Mammography Related Discomfort Clinical Trial
Official title:
Discomfort Assessment of Senographe Pristina Patient-assisted Versus Standard Compression Mode in Asymptomatic Adult Women Undergoing Screening Full-filled Digital Mammography and Quality Evaluation of Screening Mammograms
Senographe Pristina is a new mammography system (hardware and software) designed to improve
patient experience, patient throughput, and radiographer experience while maintaining the
imaging capabilities and image quality of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital
breast tomosynthesis (DBT) breast imaging. The purpose of this study is to assess patient
experience as it relates to discomfort when patient-assisted compression is compared against
the standard compression mode of Senographe Pristina in asymptomatic adult women undergoing
screening FFDM mammography.
The technical/clinical quality assessment of mammograms is essential to ensure that high
quality images are consistently used in a breast cancer screening program. Advances in
mammography equipment may improve the image quality. Therefore, the investigators hypothesize
that the introduction of Senographe Pristina may have an effect on the technical/clinical
quality of screening mammograms.
| Status | Recruiting |
| Enrollment | 500 |
| Est. completion date | December 1, 2020 |
| Est. primary completion date | December 1, 2020 |
| Accepts healthy volunteers | No |
| Gender | Female |
| Age group | 50 Years to 69 Years |
| Eligibility |
Inclusion Criteria: - Women participating in their subsequent round in the breast cancer screening program - Asymptomatic women scheduled for full-field digital screening mammography - Have left and right breasts - Have breast sizes compatible with the dimensions of a 24x29 cm image detector without anatomical cut-off - Are able to provide subjective pain scores, per verbal self-report - Are documented as non-pregnant based on the investigator's medical judgment and in consideration of local clinical practice standards for evidence of non-pregnancy - Are able and willing to comply with study procedures - Are able and willing to provide written informed consent to participate Exclusion Criteria: - Have been previously included in this study or are participating in another study expected to interfere with study procedures or outcomes; - Have undergone diagnostic or surgical intervention(s) or procedure(s) on either breast, including breast biopsy, lumpectomy or mastectomy, or reconstruction; - Are currently undergoing radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or have a history of prior radiotherapy treatment on either breast; - Are currently lactating - Have breast implants. |
| Country | Name | City | State |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spain | Hospital del Mar - Parc de Salut Mar | Barcelona | Catalonia |
| Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
|---|---|
| Parc de Salut Mar | GE Healthcare |
Spain,
American Cancer Society, "Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2015-2016," United States, 2015.
Coldman A, Phillips N, Wilson C, Decker K, Chiarelli AM, Brisson J, Zhang B, Payne J, Doyle G, Ahmad R. Pan-Canadian study of mammography screening and mortality from breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Oct 1;106(11). pii: dju261. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju261. Print 2014 Nov. Erratum in: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Jan;107(1):dju404 doi:10.1093/jnci/dju404. — View Citation
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.2014.12.005. Epub 2014 Dec 13. — View Citation
de Groot JE, Broeders MJ, Branderhorst W, den Heeten GJ, Grimbergen CA. Mammographic compression after breast conserving therapy: controlling pressure instead of force. Med Phys. 2014 Feb;41(2):023501. doi: 10.1118/1.4862512. — View Citation
Dullum JR, Lewis EC, Mayer JA. Rates and correlates of discomfort associated with mammography. Radiology. 2000 Feb;214(2):547-52. — View Citation
Gupta R, Nayak M, Khoursheed M, Roy S, Behbehani AI. Pain during mammography: impact of breast pathologies and demographic factors. Med Princ Pract. 2003 Jul-Sep;12(3):180-3. — View Citation
Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH 3rd, Smart CR. Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40-49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;(22):87-92. — View Citation
Hofvind S, Ursin G, Tretli S, Sebuødegård S, Møller B. Breast cancer mortality in participants of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Cancer. 2013 Sep 1;119(17):3106-12. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28174. Epub 2013 May 29. — View Citation
Kornguth PJ, Rimer BK, Conaway MR, Sullivan DC, Catoe KE, Stout AL, Brackett JS. Impact of patient-controlled compression on the mammography experience. Radiology. 1993 Jan;186(1):99-102. — View Citation
Li Y, Poulos A, McLean D, Rickard M. A review of methods of clinical image quality evaluation in mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2010 Jun;74(3):e122-31. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.04.069. Epub 2009 May 30. Review. — View Citation
M. Boyce, "Comparing the use and interpretation of PGMI scoring to assess the technical quality of screening mammograms in the UK and Norway," Radiography, 2015.
Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009 Nov 17;151(10):727-37, W237-42. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00009. Review. — View Citation
Poulos A, Rickard M. Compression in mammography and the perception of discomfort. Australas Radiol. 1997 Aug;41(3):247-52. — View Citation
S. Hofvind, "Quality assurance of mammograms in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.," European Journal of Radiology, 2009.
