[Validity and reliability of DASH questionnaire in women who suffer from lymphedema as a side effect of a breast cancer treatment]. / Validez y fiabilidad del cuestionario DASH en mujeres con linfedema secundario a tratamiento de cáncer de mama.

INTRODUCTION: DASH questionnaire was designed to assess upper limb function in musculoskeletal pathologies. The aim of this manuscript is to study the reliability and validity of this questionnaire, to determine if is adequate to use in women with lymphedema due to breast cancer treatment. METHODS: Prospective study in 65 women with lymphedema due to breast cancer treatment was done, in which the reliability of DASH score with internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest reproducibility 15 days' interval (interclass correlation coefficient) and validity by correlation with SF-36v2 and FACT-B+4 (r or Kendall's τ b) scores was investigated. RESULTS: The internal consistency and the test-retest were Cronbach's alpha 0.969 and interclass correlation coefficient 0.861, respectively. There was correlation between the DASH score with the SF-36v2 score, mainly in the areas of physical function, body pain and physical role (r 0.800, 0.738, and 0.682, respectively; p<0.001), and lowest with the emotional and social wellbeing. The DASH score had correlation with FACT-B+4 (0.836; p<0.001) and the subscales the upper limb score (r=0.816; p<0.001), and there was no correlation with the social/familiar subscale (r=0.193; p=0.216). CONCLUSION: The DASH questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool to assess upper limb functionality in Spanish women with breast cancer related lymphedema.

[Impact of mammographic breast density on computer-assisted detection (CAD) in a breast imaging department]. / Impacto de la densidad mamaria mamográfica en el funcionamiento de un sistema de detección asistido por ordenador en una unidad de patología mamaria.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether breast density influences the sensitivity of a computer-assisted detection (CAD) system for the detection of breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We prospectively studied 8750 digital mammograms with an associated CAD system. We used BI-RADS criteria to classify breast density. We calculated the overall sensitivity of the radiologist and of the CAD system, as well as the sensitivity for each projection and type of finding in relation to the mammographic density of the breast. Finally, we analyzed the interval carcinomas. We used SPSS 11 for all statistical analyses. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of the CAD system was 88.5% (95% CI: 83.2-92.7%), and the overall sensitivity of the radiologist was 93.5% (95% CI: 84.4%-95.5%). The sensitivity of the craniocaudal view was 81.6% (95% CI: 76.5-90.7%) vs 76.5% (95% CI: 69.3-89.3%) for the mediolateral oblique view. The sensitivity for microcalcifications was 98.6% (95% CI: 96.5-99.7%), and the sensitivity for masses 83.4% (95% CI: 81.2-91.7%). We detected discrepancies smaller than 20% both for microcalcifications present in the four types of densities and for masses with densities 1 and 2. In masses with density 3 the discrepancy was 20.8% and in those with density 4 it was 55%. The CAD system failed to mark only 9.1% (9/94) of the cancers presenting as masses. Half of the interval carcinomas were found in type 4 density and 75% manifested as masses, asymmetries, and distortions. The CAD system had marked 35.7% of the carcinomas. CONCLUSIONS: The craniocaudal view was more sensitive, although this difference was not statistically significant. The sensitivity of CAD was high for microcalcifications in all four density types; however, CAD's sensitivity for masses was low in density types 3 and 4. The CAD system only failed to mark 9.1% of the cancers presenting as masses but was not sensitive for the other two radiological findings included in this marking. Half of the interval carcinomas occurred in type 4 densities and 35.7% had been marked by the CAD system.