moderate, 62% [277/444] vs 61% [271/444]; inadequate, 0% vs 0.2% [1/444]; p = .88) or for the MLO view (perfect, 53% [237/444] vs 56% [247/444]; good, 22% [99/444] vs 22% [97/444]; moderate, 23% [102/444] vs 22% [98/444]; inadequate, 1% [6/444] vs 0.5% [2/444]; p = .72). No differences were found when we stratified by laterality or when analyzed by PGMI criteria.

CONCLUSION

PAC does not seem to impair mammographic image quality. Future research should focus in a daily practice setting.

KEY POINTS

No differences were found in the distribution of the PGMI classification, a tool for quality assessment, between patient-assisted compression and standard compression. Similar results were found on stratification of image quality by mammographic view and breast laterality for both types of compression. None of the PGMI criteria had significantly more errors in patient-assisted compression than in standard compression.

Comparison of technical parameters and women's experience between self-compression and standard compression modes in mammography screening: a single-blind randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

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.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

KEY POINTS

• 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.

Monochromatic X-rays: The future of breast imaging

PURPOSE

To present details about the innovative and disruptive technology of monochromatic X-rays and its application to breast imaging.

METHODS

To analyze results of studies done using a prototype system for breast imaging that generates monochromatic X-rays through fluorescence emission. To assess signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as a measure of image quality at different doses in breast phantoms of different sizes and review the comparison of parameters with a standard mammography system.

RESULTS

Monochromatic X-rays reduce the radiation dose per mammogram by a factor of 5 to 10 times. For phantom simulating thick breast (9 cm), the SNR for monochromatic system was 2.6 times higher and the dose 4.2 times lower than the respective values obtained with the conventional system within the same 5 mm × 5 mm square area of the 100% glandular step wedge. For the conventional broadband system to equal the SNR of the monochromatic system, it would require a dose of 19 mGy, 29 times higher than the dose delivered by the monochromatic system. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography with monochromatic X-rays is shown to provide a simpler and more effective technique at substantially lower radiation dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Lowering radiation dose by a factor of 5 to 10 while maintaining image quality implies a major reduction in total exposure from breast cancer screening and dramatically less risk of radiation-induced cancers in at-risk women. The high SNRs for very thick breast phantoms provide strong evidence that screening with lower breast compression is possible while maintaining image quality.

Development and validation of a novel measure of adverse patient positioning in mammography

PURPOSE

The primary aim was to develop and validate a novel mammography positioning measure, specifically incorporating parameters which might relate to mammography pain. We then explored relationships between the new adverse positioning score and (1) pain; (2) patient and technique factors.

METHODS

A 15-item instrument incorporating positioning features with potential to relate to mammography pain was developed. Participants' mammograms (n = 310) were reviewed for presence of these features. Validity was investigated using the Rasch model. Scores produced by the resultant measure were investigated for associations with patients' pain scores and relevant patient and technique factors, using Pearson correlation, analysis of variance, and multiple linear regression.

RESULTS

Statistical indices within the Rasch measurement framework provided good evidence that the measure reflected a coherent construct of adverse positioning. Thus, the scores produced with the measurement instrument were valid for use in further statistical analysis. There is, however, scope for improvement of the measure's discriminatory properties. Adverse positioning scores were higher for greater breast volumes (r = 0.12, p=.0391) and body mass index (BMI) (r = 0.13, p=.0349), and varied by mammographer (F(11,298) 2.38, p = .0078). The relationships with BMI and mammographer persisted in regression modelling. No relationship was found between adverse positioning and pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from Rasch analysis suggests that this novel measure is valid for quantifying a coherent "adverse positioning" construct in mammography. Adverse positioning scores varied by mammographer and were related to higher patient BMI but not to mammography pain. The measure warrants expansion, further refinement, and testing in larger studies.

Does the use of self-compression in mammography affect compression force, breast thickness, and mean glandular dose?

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to investigate whether the use of self-compression in craniocaudal (CC) projection has an effect on compression force, breast thickness, radiation dose and image quality compared to the standard mammographic procedure.

