Predictors of patient preference for either whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) or CT/ PET-CT for staging colorectal or lung cancer.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Colon
/ diagnostic imaging
Colorectal Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Humans
Lung
/ diagnostic imaging
Lung Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Staging
Patient Preference
/ statistics & numerical data
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
/ methods
Prospective Studies
Rectum
/ diagnostic imaging
Surveys and Questionnaires
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
/ methods
Whole Body Imaging
/ methods
X-ray computed
cancer
magnetic resonance imaging
patient preference
positron emission tomography
tomography
Journal
Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology
ISSN: 1754-9485
Titre abrégé: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101469340
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
13
02
2020
accepted:
27
03
2020
pubmed:
16
5
2020
medline:
3
7
2021
entrez:
16
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) may be more efficient in staging cancers, but can be harder for patients to tolerate. We examined predictors of patient preference for WB-MRI vs. CT/ PET-CT for staging colorectal or lung cancer. Patients recruited prospectively to two multicentre trials comparing diagnostic accuracy of WB-MRI with standard staging scans were sent two questionnaires: the first, administered at trial registration, captured demographics, educational level and comorbidities; the second, administered after staging completion, measured emotional distress (GHQ-12), positive mood (PANAS), perceived scan burden, patients' beliefs about WB-MRI, and preference for either WB-MRI or CT (colorectal trial), WB-MRI or PET-CT (lung trial). Preference for WB-MRI or CT/ PET-CT was analysed using logistic regression. Baseline and post-staging questionnaires were completed by 97 and 107 patients, respectively. Overall, 56/107 (52%) preferred WB-MRI over standard scans and were more likely to have no additional comorbidities, higher positive mood, greater awareness of potential benefits of WB-MRI and lower levels of perceived WB-MRI scan burden. In adjusted analyses, only awareness of potential WB-MRI benefits remained a significant predictor (OR: 1.516, 95% CIs 1.006-2.284, P = 0.047). Knowledge that WB-MRI does not use radiation predicted preference (adjusted OR: 3.018, 95% CIs 1.099-8.288, P = 0.032), although only 45/107 (42%) patients were aware of this attribute. A small majority of patients undergoing staging of colorectal or lung cancer prefer WB-MRI to CT/ PET-CT. Raising awareness of the potential benefits of WB-MRI, notably lack of ionizing radiation, could influence preference.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32410378
doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.13038
pmc: PMC8425331
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
537-545Subventions
Organisme : University College London
Organisme : UCLH Charitable Foundation
Organisme : Health Research
Organisme : Health Technology Assessment Programme
ID : 10/68/01
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 10/68/01
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Rosetrees Trust
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : ICA-CDRF-2017-03-053
Pays : United Kingdom
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)
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists.
Références
Br J Clin Psychol. 2004 Sep;43(Pt 3):245-65
pubmed: 15333231
Radiology. 2015 May;275(2):545-52
pubmed: 25803490
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988 Jun;54(6):1063-70
pubmed: 3397865
BMC Cancer. 2017 May 2;17(1):299
pubmed: 28464835
Patient. 2016 Dec;9(6):525-536
pubmed: 27167075
Psychol Med. 1997 Jan;27(1):191-7
pubmed: 9122299
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Aug;42(2):247-60
pubmed: 25365936
Radiology. 2004 May;231(2):393-8
pubmed: 15031431
Lancet Respir Med. 2019 Jun;7(6):523-532
pubmed: 31080129
Injury. 2014 Sep;45(9):1345-9
pubmed: 24742979
Endoscopy. 1994 May;26(4):342-6
pubmed: 8076565
Radiat Res. 2000 Aug;154(2):178-86
pubmed: 10931690
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jul;4(7):529-537
pubmed: 31080095
Eur Radiol. 2019 Jul;29(7):3889-3900
pubmed: 30937589
Br J Radiol. 2018 Jun;91(1086):20170731
pubmed: 29528257
Eur Radiol. 2011 Oct;21(10):2046-55
pubmed: 21626363
Br J Cancer. 2001 Apr 20;84(8):1011-5
pubmed: 11308246
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2015 Jun;59(3):300-5
pubmed: 25900704
Br J Radiol. 2012 May;85(1013):523-38
pubmed: 21343316
JAMA. 1993 Aug 11;270(6):745-7
pubmed: 8336378
BMC Res Notes. 2014 Dec 16;7:922
pubmed: 25515327
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 6;7(9):e016391
pubmed: 28882915
Psychooncology. 2015 Apr;24(4):433-41
pubmed: 25201175
Int J Qual Health Care. 2015 Oct;27(5):384-95
pubmed: 26265160
Eur J Radiol. 2014 Jan;83(1):163-6
pubmed: 24211036
Br J Radiol. 2015 Aug;88(1052):20150121
pubmed: 26090825