Shapiro S, Strax P, Venet L. Periodic breast cancer screening in reducing mortality from breast cancer. JAMA. 1971 Mar 15;215(11):1777-85. — View Citation
Swedish Organised Service Screening Evaluation Group. Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography: 1. Further confirmation with extended data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Jan;15(1):45-51. — View Citation
Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer. 2001 May 1;91(9):1724-31. — View Citation
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
Thurfjell EL, Lindgren JA. Breast cancer survival rates with mammographic screening: similar favorable survival rates for women younger and those older than 50 years. Radiology. 1996 Nov;201(2):421-6. — View Citation
Whelehan P, Evans A, Wells M, Macgillivray S. The effect of mammography pain on repeat participation in breast cancer screening: a systematic review. Breast. 2013 Aug;22(4):389-94. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2013.03.003. Epub 2013 Mar 28. Review. — View Citation
Williamson A, Hoggart B. Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs. 2005 Aug;14(7):798-804. Review. — View Citation
* Note: There are 21 references in all — Click here to view all references
| Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Patient experience feedback: Patient preference about patient-assisted compression over standard compression using a 5-point Likert scale | Study staff will provide an online questionnaire to each of the subjects when their imaging exams are completed. Subjects will complete the questionnaires while still at the site, and a member of the study staff will be available to address any questions. The questionnaire will consist of four (4) items, structured as statements and answered using a 5-point Likert scale: 1. Strongly agree, 2. Agree; 3. Neither agree nor disagree; 4. Disagree; 5. Strongly disagree. This item's statement is as follows: I preferred the patient-assisted compression exam over the standard compression exam |
Immediately following full-field digital mammography breast imaging | |
| Other | Patient experience feedback: Patient-assisted compression discomfort as compared to standard compression using a 5-point Likert scale | Study staff will provide an online questionnaire to each of the subjects when their imaging exams are completed. Subjects will complete the questionnaires while still at the site, and a member of the study staff will be available to address any questions. The questionnaire will consist of four (4) items, structured as statements and answered using a 5-point Likert scale: 1. Strongly agree, 2. Agree; 3. Neither agree nor disagree; 4. Disagree; 5. Strongly disagree. This item's statement is as follows: The patient-assisted compression screening exam caused less discomfort than the standard compression exam |
Immediately following full-field digital mammography breast imaging | |
| Other | Patient experience feedback: Expected comfortability in next screening if patient-assisted compression were available using a 5-point Likert scale | Study staff will provide an online questionnaire to each of the subjects when their imaging exams are completed. Subjects will complete the questionnaires while still at the site, and a member of the study staff will be available to address any questions. The questionnaire will consist of four (4) items, structured as statements and answered using a 5-point Likert scale: 1. Strongly agree, 2. Agree; 3. Neither agree nor disagree; 4. Disagree; 5. Strongly disagree. This item's statement is as follows: I would feel more comfortable going to my next breast screening exam if patient-assisted compression were available |
Immediately following full-field digital mammography breast imaging | |
| Other | Patient experience feedback: Patient-assisted compression satisfaction, expressed as the level of agreement to recommend it to friends and family using a 5-point Likert scale | Study staff will provide an online questionnaire to each of the subjects when their imaging exams are completed. Subjects will complete the questionnaires while still at the site, and a member of the study staff will be available to address any questions. The questionnaire will consist of four (4) items, structured as statements and answered using a 5-point Likert scale: 1. Strongly agree, 2. Agree; 3. Neither agree nor disagree; 4. Disagree; 5. Strongly disagree. This item's statement is as follows: I would recommend a patient-assisted compression exam to my friends and family |
Immediately following full-field digital mammography breast imaging | |
| Primary | Patient discomfort using an 11-point numeric pain rating scale | Subject-provided pain scores using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) of patient-assisted compression and standard compression will be used as a measure of discomfort. A total of six (6) pain scores will be obtained from each subject, consisting of two (2) baseline pain scores (right/left breast) collected previous to the image acquisition, two (2) patient-assisted compression scores (CC and MLO) and two (2) standard compression scores (CC and MLO). Immediately following image acquisition (i.e. during decompression of the breast), study staff will ask the subject to provide a verbal score, indicating her level of pain for the given compression. A validated 11-point NRS will be used for each assessment, where a score of 0 will indicate no pain and 10 will indicate the worst pain. Pain scores will be documented on Case Report Form (CRFs) by the study staff | Immediately following full-field digital mammography breast imaging | |
| Secondary | Technical/Clinical quality of mammogram using the PGMI system | Two highly trained radiologists will independently assess the quality of the images according to the PGMI system (Perfect, Good, Moderate, Inadequate). In case of disagreement, a third radiologist will assess the quality and a final score will reach by majority. All participating radiologists will be blind to the compression status. Items taken into account for the PGMI are: (i) For CC view: Nipple not in profile, skin folds, images not symmetrical, medial border of the breast not seen, axillary tail of the breast insufficiently seen, inadequate compression/blur, artefacts and incorrect annotation/labeling.(ii) For MLO view: insufficient inframammary angle, nipple not in profile, images not symmetrical, pectoralis major muscle not to nipple level, pectoralis major muscle not at appropriate angle, inadequate compression/blur, and artefacts. Technical/Clinical quality of mammogram using the PGMI system will be documented on CRF by the study staff | Immediately following radiologists analysis | |
| Secondary | Average glandular dose in mGy | Average glandular dose is provided systematically by the mammography device following image acquisition. Results are expressed in miligray (mGy). Average glandular dose will be documented on CRF by the study staff | Immediately following full-field digital mammography breast imaging | |
| Secondary | Breast thickness in mm | Breast thickness is provided systematically by the mammography device following image acquisition. Results are expressed in milimeters (mm). Breast thickness will be documented on CRF by the study staff | Immediately following full-field digital mammography breast imaging | |
| Secondary | Compression force in daN | Compression force is provided systematically by the mammography device following image acquisition. Results are expressed in decanewton (daN). Compression force will be documented on CRF by the study staff. | Immediately following full-field digital mammography breast imaging |