Back to Search Start Over

Patient preferences regarding use of contrast-enhanced imaging for breast cancer screening

Authors :
Jordana Phillips
Rashmi Mehta
Alexander Brook
Daniel Son
Tejas S. Mehta
Vandana Dialani
Source :
Academic Radiology. 29:S229-S238
Publication Year :
2022
Publisher :
Elsevier BV, 2022.

Abstract

Our purpose is to understand patient preferences towards contrast-enhanced imaging such as CEM or MRI for breast cancer screening.An anonymous survey was offered to all patients having screening mammography at a single academic institution from December 27 th 2019 to March 6 th 2020. Survey questions related to: (1) patients' background experiences (2) patients' concern for aspects of MRI and CEM measured using a 5-point Likert scale, and (3) financial considerations.75% (1011/1349) patients completed the survey. 53.0% reported dense breasts and of those, 47.6% had additional screening. 49.6% had experienced a callback, 29.0% had a benign biopsy, and 13.7% had prior CEM/MRI. 34.7% were satisfied with mammography for screening. A majority were neutral or not concerned with radiation exposure, contrast allergy, IV line placement, claustrophobia, and false positive exams. 54.7% were willing to pay at least $250-500 for screening MRI. Those reporting dense breasts were less satisfied with mammography for screening (p0.001) and willing to pay more for MRI (p0.001). If patients had prior CEM/MRI, there was less concern for an allergic reaction (p0.001), IV placement (p=0.025), and claustrophobia (p=0.006). There was less concern for false positives if they had a prior benign biopsy (p=0.029) or prior CEM/MRI (p=0.005) and less concern for IV placement if they had dense breasts (p=0.007) or a previous callback (p=0.013).The screening population may accept CEM or MRI as a screening exam despite its risks and cost, especially patients with dense breasts and patients who have had prior CEM/MRI.

Details

ISSN :
10766332
Volume :
29
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Academic Radiology
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....a245c996b7f9739f6e90e2a5fe9eac6a