Literature DB >> 26463101

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

Alberto Tagliafico1, Licia Gristina2, Bianca Bignotti2, Francesca Valdora1, Simona Tosto3, Massimo Calabrese3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)-guided and digital mammography (MMx)-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) on short-term quality of life (QoL).
METHODS: From November 2014 through March 2015, females undergoing VABB in an academic medical centre participated in a survey after biopsy. VABB was performed under DBT (Group 1) or MMx guidance (Group 2). Biopsy experience was assessed with a modified testing morbidities index (TMI). 10 attributes were assessed: six related to the procedures (pain or discomfort before and during testing, fear or anxiety before and during testing, physical and mental function after testing) and four not related to the procedures (familiarity for cancer and clinical history, embarrassment during testing and overall satisfaction). Non-parametric standard statistics were used to compare data of Group 1 and data of Group 2.
RESULTS: A total of 90 females (mean age, 55.8 years; range, 40-87 years) were enrolled: 45 underwent DBT-VABB and 45 MMx-VABB. The sum of the 6 of 10 items related to the procedures was significantly worse for DBT (p < 0.02), but no differences were observed for the single items. The median value for DBT-VABB and MMx-VABB was 95.2 and 90.1, respectively (p < 0.02). The 4 of 10 TMI items not related to the procedures did not differ significantly between the two groups. Four females fainted during DBT-VABB and three females during MMx-VABB; all of these patients underwent VABB procedures in sitting position.
CONCLUSION: Females in the DBT-VABB study group have a decreased short-term QoL compared with the MMx-VABB group. DBT-VABBs were less tolerated than MMx-VABBs. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: DBT-VABB was less tolerated than MMx-VABB. Females in the DBT-VABB study group had a decreased short-term QoL compared with the MMx-VABB group. Overall satisfaction was similar for both procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26463101      PMCID: PMC4984943          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20150593

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  13 in total

1.  Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study.

Authors:  Stephen L Rose; Andra L Tidwell; Louis J Bujnoch; Anne C Kushwaha; Amy S Nordmann; Russell Sexton
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Large core needle biopsy with tomosynthesis guidance: another development in breast imaging technology.

Authors:  D David Dershaw
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.431

3.  Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Randi Gullien; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Mina Izadi; Ingvild N Jebsen; Gunnar Jahr; Mona Krager; Loren T Niklason; Solveig Hofvind; David Gur
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.

Authors:  Stefano Ciatto; Nehmat Houssami; Daniela Bernardi; Francesca Caumo; Marco Pellegrini; Silvia Brunelli; Paola Tuttobene; Paola Bricolo; Carmine Fantò; Marvi Valentini; Stefania Montemezzi; Petra Macaskill
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 41.316

5.  Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Brian M Haas; Vivek Kalra; Jaime Geisel; Madhavi Raghu; Melissa Durand; Liane E Philpotts
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Imaging-Guided Core Needle Biopsy of the Breast: Study of Psychological Outcomes.

Authors:  James R. Maxwell; Mary E. Bugbee; David Wellisch; Anat Shalmon; James Sayre; Lawrence W. Bassett
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.431

7.  Preoperative Tomosynthesis-guided Needle Localization of Mammographically and Sonographically Occult Breast Lesions.

Authors:  Phoebe E Freer; Bethany Niell; Elizabeth A Rafferty
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Patient and societal value functions for the testing morbidities index.

Authors:  J Shannon Swan; Chung Yin Kong; Janie M Lee; Omosalewa Itauma; Elkan F Halpern; Pablo A Lee; Sergey Vavinskiy; Olubunmi Williams; Emilie S Zoltick; Karen Donelan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-05-20       Impact factor: 2.583

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

Authors:  Kathryn L Humphrey; Janie M Lee; Karen Donelan; Chung Y Kong; Olubunmi Williams; Omosalewa Itauma; Elkan F Halpern; Beverly J Gerade; Elizabeth A Rafferty; J Shannon Swan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-11-11       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Stereotactic large-core needle breast biopsy: analysis of pain and discomfort related to the biopsy procedure.

Authors:  Judith M Hemmer; Johannes C Kelder; Hans P M van Heesewijk
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-10-02       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  2 in total

1.  Is risk-stratified breast cancer screening economically efficient in Germany?

Authors:  Matthias Arnold; Katharina Pfeifer; Anne S Quante
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  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
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.