Insights into imaging · 2026
Acceptance, experience, and feedback for supplemental screening in dense breasts among women participating in the BRAID trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Allajbeu Iris, Charnley Kate R, Yang Yuyin, Field-Rayner Johanna, Morris Kirsten, Payne Nicholas R, Kilburn-Toppin Fleur, Manavaki Roido, Gilbert Fiona J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patient acceptance and feedback regarding supplemental imaging modalities: automated whole-breast ultrasound (ABUS), contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), and abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) within the BRAID (Breast Screening: Risk Adaptive Imaging for Density) trial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An adapted Testing Morbidities Index questionnaire was utilised to capture participant experiences and perceptions (January-April 2024) related to AB-MRI, ABUS and CEM. Likert-scale questions assessed discomfort, anxiety, and overall satisfaction for each imaging modality, while thematic analysis was applied to free-text patient feedback. Additionally, reasons for withdrawal were recorded for each modality.
RESULTS: Among 159 women providing feedback, 57/159 (35.8%) underwent ABUS, 52/159 (32.7%) CEM, and 50/159 (31.5%) AB-MRI. Acceptability of ABUS, CEM and AB-MRI was rated similarly to mammography by 71/159 (64.8%) of these respondents, with 72/159 (45.3%) considering them superior. Mild-to-moderate discomfort due to breast compression was reported for ABUS and CEM, whereas AB-MRI resulted in the least discomfort. Pre-procedural anxiety was observed across all imaging modalities, particularly with contrast-enhanced techniques; however, experiences were generally well-tolerated. Effective communication and pre-test information reduced anxiety levels, with most participants willing to repeat the procedures. 151/984 (15.3%) withdrawals in BRAID were due to adverse patient experiences, with contrast-enhanced techniques accounting for most of these withdrawals (CEM: 69/151, 45.7%; AB-MRI: 66/151, 43.7%; ABUS: 12/151, 7.9%). The main reasons for withdrawal were unhappiness with the allocated imaging arm and discomfort or anxiety during the procedure.
CONCLUSION: Supplemental imaging modalities are generally well-accepted by patients with benefit throughout gained by clear communication and preparedness.
CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Feedback from a subgroup of women participating in the BRAID trial shows that supplemental imaging alongside routine screening is well-accepted. Clear communication and empathetic care further improve acceptance, supporting a shift toward personalised breast cancer screening for women with dense breasts.
KEY POINTS: Understanding women's imaging experiences is essential for optimising breast screening practices. Acceptability of supplemental imaging was rated similar to or better than mammography by most participants. Clear, empathetic communication reduced anxiety and improved experience with contrast-enhanced imaging.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An adapted Testing Morbidities Index questionnaire was utilised to capture participant experiences and perceptions (January-April 2024) related to AB-MRI, ABUS and CEM. Likert-scale questions assessed discomfort, anxiety, and overall satisfaction for each imaging modality, while thematic analysis was applied to free-text patient feedback. Additionally, reasons for withdrawal were recorded for each modality.
RESULTS: Among 159 women providing feedback, 57/159 (35.8%) underwent ABUS, 52/159 (32.7%) CEM, and 50/159 (31.5%) AB-MRI. Acceptability of ABUS, CEM and AB-MRI was rated similarly to mammography by 71/159 (64.8%) of these respondents, with 72/159 (45.3%) considering them superior. Mild-to-moderate discomfort due to breast compression was reported for ABUS and CEM, whereas AB-MRI resulted in the least discomfort. Pre-procedural anxiety was observed across all imaging modalities, particularly with contrast-enhanced techniques; however, experiences were generally well-tolerated. Effective communication and pre-test information reduced anxiety levels, with most participants willing to repeat the procedures. 151/984 (15.3%) withdrawals in BRAID were due to adverse patient experiences, with contrast-enhanced techniques accounting for most of these withdrawals (CEM: 69/151, 45.7%; AB-MRI: 66/151, 43.7%; ABUS: 12/151, 7.9%). The main reasons for withdrawal were unhappiness with the allocated imaging arm and discomfort or anxiety during the procedure.
CONCLUSION: Supplemental imaging modalities are generally well-accepted by patients with benefit throughout gained by clear communication and preparedness.
CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Feedback from a subgroup of women participating in the BRAID trial shows that supplemental imaging alongside routine screening is well-accepted. Clear communication and empathetic care further improve acceptance, supporting a shift toward personalised breast cancer screening for women with dense breasts.
KEY POINTS: Understanding women's imaging experiences is essential for optimising breast screening practices. Acceptability of supplemental imaging was rated similar to or better than mammography by most participants. Clear, empathetic communication reduced anxiety and improved experience with contrast-enhanced imaging.