Patient perception of meander-like versus radial breast ultrasound

Abstract

Background Radial breast ultrasound scanning (r-US) and commonly used meander-like ultrasound scanning (m-US) have recently been shown to be equally sensitive and specific with regard to the detection of breast malignancies. As patient satisfaction has a strong influence on patient compliance and thus on the quality of health care, we compare here the two US scanning techniques with regard to patient comfort during breast ultrasound (BUS) and analyze whether the patient has a preference for either scanning technique.

Materials and Methods Symptomatic and asymptomatic women underwent both m-US and r-US scanning by two different examiners. Patient comfort and preference were assessed using a visual analog scale-based (VAS) questionnaire and were compared using a Mann-Whitney U test.

Results Analysis of 422 VAS-based questionnaires showed that perceived comfort with r-US (r-VAS 8 cm, IQR [5.3, 9.1]) was significantly higher compared to m-US (m-VAS 5.6 cm, IQR [5.2, 7.4]) (p < 0.001). 53.8% of patients had no preference, 44.3% of patients clearly preferred r-US, whereas only 1.9% of patients preferred m-US. Conclusion: Patients experience a higher level of comfort with r-US and favor r-US over m-US. As the diagnostic accuracy of r-US has been shown to be comparable to that of m-US and the time required for examination is shorter, a switch from m-US to r-US in routine clinical practice might be beneficial. R-US offers considerable potential to positively affect patient compliance but also to save examination time and thus costs.

Keywords

Breast ultrasound - Breast cancer - Radial breast ultrasound - Stress - Quality of life

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 11. April 2023

Angenommen nach Revision: 06. März 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
22. April 2024

• References

• 1 Zonderland HM, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J. et al. Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. Radiology 1999; 213: 413-422
• 2 van Dam PA, Van Goethem ML, Kersschot E. et al. Palpable solid breast masses: retrospective single- and multimodality evaluation of 201 lesions. Radiology 1988; 166: 435-439
• 3 Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001; 221: 641-649
• 4 Lehman CD, Lee CI, Loving VA. et al. Accuracy and value of breast ultrasound for primary imaging evaluation of symptomatic women 30-39 years of age. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199: 1169-1177
• 5 Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S. et al. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181: 177-182
• 6 Becker MH, Maiman LA. Strategies for enhancing patient compliance. J Community Health 1980; 6: 113-135
• 7 Teboul M. Practical ductal echography : guide to intelligent and intelligible ultrasonic imaging of the breast. In. 2004
• 8 Hooley RJ, Scoutt LM, Philpotts LE. Breast ultrasonography: state of the art. Radiology 2013; 268: 642-659
• 9 Jäggi-Wickes C, Brasier-Lutz P, Schaedelin S. et al. Comparison of radial and meander-like breast ultrasound with respect to diagnostic accuracy and examination time. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2020; 301: 1533-1541
• 10 Săftoiu A, Gilja OH, Sidhu PS. et al. The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations for the Clinical Practice of Elastography in Non-Hepatic Applications: Update 2018. Ultraschall Med 2019; 40: 425-453
• 11 Vogel-Minea CM, Bader W, Blohmer JU. et al. Best Practice Guideline - DEGUM Recommendations on Breast Ultrasound. Ultraschall Med 2023; 44: 520-536
• 12 Trepanier C, Huang A, Liu M. et al. Emerging uses of artificial intelligence in breast and axillary ultrasound. Clin Imaging 2023; 100: 64-68
• 13 Brunetti N, Calabrese M, Martinoli C. et al. Artificial Intelligence in Breast Ultrasound: From Diagnosis to Prognosis—A Rapid Review. Diagnostics 2023; 13: 58
• 14 Lou Z, Li Y, Yang Y. et al. Affects of Anxiety and Depression on Health-Related Quality of Life among Patients with Benign Breast Lumps Diagnosed via Ultrasonography in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2015; 12: 10587-10601
• 15 Kash KM, Holland JC, Halper MS. et al. Psychological distress and surveillance behaviors of women with a family history of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992; 84: 24-30
• 16 Burgess C, Cornelius V, Love S. et al. Depression and anxiety in women with early breast cancer: five year observational cohort study. Bmj 2005; 330: 702
• 17 DiMatteo MR, Lepper HS, Croghan TW. Depression is a risk factor for noncompliance with medical treatment: meta-analysis of the effects of anxiety and depression on patient adherence. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 2101-2107
• 18 Poulos A, Rickard M. Compression in mammography and the perception of discomfort. Australas Radiol 1997; 41: 247-252
• 19 Keemers-Gels ME, Groenendijk RP, van den Heuvel JH. et al. Pain experienced by women attending breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000; 60: 235-240
• 20 Mendat CC, Mislan D, Hession-Kunz L. Patient comfort from the technologist perspective: factors to consider in mammographic imaging. Int J Womens Health 2017; 9: 359-364
• 21 Whelehan P, Evans A, Wells M. et al. The effect of mammography pain on repeat participation in breast cancer screening: a systematic review. Breast 2013; 22: 389-394
• 22 Prosch H, Halbwachs C, Strobl C. et al. [Automated breast ultrasound vs. handheld ultrasound: BI-RADS classification, duration of the examination and patient comfort]. Ultraschall Med 2011; 32: 504-510
• 23 Mendelson EB, Böhm-Vélez M, Berg WA. et al. Ultrasound. In: American College of Radiology R, VA, ed. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. 5th Edition edn.. 2013: 128-130
• 24 Madjar H, Ohlinger R, Mundinger A. et al. [BI-RADS-analogue DEGUM criteria for findings in breast ultrasound--consensus of the DEGUM Committee on Breast Ultrasound]. Ultraschall Med 2006; 27: 374-379
• 25 Reynolds A. Patient-centered Care. Radiol Technol 2009; 81: 133-147
• 26 Tsai HW, Twu NF, Ko CC. et al. Compliance with screening mammography and breast sonography of young Asian women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011; 157: 89-93
• 27 Helvie MA, Pennes DR, Rebner M. et al. Mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology 1991; 178: 155-158