Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Ultrasound Int Open 2024; 10: a22829193
DOI: 10.1055/a-2282-9193
Original Article

Patient perception of meander-like versus radial breast ultrasound

Pascale Brasier-Lutz
1   Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland (Ringgold ID: RIN30262)
,
Claudia Jäggi-Wickes
1   Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland (Ringgold ID: RIN30262)
,
Sabine Schädelin
2   Department of Clinical Research, Statistics and Data Management, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
,
Rosemarie Burian
1   Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland (Ringgold ID: RIN30262)
,
Cora-Ann Schoenenberger
3   Department of Chemistry, University of Basel, 4056 Basel, Switzerland
4   Gynecology/Gynecologic Oncology, Sankt Claraspital AG, Basel, Switzerland (Ringgold ID: RIN30265)
,
Rosanna Zanetti-Dällenbach
4   Gynecology/Gynecologic Oncology, Sankt Claraspital AG, Basel, Switzerland (Ringgold ID: RIN30265)
› Author Affiliations Fundings Krebsliga Beider Basel | KLBB Nr. 22/2010
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

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


Publication History

Received: 11 April 2023

Accepted after revision: 06 March 2024

Article published online:
22 April 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Bibliographical Record
Pascale Brasier-Lutz, Claudia Jäggi-Wickes, Sabine Schädelin, Rosemarie Burian, Cora-Ann Schoenenberger, Rosanna Zanetti-Dällenbach. Patient perception of meander-like versus radial breast ultrasound. Ultrasound Int Open 2024; 10: a22829193.
DOI: 10.1055/a-2282-9193
 

  • 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 DOI: 10.1148/radiology.213.2.r99nv05413.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1148/radiology.166.2.3275983.
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001; 221: 641-649 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2213010364.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.12.8842.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.181.1.1810177.
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Becker MH, Maiman LA. Strategies for enhancing patient compliance. J Community Health 1980; 6: 113-135 DOI: 10.1007/bf01318980.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13121606.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-020-05554-x.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1055/a-0838-9937.
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Vogel-Minea CM, Bader W, Blohmer JU. et al. Best Practice Guideline - DEGUM Recommendations on Breast Ultrasound. Ultraschall Med 2023; 44: 520-536 DOI: 10.1055/a-2020-9904.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2023.05.007.
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph120910587.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/84.1.24.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38343.670868.D3.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1001/archinte.160.14.2101.
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Poulos A, Rickard M. Compression in mammography and the perception of discomfort. Australas Radiol 1997; 41: 247-252 DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1673.1997.tb00668.x.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1023/a:1006457520996.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.2147/ijwh.S129817.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2013.03.003.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1273414.
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-926943.
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Reynolds A. Patient-centered Care. Radiol Technol 2009; 81: 133-147
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.02.010.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1148/radiology.178.1.1984295.
    Google Scholar