Literature DB >> 12565189

Does mammography hurt?

Rama Sapir1, Michael Patlas, Shalom David Strano, Irit Hadas-Halpern, Nathan I Cherny.   

Abstract

The documented incidence of pain associated with screening mammography varies from 1% to 62%. Some researchers suggest that pain may undermine compliance with screening mammography. As a part of a quality improvement project, we have surveyed women undergoing mammography in 2 centers in Jerusalem to identify the prevalence, severity, and duration of mammography-associated pain, demographic risk factors, and the degree that this may undermine compliance with breast cancer screening. A 23-item questionnaire was administered to 399 women (32% at the Shaare Zedek Medical Center [SZMC] and 68% at the Rachel Nash Comprehensive Breast Clinic [HALA]). Of the total, 77% of the women reported that the procedure was painful. Of those reporting pain, 60% described pain intensity as moderate or severe. In 67%, the pain resolved within 10 minutes. By univariate analysis, the only significant predictor for pain during mammography was cyclic breast pain (P = 0.053). No significant correlation was identified for age, breast size, pre-mammography counseling, and examination center (SZMC vs. HALA). The prevalence of pre-mammography counseling or explanation was low (51%). Despite that, 61% of the respondents expected that mammography would be painful. Indeed, most of those who anticipated pain reported that the actual severity was not greater than the anticipated severity. Even among women who reported pain of moderate or greater severity, less than 5% expressed preference to receive pre-emptive analgesia prior to their next mammogram. A substantial minority of women acknowledged that the experience of their mammography invoked reactions that may impend future compliance; 26% reported anxiety and 12% reported pain as factors that may interfere with ongoing compliance with regular mammographic screening. These data serve to emphasize the need for appropriate pre-test counseling and suggest a possible role for post-test debriefing to address those factors which may interfere with future test compliance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12565189     DOI: 10.1016/s0885-3924(02)00598-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage        ISSN: 0885-3924            Impact factor:   3.612


  12 in total

1.  Analysis of motion during the breast clamping phase of mammography.

Authors:  Wang Kei Ma; Mark F McEntee; Claire Mercer; Judith Kelly; Sara Millington; Peter Hogg
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Screening Mammography Among Older Women: A Review of United States Guidelines and Potential Harms.

Authors:  Deborah S Mack; Kate L Lapane
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 2.681

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

Authors:  Philippe Henrot; Martine Boisserie-Lacroix; Véronique Boute; Philippe Troufléau; Bruno Boyer; Grégory Lesanne; Véronique Gillon; Emmanuel Desandes; Edith Netter; Maryam Saadate; Anne Tardivon; Christine Grentzinger; Julia Salleron; Guillaume Oldrini
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 21.873

4.  Growing concern following compression mammography.

Authors:  Johannes Pieter van Netten; Stephen Hoption Cann; Ian Thornton; Rory Finegan
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2016-08-31

5.  Can Breast Compression Be Reduced in Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis?

Authors:  Greeshma A Agasthya; Ellen D'Orsi; Yoon-Jin Kim; Priyanka Handa; Christopher P Ho; Carl J D'Orsi; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Effects of Reduced Compression in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis on Pain, Anxiety, and Image Quality.

Authors:  Siti Aishah Abdullah Suhaimi; Afifah Mohamed; Mahadir Ahmad; Kanaga Kumari Chelliah
Journal:  Malays J Med Sci       Date:  2015-11

7.  Prospective study of factors predicting adherence to surveillance mammography in women treated for breast cancer.

Authors:  Rebecca A Shelby; Cindy D Scipio; Tamara J Somers; Mary Scott Soo; Kevin P Weinfurt; Francis J Keefe
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-02-13       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Pain-preventing strategies in mammography: an observational study of simultaneously recorded pain and breast mechanics throughout the entire breast compression cycle.

Authors:  Jerry E de Groot; Mireille J M Broeders; Cornelis A Grimbergen; Gerard J den Heeten
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2015-03-15       Impact factor: 2.809

9.  Impact of screening for breast cancer in high-risk women on health-related quality of life.

Authors:  A J Rijnsburger; M L Essink-Bot; S van Dooren; G J J M Borsboom; C Seynaeve; C C M Bartels; J G M Klijn; A Tibben; H J de Koning
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-07-05       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Patient comfort from the technologist perspective: factors to consider in mammographic imaging.

Authors:  Christina C Mendat; Dave Mislan; Lisa Hession-Kunz
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2017-05-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.