Patient-Reported Testing Burden of Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Among Women With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: An Ancillary Study of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E4112).
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Anxiety
/ psychology
Breast Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast
/ diagnostic imaging
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating
/ diagnostic imaging
Clinical Trials as Topic
Fear
/ psychology
Female
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Middle Aged
Quality of Life
/ psychology
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 11 2021
01 11 2021
Historique:
entrez:
2
11
2021
pubmed:
3
11
2021
medline:
27
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pretreatment planning of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remains controversial. Understanding changes in short-term health-related quality of life associated with breast MRI would allow for a more complete comparative effectiveness assessment. To assess whether there are changes in patient-reported quality of life associated with breast MRI among women diagnosed with DCIS. This cohort study was a substudy of a nonrandomized clinical trial conducted at 75 participating US institutions from March 2015 to April 2016. Women recently diagnosed with unilateral DCIS who were eligible for wide local excision and had a diagnostic mammogram within 3 months of study registration were included. A total of 355 women met the eligibility criteria and underwent the study MRI. Data analysis was performed from June 3, 2020, to July 1, 2021. Participants underwent bilateral breast MRI within 30 days of study registration and before surgery. Information on patient-reported testing burden for breast MRI was collected after MRI and before surgery. The primary outcome of this substudy was the patient-reported testing burden of breast MRI, measured by the Testing Morbidities Index (TMI) summated scale score. The TMI is a 7-item instrument that evaluates the temporary changes in quality of life associated with imaging before, during, and after the test (0 represents the worst possible, 100 the hypothetical ideal test experience). Of the 355 women who met the eligibility criteria, 244 (69%) completed both questionnaires and were included in this analysis. The median age was 59 years (range, 34-85 years). The mean MRI TMI summated scale score was 85.9 (95% CI, 84.6-87.3). Of the 244 women, 142 (58%) experienced at least some fear and anxiety before the examination, and 120 women (49%) experienced fear and anxiety during the examination. A total of 156 women (64%) experienced pain or discomfort during the examination. In multivariable analyses, greater test-related burden was associated with higher levels of cancer worry (regression coefficient, -2.75; SE, 0.94; P = .004). In this cohort study, a clinically meaningful breast MRI testing burden among women with DCIS was revealed that was significantly associated with cancer worry. Understanding the potential quality-of-life reduction associated with MRI, especially when used in combination with mammography, may allow development of targeted interventions to improve the patient experience.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34726748
pii: 2785669
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.29697
pmc: PMC8564581
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2129697Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UG1 CA189828
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UG1 CA233160
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Psychooncology. 2018 Nov;27(11):2546-2558
pubmed: 29744965
Psychooncology. 2013 May;22(5):978-86
pubmed: 22674873
Acad Radiol. 2018 Apr;25(4):439-444
pubmed: 29241597
Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 Nov;18(5):419-23
pubmed: 11151395
J Cancer Surviv. 2013 Sep;7(3):300-22
pubmed: 23475398
Value Health. 2019 Apr;22(4):482-490
pubmed: 30975400
Radiology. 2020 May;295(2):304-306
pubmed: 32186457
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2018 Sep - Oct;12(5):364-371
pubmed: 29752224
Radiographics. 2015 Oct;35(6):1835-46
pubmed: 26466190
Saudi J Anaesth. 2019 Apr;13(Suppl 1):S31-S34
pubmed: 30930717
Value Health. 2013 Sep-Oct;16(6):1046-53
pubmed: 24041354
Lung Cancer. 2016 Oct;100:110-113
pubmed: 27597289
Med Decis Making. 2013 Aug;33(6):819-38
pubmed: 23689044
J Cancer Surviv. 2010 Dec;4(4):361-71
pubmed: 20617394
Can J Nurs Res. 1997 Fall;29(3):21-43
pubmed: 9505581
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 1;5(7):1036-1042
pubmed: 30653209
J Am Coll Radiol. 2019 Oct;16(10):1385-1392
pubmed: 30733160
Qual Life Res. 2009 Sep;18(7):873-80
pubmed: 19543809
J Am Coll Radiol. 2015 Mar;12(3):295-301
pubmed: 25441485
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Jan;174(1):125-32
pubmed: 24247555
N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 28;381(22):2091-2102
pubmed: 31774954
Stat Methods Med Res. 2007 Jun;16(3):219-42
pubmed: 17621469
Fam Syst Health. 2018 Sep;36(3):415
pubmed: 30198743
Med Decis Making. 2009 Sep-Oct;29(5):E30-8
pubmed: 19726782
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007 Mar 13;5:15
pubmed: 17352831