Breast Cancer Clinical Trial
— Pristina2/TROfficial title:
Self-compression Mammography in Clinical Practice: A Randomized Clinical Trial Compared to Standard Compression Mammography
Verified date | January 2021 |
Source | Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova-IRCCS |
Contact | n/a |
Is FDA regulated | No |
Health authority | |
Study type | Interventional |
Every year millions of mammograms are performed worldwide, representing the primary examination for the early diagnosis of breast cancer. Despite continuous advances in medicine and technology, an aspect of mammography has not changed in over fifty years: the breast is still compressed on the detector because this allows to reduce the thickness of the breast thus improving the quality of the diagnostic image and reducing the dose of radiation necessary to obtain a clear image. Many women perceive as painful this compression, including women who have been treated for breast cancer. Pain can discourage asymptomatic women to present themselves periodically to screening mammography, while an increasing number of women in follow-up after conservative surgery have to withstand the pain caused by mammography. Some studies mention various factors that are responsible for pain when performing mammography: breast sensitivity, anxiety level, expected pain and staff attitude. Some studies have also identified breast density, breast volume and menstrual phase as other influencing factors, although not all studies support these hypothesis. The technical characteristics of the equipment can greatly affect annoyance, sense of oppression, pain. The technological proposals to reduce the discomfort of the patients concern various items: flexible compressors, self-compression devices under the supervision of the technician who performs the positioning and the minimum initial compression, environmental factors such as equipment noise reduction, chromatic, sound and sensory effects (eg: aromatic diffusers). The aim of our study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the self-compression compared to the standard one, in reducing annoyance, a sense of oppression and pain, and to evaluate the difference of the average glandular dose given to the woman for each projection. Self-compression may help reaching better compression tolerating the discomfort and pain induced thus allowing to achieve a lower thickness, a lower glandular dose and a better image.
Status | Completed |
Enrollment | 502 |
Est. completion date | December 31, 2020 |
Est. primary completion date | July 31, 2019 |
Accepts healthy volunteers | No |
Gender | Female |
Age group | 18 Months and older |
Eligibility | Inclusion Criteria: - Women in follow-up after surgery - Symptomatic women undergoing mammography - Early diagnosis in asymptomatic women outside the organized screening program (these women are predominantly aged 40-44 / 75-85) - Women with familiar risk Exclusion Criteria: - Augmentation prostheses - Women in screening with active invitation - Physical impossibility to use the self-compression command - Inability to provide consent |
Country | Name | City | State |
---|---|---|---|
Italy | Laura Canovi | Reggio Emilia | RE |
Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
---|---|
Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova-IRCCS |
Italy,
Andrews FJ. Pain during mammography: implications for breast screening programmes. Australas Radiol. 2001 May;45(2):113-7. — View Citation
Davey B. Pain during mammography: possible risk factors and ways to alleviate pain. Radiography. 2007;13:5
de Groot JE, Branderhorst W, Grimbergen CA, den Heeten GJ, Broeders MJM. Towards personalized compression in mammography: a comparison study between pressure- and force-standardization. Eur J Radiol. 2015 Mar;84(3):384-391. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.12.00 — View Citation
de Groot JE, Broeders MJ, Grimbergen CA, den Heeten GJ. Pain-preventing strategies in mammography: an observational study of simultaneously recorded pain and breast mechanics throughout the entire breast compression cycle. BMC Womens Health. 2015;15:26. d — View Citation
Feder K, Grunert JH. Is Individualizing Breast Compression during Mammography useful? - Investigations of pain indications during mammography relating to compression force and surface area of the compressed breast. Rofo. 2017 Jan;189(1):39-48. doi: 10.105 — View Citation
Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening, third edition, The National Cancer Screening Service Board 2008
Kornguth PJ, Keefe FJ, Wright KR, Delong DM. Mammography pain in women treated conservatively for breast cancer. J Pain. 2000 Winter;1(4):268-74. — View Citation
Lau S, Abdul Aziz YF, Ng KH. Mammographic compression in Asian women. PLoS One. 2017 Apr 18;12(4):e0175781. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175781. eCollection 2017. — View Citation
Mendat CC, Mislan D, Hession-Kunz L. Patient comfort from the technologist perspective: factors to consider in mammographic imaging. Int J Womens Health. 2017 May 18;9:359-364. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S129817. eCollection 2017. — View Citation
Mercer CE, Hogg P, Lawson R, Diffey J, Denton ER. Practitioner compression force variability in mammography: a preliminary study. Br J Radiol. 2013 Feb;86(1022):20110596. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20110596. — View Citation
Miller D, Livingstone V, Herbison P. Interventions for relieving the pain and discomfort of screening mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jan 23;(1):CD002942. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002942.pub2. Review. — View Citation
Poulos A, McLean D, Rickard M, Heard R. Breast compression in mammography: how much is enough? Australas Radiol. 2003 Jun;47(2):121-6. — View Citation
Shrestha S, Poulos A, The effect of verbal information on the experience of discomfort in mammography, Radiography, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 271-277; 2001
Taplin SH, Rutter CM, Finder C, Mandelson MT, Houn F, White E. Screening mammography: clinical image quality and the risk of interval breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Apr;178(4):797-803. — View Citation
