Patient satisfaction with ultrasound, whole-body CT and whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI for pre-operative ovarian cancer staging: a multicenter prospective cross-sectional survey.

Cross-Sectional Studies Ovarian Cancer Preoperative Care

Journal

International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society
ISSN: 1525-1438
Titre abrégé: Int J Gynecol Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9111626

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 Mar 2024
Historique:
medline: 27 3 2024
pubmed: 27 3 2024
entrez: 26 3 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

In addition to the diagnostic accuracy of imaging methods, patient-reported satisfaction with imaging methods is important. To report a secondary outcome of the prospective international multicenter Imaging Study in Advanced ovArian Cancer (ISAAC Study), detailing patients' experience with abdomino-pelvic ultrasound, whole-body contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT), and whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (WB-DWI/MRI) for pre-operative ovarian cancer work-up. In total, 144 patients with suspected ovarian cancer at four institutions in two countries (Italy, Czech Republic) underwent ultrasound, CT, and WB-DWI/MRI for pre-operative work-up between January 2020 and November 2022. After having undergone all three examinations, the patients filled in a questionnaire evaluating their overall experience and experience in five domains: preparation before the examination, duration of examination, noise during the procedure, radiation load of CT, and surrounding space. Pain perception, examination-related patient-perceived unexpected, unpleasant, or dangerous events ('adverse events'), and preferred method were also noted. Ultrasound was the preferred method by 49% (70/144) of responders, followed by CT (38%, 55/144), and WB-DWI/MRI (13%, 19/144) (p<0.001). The poorest experience in all domains was reported for WB-DWI/MRI, which was also associated with the largest number of patients who reported adverse events (eg, dyspnea). Patients reported higher levels of pain during the ultrasound examination than during CT and WB-DWI/MRI (p<0.001): 78% (112/144) reported no pain or mild pain, 19% (27/144) moderate pain, and 3% (5/144) reported severe pain (pain score >7 of 10) during the ultrasound examination. We did not identify any factors related to patients' preferred method. Ultrasound was the imaging method preferred by most patients despite being associated with more pain during the examination in comparison with CT and WB-DWI/MRI. NCT03808792.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
In addition to the diagnostic accuracy of imaging methods, patient-reported satisfaction with imaging methods is important.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To report a secondary outcome of the prospective international multicenter Imaging Study in Advanced ovArian Cancer (ISAAC Study), detailing patients' experience with abdomino-pelvic ultrasound, whole-body contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT), and whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (WB-DWI/MRI) for pre-operative ovarian cancer work-up.
METHODS METHODS
In total, 144 patients with suspected ovarian cancer at four institutions in two countries (Italy, Czech Republic) underwent ultrasound, CT, and WB-DWI/MRI for pre-operative work-up between January 2020 and November 2022. After having undergone all three examinations, the patients filled in a questionnaire evaluating their overall experience and experience in five domains: preparation before the examination, duration of examination, noise during the procedure, radiation load of CT, and surrounding space. Pain perception, examination-related patient-perceived unexpected, unpleasant, or dangerous events ('adverse events'), and preferred method were also noted.
RESULTS RESULTS
Ultrasound was the preferred method by 49% (70/144) of responders, followed by CT (38%, 55/144), and WB-DWI/MRI (13%, 19/144) (p<0.001). The poorest experience in all domains was reported for WB-DWI/MRI, which was also associated with the largest number of patients who reported adverse events (eg, dyspnea). Patients reported higher levels of pain during the ultrasound examination than during CT and WB-DWI/MRI (p<0.001): 78% (112/144) reported no pain or mild pain, 19% (27/144) moderate pain, and 3% (5/144) reported severe pain (pain score >7 of 10) during the ultrasound examination. We did not identify any factors related to patients' preferred method.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Ultrasound was the imaging method preferred by most patients despite being associated with more pain during the examination in comparison with CT and WB-DWI/MRI.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER BACKGROUND
NCT03808792.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38531539
pii: ijgc-2023-005264
doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-005264
pii:
doi:

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03808792']

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© IGCS and ESGO 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: None declared.

Auteurs

Patrícia Pinto (P)

Department of Gynecology, Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Lisbon Francisco Gentil, Lisboa, Portugal.
First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.

Lil Valentin (L)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Skane University Hospital, Malmo, Sweden.
Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Martina Borčinová (M)

Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.

Markéta Wiesnerová (M)

Masaryk University Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Brno, Czech Republic.

Fruhauf Filip (F)

Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.

Andrea Burgetova (A)

Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.

Martin Masek (M)

Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.

Lukas Lambert (L)

Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.

Valentina Chiappa (V)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Foundation IRCCS National Cancer Institute, Milan, Italy.

Dorella Franchi (D)

Preventive Gynecology Unit, Division of Gynaecology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.

Antonia Carla Testa (AC)

Dipartimento Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Lazio, Italy.

Francesca Moro (F)

Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Lazio, Italy.

Giacomo Avesani (G)

Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Lazio, Italy.

Camilla Panico (C)

Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Lazio, Italy.

Sarah Alessi (S)

Division of Radiology, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, Milan, Italy.

Paola Pricolo (P)

Division of Radiology, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, Milan, Italy.

Raffaella Vigorito (R)

Department of Radiology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.

Giuseppina Calareso (G)

Department of Radiology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.

Roman Kocian (R)

Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.

Jiri Slama (J)

Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.

Anna Fagotti (A)

Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Lazio, Italy.

Ailyn Mariela Vidal Urbinati (AMV)

Preventive Gynecology Unit, Division of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.

Mauro Signorelli (M)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Foundation IRCCS National Cancer Institute, Milan, Italy.

Francesca Bertolina (F)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Foundation IRCCS National Cancer Institute, Milan, Italy.

David Cibula (D)

Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.

Daniela Fischerova (D)

Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic daniela.fischerova@vfn.cz.

Classifications MeSH