[Referral for mammography often not according to guideline]. / Verwijzing voor mammogram vaak niet volgens richtlijn.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer referred by general practitioners (GPs) for a screening mammography in accordance with the Dutch Breast Cancer Guideline produced by the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Centre (IKNL). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHOD: Women referred by their GP between December 2011 and December 2012 for mammography, with the indication "family history of breast cancer", were invited to take part in this study. A trained radiology laboratory assistant carried out a structured questionnaire to assess their risk on the basis of the categories of the 2008 IKNL guideline "Family history of breast/ovarian cancer". Based on the presence of certain risk factors, the women were allocated to one of the following groups: "referral for mammography", "referral to a clinical geneticist" or "no referral indicated". RESULTS: 242 women were referred by their GPs to the Radiology Department for mammography on the basis of family history; we included 210 women in our study. Their ages ranged from 25 to 77 years (mean age: 48 years). Forty-five patients (21%) were referred for mammography in accordance with the guideline. Twenty-two patients (10%) should have been referred to a clinical geneticist according to the guideline, whereas 143 patients (68%) did not meet the criteria for a screening mammography outside the screening programme. CONCLUSION: In only 21% of patients referred by their GPs for a screening mammography, with "family history" given as the reason, this referral was in accordance with the standard of the Dutch College of General Practitioners (NHG) or the IKNL guideline. Screening outside the breast cancer screening programme was not indicated according to the guideline for the majority of the women. Referral of 10% of the women referred should have been to a clinical geneticist; this figure rises to as many as 20% using the 2012 IKNL guideline.

Comparison of a flexible versus a rigid breast compression paddle: pain experience, projected breast area, radiation dose and technical image quality.

PURPOSE: To compare pain, projected breast area, radiation dose and image quality between flexible (FP) and rigid (RP) breast compression paddles. METHODS: The study was conducted in a Dutch mammographic screening unit (288 women). To compare both paddles one additional image with RP was made, consisting of either a mediolateral-oblique (MLO) or craniocaudal-view (CC). Pain experience was scored using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Projected breast area was estimated using computer software. Radiation dose was estimated using the model by Dance. Image quality was reviewed by three radiologists and three radiographers. RESULTS: There was no difference in pain experience between both paddles (mean difference NRS: 0.08 ± 0.08, p = 0.32). Mean radiation dose was 4.5 % lower with FP (0.09 ± 0.01 p = 0.00). On MLO-images, the projected breast area was 0.79 % larger with FP. Paired evaluation of image quality indicated that FP removed fibroglandular tissue from the image area and reduced contrast in the clinically relevant retroglandular area at chest wall side. CONCLUSIONS: Although FP performed slightly better in the projected breast area, it moved breast tissue from the image area at chest wall side. RP showed better contrast, especially in the retroglandular area. We therefore recommend the use of RP for standard MLO and CC views.