Patient preferences for whole-body MRI or conventional staging pathways in lung and colorectal cancer: a discrete choice experiment.
Adult
Aged
Colorectal Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Humans
Lung Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Staging
/ methods
Patient Preference
/ statistics & numerical data
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
/ methods
Positron-Emission Tomography
/ methods
Prospective Studies
Regression Analysis
Surveys and Questionnaires
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
/ methods
Whole Body Imaging
/ methods
Cancer
Magnetic resonance imaging
Patient preference
Positron emission tomography
Tomography, X-ray computed
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2019
Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
31
10
2018
accepted:
11
03
2019
revised:
22
02
2019
pubmed:
3
4
2019
medline:
7
9
2019
entrez:
3
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine the importance placed by patients on attributes associated with whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) and standard cancer staging pathways and ascertain drivers of preference. Patients recruited to two multi-centre diagnostic accuracy trials comparing WB-MRI with standard staging pathways in lung and colorectal cancer were invited to complete a discrete choice experiment (DCE), choosing between a series of alternate pathways in which 6 attributes (accuracy, time to diagnosis, scan duration, whole-body enclosure, radiation exposure, total scan number) were varied systematically. Data were analysed using a conditional logit regression model and marginal rates of substitution computed. The relative importance of each attribute and probabilities of choosing WB-MRI-based pathways were estimated. A total of 138 patients (mean age 65, 61% male, lung n = 72, colorectal n = 66) participated (May 2015 to September 2016). Lung cancer patients valued time to diagnosis most highly, followed by accuracy, radiation exposure, number of scans, and time in the scanner. Colorectal cancer patients valued accuracy most highly, followed by time to diagnosis, radiation exposure, and number of scans. Patients were willing to wait 0.29 (lung) and 0.45 (colorectal) weeks for a 1% increase in pathway accuracy. Patients preferred WB-MRI-based pathways (probability 0.64 [lung], 0.66 [colorectal]) if they were equivalent in accuracy, total scan number, and time to diagnosis compared with a standard staging pathway. Staging pathways based on first-line WB-MRI are preferred by the majority of patients if they at least match standard pathways for diagnostic accuracy, time to diagnosis, and total scan number. • WB-MRI staging pathways are preferred to standard pathways by the majority of patients provided they at least match standard staging pathways for accuracy, total scan number, and time to diagnosis. • For patients with lung cancer, time to diagnosis was the attribute valued most highly, followed by accuracy, radiation dose, number of additional scans, and time in a scanner. Preference for patients with colorectal cancer was similar. • Most (63%) patients were willing to trade attributes, such as faster diagnosis, for improvements in pathway accuracy and reduced radiation exposure.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30937589
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06153-4
pii: 10.1007/s00330-019-06153-4
pmc: PMC6554244
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3889-3900Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 10/68/01
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : EME/13/122/01
