Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Continuity of Radiologists Between Diagnostic Breast Imaging and Image-Guided Breast Biopsy: Impact on Patient-Reported Biopsy Morbidity Experiences.
McLaughlin, Carol; Moorman, Sarah E H; Yin, Chen; Shankar, Prasad R; Davenport, Matthew S; Neal, Colleen H; Pinsky, Renee W; Pujara, Akshat C.
Affiliation
  • McLaughlin C; Michigan Medicine, Department of Radiology, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
  • Moorman SEH; Radiology Physicians, Inc., Dayton, OH, USA.
  • Yin C; Inland Imaging, Spokane, WA, USA.
  • Shankar PR; Michigan Medicine, Department of Radiology, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
  • Davenport MS; Cleveland Clinic, Imaging Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.
  • Neal CH; Michigan Medicine, Department of Radiology, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
  • Pinsky RW; Michigan Medicine, Department of Radiology, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
  • Pujara AC; Michigan Medicine, Department of Radiology, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
J Breast Imaging ; 6(2): 141-148, 2024 Apr 01.
Article de En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38170567
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To determine whether continuity of care between diagnostic breast imaging and subsequent image-guided breast biopsy could reduce patient-reported biopsy-related morbidity.

METHODS:

This was a prospective, pragmatically randomized, 2-arm health utilities analysis of 200 women undergoing diagnostic breast imaging followed by US- or stereotactic-guided breast biopsy at a single quaternary care center from September 3, 2019, to April 10, 2023. Breast biopsy-naive women with a BI-RADS 4 or 5 finding at diagnostic imaging were randomly scheduled for the typically first available biopsy appointment. One day after biopsy, enrolled patients were administered the Testing Morbidities Index (TMI). The primary outcome was the difference in TMI summary utility scores in patients who did vs did not have the same radiologist perform diagnostic imaging and biopsy.

RESULTS:

Response rates were 63% (100/159) for the different radiologist cohort and 71% (100/140) for the same radiologist cohort; all respondents answered all questions in both arms. Mean time to biopsy was 7 ± 6 days and 10 ± 9 days, and the number of participating radiologists was 11 and 18, respectively. There was no difference in individual measured domains (pain, fear, or anxiety before procedure; pain, embarrassment, fear, or anxiety during procedure; mental or physical impact after procedure; all P >.00625) or in overall patient morbidity (0.83 [95% CI, 0.81-0.85] vs 0.82 [95% CI 0.80-0.84], P = .66).

CONCLUSION:

Continuity of care between diagnostic breast imaging and image-guided breast biopsy did not affect morbidity associated with breast biopsy, suggesting that patients should be scheduled for the soonest available biopsy appointment rather than waiting for the same radiologist.
Sujet(s)
Mots clés

Texte intégral: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Base de données: MEDLINE Sujet principal: Biopsie guidée par l'image / Radiologues Type d'étude: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies Aspects: Patient_preference Limites: Female / Humans Langue: En Journal: J Breast Imaging / Journal of breast imaging (Online) Année: 2024 Type de document: Article Pays d'affiliation: États-Unis d'Amérique Pays de publication: États-Unis d'Amérique

Texte intégral: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Base de données: MEDLINE Sujet principal: Biopsie guidée par l'image / Radiologues Type d'étude: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies Aspects: Patient_preference Limites: Female / Humans Langue: En Journal: J Breast Imaging / Journal of breast imaging (Online) Année: 2024 Type de document: Article Pays d'affiliation: États-Unis d'Amérique Pays de publication: États-Unis d'Amérique