Patient deprivation and perceived scan burden negatively impact the quality of whole-body MRI

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient deprivation and perceived scan burden negatively impact the quality of whole-body MRI

AU - Streamline Investigators

AU - Evans, R E C

AU - Taylor, S A

AU - Kalasthry, J

AU - Sakai, N S

AU - Miles, A

N1 - Copyright © 2019 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

PY - 2020/4

Y1 - 2020/4

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Aged

KW - Artifacts

KW - Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Lung Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging

KW - Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Neoplasm Staging

KW - Patients/psychology

KW - Prospective Studies

KW - Quality Assurance, Health Care

KW - Stress, Psychological/complications

KW - Surveys and Questionnaires

KW - Whole Body Imaging/methods

U2 - 10.1016/j.crad.2019.10.019

DO - 10.1016/j.crad.2019.10.019

M3 - Article

C2 - 31836179

SN - 0009-9260

VL - 75

SP - 308

EP - 315

JO - Clinical Radiology

JF - Clinical Radiology

IS - 4

ER -