METHODS

The study was conducted on 200 female patients that were referred for mammographic imaging. Patients were randomly divided into two equal groups. In the first group, self-compression was performed on the right breast and in the second group on the left breast. The data about compression force (N), breast thickness (mm), and mean glandular dose (MGD; mGy) were collected. In addition, the differences in the mentioned variables according to the side of self-compression were compared. All mammographic images were evaluated by two experienced radiologists according to the criteria established by the European Commission.

RESULTS

The use of self-compression resulted in a significant increase in compression force by 21.7 % (19.8 N) and a significant reduction of breast thickness by 5% (2.43 mm) and MGD by 6.3 % (0.09 mGy), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences based on the self-compression side, and no differences were observed in image quality assessment.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the imaging protocol in mammography of the CC projection can be adopted by the use of self-compression in order to achieve better results.

Pressure-based Compression Guidance of the Breast in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Using Flexible Paddles Compared to Conventional Compression

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the effect of introducing a pressure-based flexible paddle on compression parameters and user and patient experience of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with patient-assisted compression or technologist compression.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval, women with a DBT appointment who gave informed consent received pressure-based flexible paddle breast compression. Eight lights on the paddle were illuminated (1.9 kPa per light) as pressure was applied, aiming for an 8-13.9 kPa target range. The compression level was applied by the technologist or the participant utilizing a remote control device. The participant's and technologist's experiences were assessed by a questionnaire. Compression parameters were compared to previous examinations. Comparative statistics were performed using t-tests.

RESULTS

Pressure-based compression (PBC) was judged to be similar or more comfortable compared with previous traditional exams (80%, 83/103), and 87% (90/103) of participants would recommend PBC to friends. Pressure variability decreased for craniocaudal (CC) views (-55%, P < 0.001) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views (-34%, P < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis showed a similar glandular dose for CC views, while breast thickness was reduced (-3.74 mm, P < 0.0001). For MLO views, both glandular dose (-0.13 mGy, P < 0.0001) and breast thickness were reduced (-6.70 mm, P < 0.0001). Mean compression parameters were similar for technologist compression and patient-assisted examinations.

CONCLUSION

Use of the pressure-based flexible paddle in DBT, with or without patient-assisted compression, improved participant and technologist experience and reduced compression pressure variability, mean breast thickness, and glandular dose.

Patients' and radiographers' experiences of dose reducing abdominal compression in radiographic examinations-A qualitative study

Aim

To describe patients' and radiographers' experiences of abdominal compression using conventional and patient-controlled compression methods.

Design

Qualitative descriptive design.

Methods

Forty-five patients who had used both a conventional and a patient-controlled compression device answered questionnaires. Five radiographers were interviewed. The data-collection took place between September 2015 and February 2017. Data were analysed by qualitative content analysis.

Results

Patient-controlled compression was preferred by slightly more patients because of fear of pain due to excessively hard pressure, maintaining control over the pressure and shorter duration. It was more comfortable, and patients felt they could participate in the examinations. Conventional compression was preferred by some because of more stable pressure and uncertainty of own capacity to provide the optimal compression. Discomfort was more often mentioned concerning the conventional compression method. The radiographers experienced the patient-controlled method as less time-consuming and more comfortable, but uncertainty about correct compression technique and its effect on radiation dose and image quality was reported.

A New Technical Mode in Mammography: Self-Compression Improves Satisfaction

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the mammography experience of patients using a manually controlled self- compression tool compared to their previous experience based on technician performed breast compression by a questionnaire survey study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The survey studies of 365 patients who underwent screening or diagnostic mammography between April 2017 and July 2017 at our center were reviewed retrospectively. Each patient had completed a 12-item questionnaire following mammography examinations. Women who never had a mammography before or who had a previous mammography examination more than 2 years ago or who did not want to use the self-compression device were excluded from the study. 106 women were included in the study.

RESULTS

Patient satisfaction was high. Regarding the comparison of the experience of the exam to previous ones, 70.8% said it was a better experience. The examination was found comfortable by 85.4% of the participants and 75.5% found the examination more comfortable compared to previous ones. Only 11.3% were anxious and 52.8% declared they were less anxious compared to previous examinations. Regarding the attractiveness of the new design, 66.9% declared they found the new design attractive, 39.7% found it more attractive than previous examinations, and 27.3% said the new design decreased anxiety. In the evaluation of impact of patient-assisted compression (PAC) on comfort, 80.2% said that they found it more comfortable and 64.2% said that PAC decreased anxiety. Furthermore, 72.6% said the exam was shorter.

