Literature DB >> 24471385

Percutaneous breast biopsy: effect on short-term quality of life.

Kathryn L Humphrey1, Janie M Lee, Karen Donelan, Chung Y Kong, Olubunmi Williams, Omosalewa Itauma, Elkan F Halpern, Beverly J Gerade, Elizabeth A Rafferty, J Shannon Swan.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine the effects of percutaneous breast biopsy on short-term quality of life.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant prospective study. From December 1, 2007, through February 28, 2010, women undergoing percutaneous breast biopsy in an academic medical center were recruited to participate in a mixed-mode survey 2-4 days after biopsy. Patients described their biopsy experience by using the Testing Morbidities Index (TMI), a validated instrument for assessing short-term quality of life related to diagnostic testing. The scale ranged from 0 (worst possible experience) to 100 (no adverse effects). Seven attributes were assessed: pain or discomfort before and during testing, fear or anxiety before and during testing, embarrassment during testing, and physical and mental function after testing. Demographic and clinical information were also collected. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to identify significant predictors of TMI score.
RESULTS: In 188 women (mean age, 51.4 years; range, 22-80 years), the mean TMI score (±standard deviation) was 82 ± 12. Univariate analysis revealed age and race as significant predictors of the TMI score (P < .05). In the multivariate model, only patient age remained a significant independent predictor (P = .001). TMI scores decreased by approximately three points for every decade decrease in patient age, which suggests that younger women were more adversely affected by the biopsy experience.
CONCLUSION: Younger patient age is a significant predictor of decreased short-term quality of life related to percutaneous breast biopsy procedures. Tailored prebiopsy counseling may better prepare women for percutaneous biopsy procedures and improve their experience. © RSNA, 2013.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24471385      PMCID: PMC4228748          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13130865

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  30 in total

1.  Core-needle and surgical breast biopsy: comparison of three methods of assessing cost.

Authors:  J H Burkhardt; J H Sunshine
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  A prospective study of age differences in consequences of emotional control in women referred to clinical mammography.

Authors:  Mimi Mehlsen; Anders Bonde Jensen; Søren Christensen; Christina Gundgaard Pedersen; Berit Lassesen; Robert Zachariae
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2009-06

3.  Diagnosing non-palpable breast disease: short-term impact on quality of life of large-core needle biopsy versus open breast biopsy.

Authors:  H M Verkooijen; E Buskens; P H M Peeters; I H M Borel Rinkes; H J de Koning; Th J M V van Vroonhoven
Journal:  Surg Oncol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 3.279

4.  Clinical, demographic, and situational factors linked to distress associated with benign breast biopsy.

Authors:  Rachel F Steffens; Heather R Wright; Molly Y Hester; Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  J Psychosoc Oncol       Date:  2011

5.  Distress in the radiology waiting room.

Authors:  Nicole Flory; Elvira V Lang
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-04-07       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Process utility for imaging in cerebrovascular disease.

Authors:  J Shannon Swan; François Sainfort; William F Lawrence; Vipat Kuruchittham; Thitima Kongnakorn; Dennis M Heisey
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Initial development of the Temporary Utilities Index: a multiattribute system for classifying the functional health impact of diagnostic testing.

Authors:  J Shannon Swan; Jun Ying; James Stahl; Chung Yin Kong; Beverly Moy; Jessica Roy; Elkan Halpern
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 8.  Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Kari Tyne; Arpana Naik; Christina Bougatsos; Benjamin K Chan; Linda Humphrey
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 9.  A gerontologic perspective on cancer and aging.

Authors:  Thomas O Blank; Keith M Bellizzi
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-06-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Cost utility of prenatal diagnosis and the risk-based threshold.

Authors:  Ryan A Harris; A Eugene Washington; Robert F Nease; Miriam Kuppermann
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2004-01-24       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  4 in total

1.  Effects on short-term quality of life of vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography.

Authors:  Alberto Tagliafico; Licia Gristina; Bianca Bignotti; Francesca Valdora; Simona Tosto; Massimo Calabrese
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Correlation Factors Analysis of Breast Cancer Tumor Volume Doubling Time Measured by 3D-Ultrasound.

Authors:  Shuyin Zhang; Yan Ding; Qiaoying Zhou; Cheng Wang; Pengxi Wu; Ji Dong
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2017-06-27

3.  Breast ultrasound: automated or hand-held? Exploring patients' experience and preference.

Authors:  Ilaria Mussetto; Licia Gristina; Simone Schiaffino; Simona Tosto; Edoardo Raviola; Massimo Calabrese
Journal:  Eur Radiol Exp       Date:  2020-02-10

4.  A Systematic Literature Review of Health Utility Values in Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Manraj N Kaur; Jiajun Yan; Anne F Klassen; Justin P David; Dilshan Pieris; Manraj Sharma; Louise Bordeleau; Feng Xie
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 2.749

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.