Literature DB >> 9648763

Short-interval follow-up mammography versus immediate core biopsy of benign breast lesions: assessment of patient stress.

K K Lindfors1, J O'Connor, C R Acredolo, S E Liston.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The stress experienced by women undergoing surveillance mammography for benign lesions was compared with that experienced by women undergoing core biopsy of benign lesions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective survey was mailed to women in whom were diagnosed breast abnormalities that were likely to be benign and that were stable at short-interval follow-up mammography (n = 174) or in whom a core biopsy of the breast was performed, with benign findings (n = 116). The survey included questions about stress related to the diagnostic experience as well as questions about who advised the women of the results of their breast imaging studies and about the information provided.
RESULTS: Eighty eligible surveys were received from the women who underwent short-interval follow-up mammography, and 58 surveys were received from the women who underwent biopsies. The self-reported overall stress experienced by the women who underwent core biopsies was significantly greater (p < .001) than that reported by the group who were followed up with mammography. The level of anxiety was not affected by the patient's perception of the probability that the lesion represented carcinoma. We found no significant differences in stress between women who discussed their mammogram results with a radiologist and women who were notified by their primary care provider.
CONCLUSION: Short-interval follow-up mammography continues to be acceptable for the evaluation of lesions that are probably benign, even when patient anxiety is considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9648763     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.171.1.9648763

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  7 in total

1.  Increased patient concern after false-positive mammograms: clinician documentation and subsequent ambulatory visits.

Authors:  M B Barton; S Moore; S Polk; E Shtatland; J G Elmore; S W Fletcher
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Older women's experience with a benign breast biopsy—a mixed methods study.

Authors:  Mara A Schonberg; Rebecca A Silliman; Long H Ngo; Robyn L Birdwell; Valerie Fein-Zachary; Jessica Donato; Edward R Marcantonio
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Can Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) Reduce Benign Breast Biopsy?

Authors:  Amanda Ling Fung Liew; Hollie Mei Yeen Lim; Elizabeth Chun Mei Fok; Siu Cheng Loke; Ern Yu Tan; Bee Kiang Chong; Yeong Shyan Lee; Patrick Mun Yew Chan; Niketa Chotai
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2022-03-24       Impact factor: 2.269

4.  An assessment of the likelihood, frequency, and content of verbal communication between radiologists and women receiving screening and diagnostic mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Mark Kettler; Andrea J Cook; Berta M Geller; Leah Karliner; Diana L Miglioretti; Erin Aiello Bowles; Diana S Buist; Thomas H Gallagher; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-05-12       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Probably benign lesions at screening breast US in a population with elevated risk: prevalence and rate of malignancy in the ACRIN 6666 trial.

Authors:  Richard G Barr; Zheng Zhang; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Wendie A Berg
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Toward optimal screening strategies for older women. Costs, benefits, and harms of breast cancer screening by age, biology, and health status.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Clyde B Schechter; K Robin Yabroff; William Lawrence; James Dignam; Martine Extermann; Sarah Fox; Gretchen Orosz; Rebecca Silliman; Jennifer Cullen; Lodovico Balducci
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 7.  Guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging for diagnostic interventional breast procedures.

Authors:  Matthew Wallis; Anne Tardivon; Anne Tarvidon; Thomas Helbich; Ingrid Schreer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 7.034

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.