11 / 15
Page 38
Notes:
Volume 2
Journal of Molecular Cancer
Breast Cancer & Vascular Conference 2019
February 25-26, 2019
February 25-26, 2019 London, UK
Joint event on
World Congress on
Breast Cancer
Vascular Biology & Surgeons Meeting
5
th
International Conference on
&
Assessing of the “risk of pain” in mammography
Stefano Pacifici
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Purpose:
Mammography is an important tool in the secondary prevention of breast cancer. However, according to literature, a wide
percentage of women reports pain or discomfort during the procedure that may undermine compliance with periodic or follow-up
mammography. The study focuses firstly on identifying the factors that determine the risk of pain during the mammography procedure
with special attention to the woman-related factors, the examination context, the procedure itself and the screening staff; secondly, it sets
out to define recommendations to reduce the pain experienced during mammography.
Methods and Materials:
300 women >40 years were interviewed immediately before and after undergoing mammography. Pre-test
interview was used to evaluate the expected pain and the risk factors. Subsequently, after an appropriate counselling and the given option
over the control of the compression force, mammography was performed. In post-test interview the women were asked about the pain
experienced, the difference between what experienced and their preliminary expectation, and the most stressful moment of the entire
procedure.
Results:
Study results showed a number of women-related, staff-related and procedural-relate factors considered significant in the
assessing of the risk of pain, besides anticipatory anxiety related to a possible positive diagnosis. Anticipation of pain and discomfort
were the dominant factor explaining a pain experience, except for women at their first mammography. For these women seems to be
crucial the staff behaviour, even more for those at their follow-up mammogram, in addition to anticipatory anxiety. Despite the most
of assessed women expected that mammography would be painful, most of those who anticipated pain has reported that the severity of
pain experienced during current test was much lower than how it was anticipated, except from women with breast cyclic pain.
Conclusions:
These data serve to emphasize the need for a careful assessment of the emotional status of the woman and an appropriate
pre-mammography counselling, to address those factors which may interfere with future adherence and compliance. Interventions
include an empathetic and supportive breast radiographer behaviour. In the circumstances that previous mammography was very
painful, or it is known that the participant has sensitive breasts, additional care should be taken by offering women the chance to control
the pressure themselves, as earlier studies showed that this measure is effective without compromising image quality. The results also
highlight the need for promote a specialist training for breast radiographers, whose attitude and behaviour play an important role in the
experience of pain and, consequently, on compliance with periodic or surveillance mammography.
s_pacific@virgilio.itJ Molecular Cancer
Volume 2