Experience of pain during mammographic screening by three different compression paddles.

INTRODUCTION: Experience of pain during screening mammography is shown to affect further attendance negatively. We aimed to explore the experience of pain during screening mammography using three different breast compression paddles. METHODS: Using a self-report questionnaire, we collected information on pain experienced during mammography from 938 women screened in Bodø at Nordland Hospital County in 2018, as a part of BreastScreen Norway. Pain was assessed by a numeric rating scale (NRS, 0-10). A fixed paddle, a flexible paddle or a fixed paddle standardizing pressure (study paddle) were used during screening. Compression force (kg) was recorded by the radiographers for each screening examination. Log-binomial regression was used to determine the relative risk (RR) of severe (≥7 on NRS) versus mild/moderate (<7 on NRS) experience of pain associated with type of compression paddle, adjusting for breast tenderness, shoulder(s) and/or neck pain prior to screening, compression force, age, body mass index and screening history. RESULTS: Mean score of self-reported experienced pain was 2.8 for the fixed, 2.3 for the flexible and 2.8 for the study paddle (p < 0.03 for fixed versus flexible and for flexible versus study paddle). Adjusted RR of severe pain was higher for the fixed (RRAdj 2.01, 95%CI 1.13-3.59) and the study paddle (RRAdj 2.52, 95%CI 1.44-4.42) compared to the flexible paddle. Breast tenderness was associated with a higher risk (RRAdj 1.93, 95%CI 1.04-3.58) of severe pain compared to no breast tenderness. CONCLUSION: Women screened with the flexible paddle reported lower experience of pain than those screened with the fixed or study paddle. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: The flexible compression paddle might be the best choice regarding experience of pain in screening mammography. Breast tenderness should be considered by the radiographers in a practical screening setting.

Standardised or individualised X-ray tube angle for mediolateral oblique projection in digital mammography?

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to investigate whether there were any differences in positioning criteria related to the presentation of the pectoralis major muscle (pectoral muscle) for women of different heights using a standardized 60° X-ray tube angle for mammograms in mediolateral oblique (MLO) projection. METHODS: Data from MLO mammograms of right breasts of 45,193 women screened in BreastScreen Norway 2016-2019 were used. The positioning criteria were related to the pectoral muscle length (measure A and measure B), width and shape and considered adequate or inadequate depending on the degree of fulfilling the criteria. Data associated with the pectoral muscle were extracted from Volpara, an automated software for breast density assessment. Information on height was obtained from a self-reported questionnaire received by the women together with the invitation to attend the screening program. Women were divided into three groups based on the height percentiles (P) in the Norwegian growth curves: < 25th percentile (75th percentile (>P75th: >170 cm). Logistic regression was used to analyse the odds of adequate pectoral muscle length A and B, and shape, adjusting each model for screening technique and equipment model. Results were presented with odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Mean age of the screened women was 61.5 (SD = 4.8) years. The adequate measure for the pectoral muscle length A was obtained for 25.9% (11,724/45,193), length B for 76.3% (34,489/45,193), width for 75.0% (33,894/45,193) and shape for 97.6% (44,118/45,193) of the mammograms. Adjusted odds of an adequate pectoral muscle length A were lower for women of P75th (OR = 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.14) compared to women of P25-75. Odds of an adequate pectoral muscle shape were higher for women of P75th (OR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.97) compared to women of P25-75th. CONCLUSION: The 60° X-ray tube angle might suit most of the female population offered mammographic screening in Norway, but women of a relatively low height (163 cm or lower) might benefit from an X-ray tube angle less than 60-degrees. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Using 60° X-ray tube angle for the MLO mammograms in BreastScreen Norway fit the majority of the participating women. More research is needed to change the protocol associated with the tube angle for women shorter than 163 cm.

Long-term quality of life among breast cancer survivors eligible for screening at diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the long-term quality of life (QoL) among breast cancer survivors eligible for mammographic screening at diagnosis and compare that to QoL among women with no history of breast cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials and observational studies published between January 2000 and July 2019 was performed. Eight studies were included in the review. Six studies with QoL measurement scales (0-100) were included in the meta-analysis. We used fixed and random effects models to obtain Cohen's d with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated by the I2 statistics. RESULTS: Information about 6145 breast cancer survivors diagnosed between 1995 and 2012 and followed for >1-10 years was analysed. Four studies used SF-36/RAND-36, three studies used EORTC QLQ-C30, one study used FACT-G and one study used FACT-B. The mean score of QoL for breast cancer survivors varied from 63.0 (RAND SF-36, 0-100) to 110.5 (FACT-B, 0-123). Two studies showed better, three studies showed similar and two studies showed poorer mean scores for breast cancer survivors compared with women with no history of breast cancer. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences in QoL for breast cancer survivors compared with women with no history of breast cancer (Cohen's d = -0.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.14 to 0.00 and I2 = 83.7% for the fixed effect model; Cohen's d = -0.00, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.17 and I2 = 82.4% for the random effects model). CONCLUSION: QoL did not differ between breast cancer survivors eligible for mammographic screening at diagnosis and followed for >1-10 years and women with no history of breast cancer.

Breast compression and reported pain during mammographic screening.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to investigate the association between breast compression and experienced pain during mammographic screening. METHODS: Using a questionnaire, we collected information on pain experienced during mammography from 1155 women screened in Akershus, February-March 2018, as a part of BreastScreen Norway. The questionnaire provided information on pain using a numeric rating scale (NRS, 0-10) and related factors. Data on compression force (Newton, N), pressure (kilopascal, kPa) and breast characteristics were extracted from the DICOM-header and a breast density software. Log-binomial regression was used to determine the relative risk (RR) of severe versus mild/moderate experienced pain associated with compression parameters, adjusting for breast characteristics and related factors. RESULTS: Mean score of experienced pain was 2.2, whereas 6% of the women reported severe pain (≥7) during the examination. High body mass index (BMI) (≥27.3 kg/m2) was associated with a higher RR of pain scores ≥7 (RR 1.86, 95%CI 1.02-3.36) compared to medium BMI (23.7-27.2 kg/m2). Low compression pressure (4.0-10.2 kPa) was associated with a higher RR of severe pain (RR 2.93, 95%CI 1.39-6.20), compared with medium compression pressure (10.3-13.5 kPa) after adjusting for contact area, age, compressed breast thickness, volumetric breast density and BMI. The risk of severe versus mild/moderate pain (≥7 versus <7) decreased by 2% with increasing compression force (RR 0.98, 95%CI 0.97-1.00). CONCLUSION: Women reported low levels of pain during mammography. Further knowledge about factors affecting experienced pain is needed to personalize the examination to the individual woman. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Pain in shoulder(s) and/or neck prior to screening should be considered by the radiographers in a practical screening setting. A compression force of 100-140 N and pressure of 10.3-13.5 kPa are acceptable with respect to reported pain during mammography.