Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

An evaluation of patient experience during percutaneous breast biopsy

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Percutaneous breast biopsy in a tertiary referral high volume breast centre: can we improve the patient experience?

Purpose

The study was performed to evaluate patient experience during ultrasound-guided (UGB) and vacuum-assisted stereotactic breast biopsy (SBB) and determine what factors could improve the patient experience.

Methods

Consecutive patients who underwent image guided breast biopsy from 01- 05/30, 2015 were approached in a structured telephone interview to evaluate pain and bruising from the procedure. Three hundred and fifty-one patients were interviewed (116 SBB and 235 UGB). Information about the radiologist performing the biopsy, biopsy type, needle gauge, and number of cores was collected from the biopsy reports. Correlation was done using Spearman rank test.

Results

Average patient scores of pain with UGB and SBB were 2.3 and 3.1 (out of 10). There was a significant correlation between pain during SBB and physician experience (p = 0.013), and no correlation with pain during UGB (p > 0.05). No correlation was found between needle gauge and pain experienced during breast biopsy or between numbers of cores and pain (p > 0.05). Body position during SBB was mentioned to cause discomfort and pain in 28% of patients while during UGB was mentioned by 0.4% of patients.

Conclusion

SBB was inferior to UGB for patient experience, but years of radiologists’ experience correlated with improved patient scores of pain for SBB.

Key Points

To achieve high quality, an institution must emphasise patient-centred care.

Increased radiologist training with stereotactic biopsy may contribute to improved patient experience.

Stereotactic breast biopsy was inferior to ultrasound biopsy for patient experience.

Radiologists’ experience correlated with improved patient scores of pain for stereotactic biopsy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Verkooijen HM, Buskens E, Peeters PH et al (2002) Diagnosing non-palpable breast disease: short term impact on quality of life of large-core needle biopsy versus open breast biopsy. Surg Oncol 4:177–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Parker SH, Burbank F, Jackman RJ, et al. Percutaneous large-core breast biopsy: a multi-institutional study. Radiology. 1994;193–364.

  3. Brenner RJ, Fajardo L, Dershaw DD et al (1996) Percutaneous core biopsy of the breast: effect of operator experience and number of samples on diagnostic accuracy. AJR 166:341–346

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hryhorczuk AL, Hanneman K, Eisenberg RL et al (2015) Radiologic professionalism in modern health care. RadioGraphics 35:1779–1788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lebel S, Jakubovits G, Rosberger Z et al (2003) Waiting for a breast biopsy. Psychosocial consequences and coping strategies. J Psychosom Res 55:437–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lang EV, Berbaum KS, Lutgendorf SK (2009) Large-core breast biopsy: abnormal salivary cortisol profiles associated with uncertainty of diagnosis. Radiology 250:631–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hemmer MJ, Kelder CJ, van Heesewijk PMH (2008) Stereotactic large-core needle biopsy: analysis of pain and discomfort related to the biopsy procedure. Eur Radiol 18:351–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mainiero MB, Gareen IF, Bird CE, Smith W, Cobb C, Schepps B (2002) Preferential use of sonographically guided biopsy to minimize patient discomfort and procedure time in a percutaneous image-guided breast biopsy program. J Ultrasound Med 11:1221–1226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Soo AE, Shelby RA, Miller LS et al (2014) Predictors of pain experienced by women during percutaneous imaging-guided breast biopsies. J Am Coll Radiol 11:709–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Satchithananda K, Fernando RA, Ralleigh G et al (2005) An audit of pain/discomfort experienced during image-guided breast biopsy procedures. Breast J 11:398–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Szynglarewicz B, Matkowski R, Kasprzak P et al (2011) Pain experienced by patients during minimal-invasive ultrasound-guided breast biopsy: vacuum-assisted vs core-needle procedure. Eur J Surg Oncol 37:398–403

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Zagouri F, Sergentanis TN, Gounaris A et al (2008) Pain in different methods of breast biopsy: emphasis on vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Breast 17:71–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wong CS, Chu YC, Wong KW, Yeung TH, Ma KF (2009) Is ultrasonography guided modified coaxial core biopsy of the breast a better technique? Hong Kong Med J 15:246–248

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hui JYK, Chan LK, Chan RLM et al (2008) Prone table stereotactic breast biopsy. Hong Kong Med J 8:447–451

    Google Scholar 

  15. Soo MS, Jarosz JA, Wren AA et al (2016) Imaging-guided core-needle breast biopsy: impact of meditation and music interventions on patient anxiety, pain, and fatigue. J Am Coll Radiol 13:526–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lim S, Immerwahr S, Lee S, Harris TG (2013) Estimating nonresponse bias in a telephone-based health surveillance survey in New York City. Am J Epidemiol 178:1337–1341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee J, Gordon PB, Whitman GJ (2015) “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”: breast imagers’ perspectives regarding screening mammography for others and for themselves—do they practice what they preach? AJR 204:1336–1344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pang E, Crystal P, Kulkarni S et al (2016) An audit of pain experienced during image-guided breast biopsy procedures at an academic center. Can Assoc Radiol J 67:250–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean M. Seely.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jean Seely.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Funding:

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Statistics and biometry:

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was not required because it was considered a quality assurance study under the 2014 Tri-Council Policy Statement.

Informed consent:

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Methodology:

• retrospective

• observational

• performed at one institution

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seely, J.M., Hill, F., Peddle, S. et al. An evaluation of patient experience during percutaneous breast biopsy. Eur Radiol 27, 4804–4811 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4872-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4872-2

Keywords

Navigation