m+Medelevator.RU
← Поиск публикаций
JAMA internal medicine · 2019

Self-compression Technique vs Standard Compression in Mammography: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАEquivalence TrialНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Henrot Philippe, Boisserie-Lacroix Martine, Boute Véronique, Troufléau Philippe, Boyer Bruno, Lesanne Grégory, Gillon Véronique, Desandes Emmanuel, Netter Edith, Saadate Maryam, Tardivon Anne, Grentzinger Christine, Salleron Julia, Oldrini Guillaume

Аннотация

IMPORTANCE: Many women dread undergoing mammography, and some may not attend or reattend breast cancer screening because of the discomfort or pain induced by breast compression.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the noninferiority of the self-compression mammography technique for reducing breast thickness compared with standard compression.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective, parallel-group, noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted from May 7, 2013, to October 26, 2015, at 6 cancer care centers in France. Participants were women aged 50 to 75 years, without a history of recent breast surgical procedure or treatment, and who could perform self-compression. Analyses were performed on intention-to-treat basis from January 27, 2017, to March 30, 2018.

INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to the self-compression group or the standard compression group.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary end point was breast thickness expressed as the mean of 4 views: right and left craniocaudal and right and left mediolateral oblique. The predefined noninferiority margin was a difference of 3 mm, with a 1-sided 95% CI. Secondary end points included compression force, image quality, requirement for additional views, pain, and patient satisfaction and radiographer assessment questionnaires.

RESULTS: Among the 549 women randomized, 548 (97.3%) completed the trial. Of these, 275 (48.8%) (mean [SD] age, 61.35 [6.34] years) were randomized to the self-compression arm and 273 (48.5%) (mean [SD] age, 60.84 [6.41] years) to the standard compression arm. The difference in the mean thickness between the 2 arms was lower than the noninferiority margin, with an upper 1-sided 95% CI less than 3 mm (-0.17; 95% CI,-∞ to 1.89 mm; P < .05). Compression force was higher in the self-compression group compared with the standard compression arm for the 4 mammographic views. Pain was statistically significantly lower in the self-compression group (n = 274) compared with the standard compression group (n = 269) (median [interquartile range (IQR)] score, 2 [1-5] vs 3 [1-5]; P = .009). No difference was reported in the image quality scores of the 2 groups or in the number of additional views performed (median [IQR] extra views, 2 [2-2] vs 2 [2-3] extra views; P = .64), whatever the indication, including insufficient image quality (29 [16.8%] vs 27 [15.0%] insufficient quality views; P = .65). No adverse effects or pain were reported by the participants after the self-compression mammography.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Self-compression does not appear to be inferior to standard compression mammography in achieving minimal breast thickness without increasing pain or compromising image quality; this technique may be an effective option for women who want to be involved in their breast examination.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02866591.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

ИП Урсолов Владлен Сергеевич

ИНН 500118482352 · ОГРНИП 314500117700049

Реквизиты и контакты