CONCLUSION

Self-compression technique decreases pain and anxiety of women during mammography examinations and promises to enhance compliance of clients and patients with follow-up mammography recommendations.

Patient-Assisted Compression in Screening Mammography: Patient Experience and Image Quality

OBJECTIVE

Screening mammography is critical to reduce breast cancer mortality, yet many women cite pain from compression as a reason they avoid this test. We evaluated patient experience and image quality in screening patients opting for a handheld patient-assisted compression (PAC) device.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval, women screened between February and July 2018 with a synthetic 2D/tomosynthesis mammography unit were offered use of a handheld PAC device. Patient experience through survey, image quality, compression thickness, compression force, and average glandular dose were evaluated and compared between women opting for PAC and women opting for technologist-controlled compression (TC). Multivariable ordinal logistic and linear regression models were estimated to control for age and breast density. In addition, for women opting for PAC, image quality obtained with their current PAC mammogram was compared with that obtained with their prior TC mammogram, by using Wilcoxon/Pearson tests.

RESULTS

Seventy-three percent of women preferred their mammogram experience with PAC compared with their prior mammogram without PAC. Women using PAC reported decreased anxiety compared with those using TC, after controlling for age and breast density (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.22 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.09-0.49]). There were no significant differences in image quality, compression thickness, or average glandular dose in exams for women using PAC compared with exams for women using TC. Women using PAC had significantly more compression force than women using TC had (P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Mammography with PAC improves patient experience and results in similar image quality compared with mammography with TC.

Self-compression Technique vs Standard Compression in Mammography: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Many women dread undergoing mammography, and some may not attend or reattend breast cancer screening because of the discomfort or pain induced by breast compression.

Objective

To evaluate the noninferiority of the self-compression mammography technique for reducing breast thickness compared with standard compression.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective, parallel-group, noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted from May 7, 2013, to October 26, 2015, at 6 cancer care centers in France. Participants were women aged 50 to 75 years, without a history of recent breast surgical procedure or treatment, and who could perform self-compression. Analyses were performed on intention-to-treat basis from January 27, 2017, to March 30, 2018.

Interventions

Patients were randomized 1:1 to the self-compression group or the standard compression group.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary end point was breast thickness expressed as the mean of 4 views: right and left craniocaudal and right and left mediolateral oblique. The predefined noninferiority margin was a difference of 3 mm, with a 1-sided 95% CI. Secondary end points included compression force, image quality, requirement for additional views, pain, and patient satisfaction and radiographer assessment questionnaires.

Results

Among the 549 women randomized, 548 (97.3%) completed the trial. Of these, 275 (48.8%) (mean [SD] age, 61.35 [6.34] years) were randomized to the self-compression arm and 273 (48.5%) (mean [SD] age, 60.84 [6.41] years) to the standard compression arm. The difference in the mean thickness between the 2 arms was lower than the noninferiority margin, with an upper 1-sided 95% CI less than 3 mm (-0.17; 95% CI,-∞ to 1.89 mm; P < .05). Compression force was higher in the self-compression group compared with the standard compression arm for the 4 mammographic views. Pain was statistically significantly lower in the self-compression group (n = 274) compared with the standard compression group (n = 269) (median [interquartile range (IQR)] score, 2 [1-5] vs 3 [1-5]; P = .009). No difference was reported in the image quality scores of the 2 groups or in the number of additional views performed (median [IQR] extra views, 2 [2-2] vs 2 [2-3] extra views; P = .64), whatever the indication, including insufficient image quality (29 [16.8%] vs 27 [15.0%] insufficient quality views; P = .65). No adverse effects or pain were reported by the participants after the self-compression mammography.

Conclusions and Relevance

Self-compression does not appear to be inferior to standard compression mammography in achieving minimal breast thickness without increasing pain or compromising image quality; this technique may be an effective option for women who want to be involved in their breast examination.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02866591.