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : ICA-CDRF-2017-03-053
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Health Technology Assessment Programme
ID : 10/68/01
Investigateurs
A Aboagye
(A)
L Agoramoorthy
(L)
S Ahmed
(S)
A Amadi
(A)
G Anand
(G)
G Atkin
(G)
A Austria
(A)
S Ball
(S)
F Bazari
(F)
R Beable
(R)
H Beedham
(H)
T Beeston
(T)
N Bharwani
(N)
G Bhatnagar
(G)
A Bhowmik
(A)
L Blakeway
(L)
D Blunt
(D)
P Boavida
(P)
D Boisfer
(D)
D Breen
(D)
S Burke
(S)
R Butawan
(R)
Y Campbell
(Y)
E Chang
(E)
D Chao
(D)
S Chukundah
(S)
B Collins
(B)
C Collins
(C)
V Conteh
(V)
J Couture
(J)
J Crosbie
(J)
H Curtis
(H)
A Daniel
(A)
L Davis
(L)
K Desai
(K)
M Duggan
(M)
S Ellis
(S)
C Elton
(C)
A Engledow
(A)
C Everitt
(C)
S Ferdous
(S)
A Frow
(A)
M Furneaux
(M)
N Gibbons
(N)
R Glynne-Jones
(R)
A Gogbashian
(A)
S Gourtsoyianni
(S)
A Green
(A)
Laura Green
(L)
Liz Green
(L)
A Groves
(A)
A Guthrie
(A)
E Hadley
(E)
A Hameeduddin
(A)
G Hanid
(G)
S Hans
(S)
B Hans
(B)
A Higginson
(A)
L Honeyfield
(L)
H Hughes
(H)
J Hughes
(J)
L Hurl
(L)
E Isaac
(E)
M Jackson
(M)
A Jalloh
(A)
R Jannapureddy
(R)
A Jayme
(A)
A Johnson
(A)
E Johnson
(E)
P Julka
(P)
J Kalasthry
(J)
E Karapanagiotou
(E)
S Karp
(S)
C Kay
(C)
J Kellaway
(J)
S Khan
(S)
D Koh
(D)
T Light
(T)
P Limbu
(P)
S Lock
(S)
I Locke
(I)
T Loke
(T)
A Lowe
(A)
N Lucas
(N)
S Maheswaran
(S)
S Mallett
(S)
E Marwood
(E)
J McGowan
(J)
F Mckirdy
(F)
T Mills-Baldock
(T)
T Moon
(T)
V Morgan
(V)
S Nasseri
(S)
P Nichols
(P)
C Norman
(C)
E Ntala
(E)
A Nunes
(A)
A Obichere
(A)
J O'Donohue
(J)
I Olaleye
(I)
A Onajobi
(A)
T O'Shaughnessy
(T)
A Padhani
(A)
H Pardoe
(H)
W Partridge
(W)
U Patel
(U)
K Perry
(K)
W Piga
(W)
D Prezzi
(D)
K Prior
(K)
S Punwani
(S)
J Pyers
(J)
H Rafiee
(H)
F Rahman
(F)
I Rajanpandian
(I)
S Ramesh
(S)
S Raouf
(S)
K Reczko
(K)
A Reinhardt
(A)
D Robinson
(D)
P Russell
(P)
K Sargus
(K)
E Scurr
(E)
K Shahabuddin
(K)
A Sharp
(A)
B Shepherd
(B)
K Shiu
(K)
H Sidhu
(H)
I Simcock
(I)
C Simeon
(C)
A Smith
(A)
D Smith
(D)
D Snell
(D)
J Spence
(J)
R Srirajaskanthan
(R)
V Stachini
(V)
S Stegner
(S)
J Stirling
(J)
N Strickland
(N)
K Tarver
(K)
J Teague
(J)
M Thaha
(M)
M Train
(M)
S Tulmuntaha
(S)
N Tunariu
(N)
K van Ree
(K)
A Verjee
(A)
C Wanstall
(C)
S Weir
(S)
S Wijeyekoon
(S)
J Wilson
(J)
S Wilson
(S)
T Win
(T)
L Woodrow
(L)
D Yu
(D)
Références
Br J Clin Psychol. 2004 Sep;43(Pt 3):245-65
pubmed: 15333231
Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):403-13
pubmed: 21669364
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988 Jun;54(6):1063-70
pubmed: 3397865
Br J Radiol. 2008 May;81(965):362-78
pubmed: 18440940
Radiology. 2015 Jun;275(3):849-61
pubmed: 25584709
Radiol Oncol. 2013 Jul 30;47(3):206-18
pubmed: 24133384
Radiology. 2008 Aug;248(2):643-54
pubmed: 18539889
Br J Surg. 2018 Apr;105(5):587-596
pubmed: 29512137
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 6;7(9):e016391
pubmed: 28882915
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007 Aug;26(2):401-4
pubmed: 17610281
Br J Radiol. 2018 Jun;91(1086):20170731
pubmed: 29528257
Value Health. 2016 Jun;19(4):300-15
pubmed: 27325321
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007 Nov;26(5):1322-7
pubmed: 17969166
BMC Cancer. 2017 May 2;17(1):299
pubmed: 28464835
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016;17(6):2775-80
pubmed: 27356689
Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661-77
pubmed: 18620460
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013 Oct;11(5):499-507
pubmed: 23979875
Int J Qual Health Care. 2015 Oct;27(5):384-95
pubmed: 26265160
Eur J Radiol. 2014 Jan;83(1):163-6
pubmed: 24211036