Tolerability of breast ductal lavage in women from families at high genetic risk of breast cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Ductal lavage (DL) has been proposed as a minimally-invasive, well-tolerated tool for obtaining breast epithelial cells for cytological evaluation of breast cancer risk. We report DL tolerability in <it>BRCA1/2 </it>mutation-positive and -negative women from an IRB-approved research study.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>165 <it>BRCA1/2 </it>mutation-positive, 26 mutation-negative and 3 mutation unknown women underwent mammography, breast MRI and DL. Psychological well-being and perceptions of pain were obtained before and after DL, and compared with pain experienced during other screening procedures.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The average <b><it>anticipated </it></b>and <b><it>experienced </it></b>discomfort rating for DL, 47 and 48 (0–100), were significantly higher (<it>p </it>< 0.01) than the <b><it>anticipated </it></b>and <b><it>experienced </it></b>discomfort of mammogram (38 and 34), MRI (36 and 25) or nipple aspiration (42 and 27). Women with greater pre-existing emotional distress experienced more DL-related discomfort than they anticipated. Women reporting DL-related pain as worse than expected were nearly three times more likely to refuse subsequent DL than those reporting it as the same or better than expected. Twenty-five percent of participants refused repeat DL at first annual follow-up.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>DL was anticipated to be and experienced as <b>more </b>uncomfortable than other procedures used in breast cancer screening. Higher underlying psychological distress was associated with decreased DL tolerability.</p

Surgical repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures : a biomechanical comparison of two techniques

PURPOSE: To compare pain, projected breast area, radiation dose and image quality between flexible (FP) and rigid (RP) breast compression paddles. METHODS: The study was conducted in a Dutch mammographic screening unit (288 women). To compare both paddles one additional image with RP was made, consisting of either a mediolateral-oblique (MLO) or craniocaudal-view (CC). Pain experience was scored using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Projected breast area was estimated using computer software. Radiation dose was estimated using the model by Dance. Image quality was reviewed by three radiologists and three radiographers. Results : There was no difference in pain experience between both paddles (mean difference NRS: 0.08 +/- 0.08, p = 0.32). Mean radiation dose was 4.5 % lower with FP (0.09 +/- 0.01 p = 0.00). On MLO-images, the projected breast area was 0.79 % larger with FP. Paired evaluation of image quality indicated that FP removed fibroglandular tissue from the image area and reduced contrast in the clinically relevant retroglandular area at chest wall side. CONCLUSIONS: Although FP performed slightly better in the projected breast area, it moved breast tissue from the image area at chest wall side. RP showed better contrast, especially in the retroglandular area. We therefore recommend the use of RP for standard MLO and CC views