Van Goethem M, Mortelmans D, Bruyninckx E, Verslegers I, Biltjes I, Van Hove E, De Schepper A. Influence of the radiographer on the pain felt during mammography. Eur Radiol. 2003 Oct;13(10):2384-9. Epub 2002 Nov 14. — View Citation
* Note: There are 15 references in all — Click here to view all references
Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
---|---|---|---|---|
Primary | Average glandular dose administered (mSv) | Average glandular dose administered during mammography is automatically computed by the machine according to an algorithm using the data on the quantity of radiation emitted and the radiation captured by the detector. | This outcome is measured at the baseline mammography. | |
Primary | Image quality: radiographers' scale. | Radiographers evaluate the image quality after exam with a radiographer specific 3-item scale (contrast, resolution, compression) on a 0 to 5 point scale. Higher values mean better quality. | This outcome is measured at the baseline mammography. | |
Primary | Image quality: radiologists' scale. | Radiologists evaluate the image quality after exam a radiologist specific 3-item scale (contrast, resolution, compression) on a 0 to 5 point scale. Higher values mean better quality. | This outcome is measured at the baseline mammography. | |
Secondary | Breast thickness at the time of exposure (cm) | Breast thickness is measured automatically by the machine. This endpoint will be evaluated using single exposure as statistical unit, taking into account the autocorrelation of the 4 exposures in the same woman. | This outcome is measured at the baseline mammography. | |
Secondary | Maximum compression (daN) | Compression is measured automatically by the machine. This endpoint will be evaluated using single exposure as statistical unit, taking into account the autocorrelation of the 4 exposures in the same woman. | This outcome is measured at the baseline mammography. | |
Secondary | Pain during compression | visual assessment scale | pain will be evaluated immediately after baseline mammography execution | |
Secondary | Memory of pain in previous mammography | visual assessment scale | before the follow up mammography, i.e. approximately 1 year after baseline mammography | |
Secondary | Anxiety | questionnaire: State Trait Anxiety Inventory for adults - form Y (D. Spielberger).
The scale has 20 items for assessing trait anxiety and 20 for state anxiety. All items are rated on a 4-point scale. Higher scores indicate greater anxiety. |
Anxiety will be measured just before the baseline mammography and before the follow up mammography, i.e. approximately 1 year after baseline mammography. | |
Secondary | Discomfort | Discomfort will be measured with a one-item scale with five-point range (no, slight, moderate, considerable and severe discomfort). | Discomfort will be measured just after the baseline mammography. | |
Secondary | Execution time of the exam: | We evaluate: - total time (from randomization to close examination). Times are automatically registered by the radiology information system.
- Second breast time (from the acquisition of the second right breast projection to the acquisition of the second left breast projection) |
This outcome is measured at the baseline mammography. | |
Secondary | Participation in follow up mammography | Number of women presenting to follow up mammography (1 year +/-2 months)/number of recruited women referred to follow up mammography after 1 year | 1 year (+/- 2 months) after baseline mammography |
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Recruiting |
NCT04681911 -
Inetetamab Combined With Pyrotinib and Chemotherapy in the Treatment of HER2 Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer
|
Phase 2 | |
Terminated |
NCT04066790 -
Pyrotinib or Trastuzumab Plus Nab-paclitaxel as Neoadjuvant Therapy in HER2-positive Breast Cancer
|
Phase 2 | |
Completed |
NCT04890327 -
Web-based Family History Tool
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT03591848 -
Pilot Study of a Web-based Decision Aid for Young Women With Breast Cancer, During the Proposal for Preservation of Fertility
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT03954197 -
Evaluation of Priming Before in Vitro Maturation for Fertility Preservation in Breast Cancer Patients
|
N/A | |
Terminated |
NCT02202746 -
A Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of the VEGFR-FGFR-PDGFR Inhibitor, Lucitanib, Given to Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer
|
Phase 2 | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT01472094 -
The Hurria Older PatiEnts (HOPE) With Breast Cancer Study
|
||
Withdrawn |
NCT06057636 -
Hypnosis for Pain in Black Women With Advanced Breast Cancer: A Feasibility Study
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT06049446 -
Combining CEM and Magnetic Seed Localization of Non-Palpable Breast Tumors
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT05560334 -
A Single-Arm, Open, Exploratory Clinical Study of Pemigatinib in the Treatment of HER2-negative Advanced Breast Cancer Patients With FGFR Alterations
|
Phase 2 | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT05501769 -
ARV-471 in Combination With Everolimus for the Treatment of Advanced or Metastatic ER+, HER2- Breast Cancer
|
Phase 1 | |
Recruiting |
NCT04631835 -
Phase I Study of the HS-10352 in Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer
|
Phase 1 | |
Completed |
NCT04307407 -
Exercise in Breast Cancer Survivors
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT03544762 -
Correlation of 16α-[18F]Fluoro-17β-estradiol PET Imaging With ESR1 Mutation
|
Phase 3 | |
Terminated |
NCT02482389 -
Study of Preoperative Boost Radiotherapy
|
N/A | |
Enrolling by invitation |
NCT00068003 -
Harvesting Cells for Experimental Cancer Treatments
|
||
Completed |
NCT00226967 -
Stress, Diurnal Cortisol, and Breast Cancer Survival
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT06006390 -
CEA Targeting Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Lymphocytes (CAR-T) in the Treatment of CEA Positive Advanced Solid Tumors
|
Phase 1/Phase 2 | |
Recruiting |
NCT06037954 -
A Study of Mental Health Care in People With Cancer
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT06019325 -
Rhomboid Intercostal Plane Block on Chronic Pain Incidence and Acute Pain Scores After Mastectomy
|
N/A |