Patient deprivation and perceived scan burden negatively impact the quality of whole-body MRI.
File(s)PIIS0009926019306373.pdf (351.94 KB)
Published version
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the association between the image quality of cancer staging whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) and patient demographics, distress, and perceived scan burden. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of patients recruited prospectively to multicentre trials comparing WB-MRI with standard scans for staging lung and colorectal cancer were invited to complete two questionnaires. The baseline questionnaire, administered at recruitment, collated data on demographics, distress and co-morbidity. The follow-up questionnaire, completed after staging investigations, measured perceived WB-MRI scan burden (scored 1 low to 7 high). WB-MRI anatomical coverage, and technical quality was graded by a radiographic technician and grading combined to categorise the scan as "optimal", "sub-optimal" or "degraded". A radiologist categorised 30 scans to test interobserver agreement. Data were analysed using the chi-square, Fisher's exact, t-tests, and multinomial regression. RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen patients were included in the study (53 lung, 61 colorectal; average age 65.3 years, SD=11.8; 66 men [57.9%]). Overall, 45.6% (n=52), scans were classified as "optimal" quality, 39.5% (n=45) "sub-optimal", and 14.9% (n=17) as "degraded". In adjusted analyses, greater deprivation level and higher patient-reported scan burden were both associated with a higher likelihood of having a sub-optimal versus an optimal scan (odds ratio [OR]: 4.465, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.454 to 13.709, p=0.009; OR: 1.987, CI: 1.153 to 3.425, p=0.013, respectively). None of the variables predicted the likelihood of having a degraded scan. CONCLUSIONS: Deprivation and patients' perceived experience of the WB-MRI are related to image quality. Tailored protocols and individualised patient management before and during WB-MRI may improve image quality.
Date Issued
2020-04
Date Acceptance
2019-10-30
Citation
Clinical Radiology, 2020, 75 (4), pp.308-315
ISSN
0009-9260
Publisher
Elsevier
Start Page
308
End Page
315
Journal / Book Title
Clinical Radiology
Volume
75
Issue
4
Copyright Statement
© 2019 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Identifier
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31836179
PII: S0009-9260(19)30637-3
Subjects
Streamline investigators
Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
1103 Clinical Sciences
Publication Status
Published
Coverage Spatial
England
Date Publish Online
2019-12-11