Ellen Paap1, Marloes Witjes1, Cary van Landsveld-Verhoeven1, Ruud M Pijnappel1,2, Angela H E M Maas3, Mireille J M Broeders1,4. 1. 1 Dutch Reference Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, Netherlands. 2. 2 Department of Radiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands. 3. 3 Department of Cardiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands. 4. 4 Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the image quality of mammograms in females with an implanted medical device (IMD), to evaluate pain and anxiety during mammography in these females and to investigate the experience of radiographers. METHODS: Image quality was evaluated by two radiographers and one radiologist in the images of females with an IMD participating in the Dutch screening programme (clients). Pain and anxiety were scored using a Numeric Rating Scale in both clients visiting a screening organization and patients from the Isala Hospital, Zwolle. Experience of screening radiographers was collected with a questionnaire. RESULTS: Images of the breast with IMD showed reduced contrast in craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral-oblique (MLO) views [by both the radiographers and radiologist (range: 11-29%)], less projected breast tissue [only radiographers; CC lateral side: 25.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 18.7-32.2] and reduced projection of the pectoral muscle (only radiographers; MLO width pectoral muscle: 31.5%, 95% CI: 24.4-38.7). Clients experienced more pain and anxiety during mammography in the breast with IMD compared to the breast without IMD in the breast (pain difference CC: 0.48 ± 0.16, p = 0.003; pain difference MLO: 0.46 ± 0.16, p = 0.004; anxiety difference 1.30 ± 0.22; p < 0.001). Patients experienced more pain (1.05 ± 0.12; p < 0.001) and anxiety (1.22 ± 0.15; p < 0.001) after placement of IMD. Radiographers are more cautious, more anxious and use less compression during mammography of breasts with IMD. CONCLUSION: Image quality in a breast with an IMD could be improved by projecting more breast tissue on the mammogram, thereby including (part of) the IMD between the paddles, if required. In addition, radiographers should pay sufficient attention to reducing discomfort both before and during the screening examination. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Little is known about the quality of mammography in females with an IMD or how these females and radiographers experience the screening examination. The results of our study showed that having an IMD could result in a suboptimal mammogram and increased discomfort.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the image quality of mammograms in females with an implanted medical device (IMD), to evaluate pain and anxiety during mammography in these females and to investigate the experience of radiographers. METHODS: Image quality was evaluated by two radiographers and one radiologist in the images of females with an IMD participating in the Dutch screening programme (clients). Pain and anxiety were scored using a Numeric Rating Scale in both clients visiting a screening organization and patients from the Isala Hospital, Zwolle. Experience of screening radiographers was collected with a questionnaire. RESULTS: Images of the breast with IMD showed reduced contrast in craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral-oblique (MLO) views [by both the radiographers and radiologist (range: 11-29%)], less projected breast tissue [only radiographers; CC lateral side: 25.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 18.7-32.2] and reduced projection of the pectoral muscle (only radiographers; MLO width pectoral muscle: 31.5%, 95% CI: 24.4-38.7). Clients experienced more pain and anxiety during mammography in the breast with IMD compared to the breast without IMD in the breast (pain difference CC: 0.48 ± 0.16, p = 0.003; pain difference MLO: 0.46 ± 0.16, p = 0.004; anxiety difference 1.30 ± 0.22; p < 0.001). Patients experienced more pain (1.05 ± 0.12; p < 0.001) and anxiety (1.22 ± 0.15; p < 0.001) after placement of IMD. Radiographers are more cautious, more anxious and use less compression during mammography of breasts with IMD. CONCLUSION: Image quality in a breast with an IMD could be improved by projecting more breast tissue on the mammogram, thereby including (part of) the IMD between the paddles, if required. In addition, radiographers should pay sufficient attention to reducing discomfort both before and during the screening examination. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Little is known about the quality of mammography in females with an IMD or how these females and radiographers experience the screening examination. The results of our study showed that having an IMD could result in a suboptimal mammogram and increased discomfort.
Authors: M E Keemers-Gels; R P Groenendijk; J H van den Heuvel; C Boetes; P G Peer; T H Wobbes Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Michael C Giudici; Jacqueline I Carlson; Roselyn K Krupa; Cynthia J Meierbachtol; Kent J Vanwhy Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2010-08-17 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Jerry E de Groot; Woutjan Branderhorst; Cornelis A Grimbergen; Gerard J den Heeten; Mireille J M Broeders Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2014-12-13 Impact factor: 3.528
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
Authors: Mintsje de Boer; Flora E van Leeuwen; Michael Hauptmann; Lucy I H Overbeek; Jan Paul de Boer; Nathalie J Hijmering; Arthur Sernee; Caroline A H Klazen; Marc B I Lobbes; René R W J van der Hulst; Hinne A Rakhorst; Daphne de Jong Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Mintsje de Boer; Michele van Middelkoop; Michael Hauptmann; Noortje van der Bijl; Jorn A W Bosmans; Narda Hendriks-Brouwer; Sijmen J Schop; Jan Paul de Boer; Nathalie J Hijmering; Lucy I H Overbeek; Marc B I Lobbes; Caroline A H Klazen; Daphne de Jong; Hinne A Rakhorst; René R W J van der Hulst; Flora E van Leeuwen Journal: Aesthet Surg J Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 4.283