Female patients’ perception of pain caused by mammography in the Western Region of Saudi Arabia

Abstract

Objectives:To determine the association of different factors in the mammography related pain perception of women who attended their screening and diagnostic mammography appointments and whether the pain perceived was equal to the pain experienced.Methods:This prospective study was conducted at the Breast Unit of King Abdulaziz University (KAU) Hospital, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), in the period between April and May 2015. A structured questionnaire with close-ended questions was given to a sample of 100 women before and after their mammogram, asking about their pain perception and whether it had changed.Results:The factors that affected anticipated mammography pain for the surveyed women were past mammography experiences, previous breast procedures, and the knowledge that was gathered beforehand about mammography. After the mammography, the women who thought the procedure was going to be painful experienced what they expected. The majority of the women who did not expect the mammography to be painful experienced pain during their mammogram. Most of the women who did not know whether it would be painful or not experienced the mammography as painful.Conclusion:Pain expectation can be approached in various ways to make the mammography experience much more tolerable for women, encouraging them to attend and return for their scans.

Label-Free Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy Biosensor for On-Site Breast Cancer Detection Using Human Tears

“…The Au/HCP-PS nanosphere systems were modeled by controlling the nanogaps or crevices, measured from FE-SEM images, between the Au-covered PS nanospheres for each Au thickness (Figure S5). The SERS-EF approximated from the EM mechanism of SERS is generally defined as |E/E 0 | 4 , where E is the local maximum electric field and E 0 is the amplitude of the input source electric field in a linear simulation. The simulated SERS−EF (|E| 4 -approximation) showed a similar pattern to the Raman intensities of the Au/ HCP-PS monolayer (Figure 2B).…”

“…The SERS-EF approximated from the EM mechanism of SERS is generally defined as |E/E 0 | 4 , where E is the local maximum electric field and E 0 is the amplitude of the input source electric field in a linear simulation. The simulated SERS−EF (|E| 4 -approximation) showed a similar pattern to the Raman intensities of the Au/ HCP-PS monolayer (Figure 2B). The distribution of the EM field increased with increasing Au thickness regardless of the wavelength.…”

“…2 Mammography is the best screening test for women over 50 years old, but it has difficulty in detecting small tumors (<1 mm, about 100,000 cells), has inadequate detection of cancer in women with dense breast tissue, 3 and causes breast pain during the mammogram. 4 Serum-based biomarkers, such as carbohydrate antigen 15.3 (CA 15.3) and carcinoembryonic antigen, are used for monitoring ongoing therapy in breast cancer patients with metastatic disease, but there is no biomarker proposed for early detection. Therefore, novel biomarkers or protein profiling in body fluids of breast cancer patients are urgently needed to improve the accuracy of early detection and diagnosis.…”

Compression force variability in mammography in Ghana – A baseline study

“…7,8 The clinical benefits of breast compression are that it enhances breast cancer detection, thereby improving patient management. 9 However, the application of breast compression force varies across and within practitioners, 9,10 and in some cases may lead to pain, 11,12 and deter patients from attending future breast screening examinations. 13 Several countries have produced breast compression guidelines for radiographers to apply during mammography examinations.…”

“…9,15,18,19,28 Mercer et al 9 attributed variations in the compression force to three factors: practitioner, equipment and the patient. Variations stemming from patients could be due to differences in their tolerance of pain 11,12 , breast density, size, stiffness and compressibility. 27,29 The study by Mercer et al 9 categorized the breast compression force among practitioners as high, intermediate and low in relation to breast volume and density.…”