Patient deprivation and perceived scan burden negatively impact the quality of whole-body MRI. Issue 4 (April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Evans, R.E.C.; Taylor, S.A.; Kalasthry, J.; Sakai, N.S.; Miles, A.; Aboagye, A.; Agoramoorthy, L.; Ahmed, S.; Amadi, A.; Anand, G.; Atkin, G.; Austria, A.; Ball, S.; Bazari, F.; Beable, R.; Beare, S.; Beedham, H.; Beeston, T.; Bharwani, N.; Bhatnagar, G.; Bhowmik, A.; Blakeway, L.; Blunt, D.; Boavida, P.; Boisfer, D.; Breen, D.; Bridgewater, J.; Burke, S.; Butawan, R.; Campbell, Y.; Chang, E.; Chao, D.; Chukundah, S.; Clarke, C.S.; Collins, B.; Collins, C.; Conteh, V.; Couture, J.; Crosbie, J.; Curtis, H.; Daniel, A.; Davis, L.; Desai, K.; Duggan, M.; Ellis, S.; Elton, C.; Engledow, A.; Everitt, C.; Ferdous, S.; Frow, A.; Furneaux, M.; Gibbons, N.; Glynne-Jones, R.; Gogbashian, A.; Goh, V.; Gourtsoyianni, S.; Green, A.; Green, Laura; Green, Liz; Groves, A.; Guthrie, A.; Hadley, E.; Halligan, S.; Hameeduddin, A.; Hanid, G.; Hans, S.; Hans, B.; Higginson, A.; Honeyfield, L.; Hughes, H.; Hughes, J.; Hurl, L.; Isaac, E.; Jackson, M.; Jalloh, A.; Janes, S.; Jannapureddy, R.; Jayme, A.; Johnson, A.; Johnson, E.; Julka, P.; Kalasthry, J.; Karapanagiotou, E.; Karp, S.; Kay, C.; Kellaway, J.; Khan, S.; Koh, D.; Light, T.; Limbu, P.; Lock, S.; Locke, I.; Loke, T.; Lowe, A.; Lucas, N.; Maheswaran, S.; Mallett, S.; Marwood, E.; McGowan, J.; Mckirdy, F.; Mills-Baldock, T.; Moon, T.; Morgan, V.; Morris, S.; Morton, A.; Nasseri, S.; Navani, N.; Nichols, P.; Norman, C.; Ntala, E.; Nunes, A.; Obichere, A.; O'Donohue, J.; Olaleye, I.; Oliver, A.; Onajobi, A.; O'Shaughnessy, T.; Padhani, A.; Pardoe, H.; Partridge, W.; Patel, U.; Perry, K.; Piga, W.; Prezzi, D.; Prior, K.; Punwani, S.; Pyers, J.; Rafiee, H.; Rahman, F.; Rajanpandian, I.; Ramesh, S.; Raouf, S.; Reczko, K.; Reinhardt, A.; Robinson, D.; Rockall, A.; Russell, P.; Sargus, K.; Scurr, E.; Shahabuddin, K.; Sharp, A.; Shepherd, B.; Shiu, K.; Sidhu, H.; Simcock, I.; Simeon, C.; Smith, A.; Smith, D.; Snell, D.; Spence, J.; Srirajaskanthan, R.; Stachini, V.; Stegner, S.; Stirling, J.; Strickland, N.; Tarver, K.; Teague, J.; Thaha, M.; Train, M.; Tulmuntaha, S.; Tunariu, N.; van Ree, K.; Verjee, A.; Wanstall, C.; Weir, S.; Wijeyekoon, S.; Wilson, J.; Wilson, S.; Win, T.; Woodrow, L.; Yu, D.;
• Is Part Of: Clinical radiology. Volume 75:Issue 4(2020)
• Page Start: 308
• Page End: 315
• Publication Date: 2020-04
• Subjects: Medical radiology -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiology -- Periodicals; Societies, Medical -- Periodicals; Medical radiology; Radiotherapy; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 616.0757
• DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2019.10.019
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0009-9260

Abstract

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. Highlights: Higher patient social deprivation is associated with poorer WB-MRI scan quality. Higher patient-reported WB-MRI scan burden is associated with poorer scan quality. Tailored protocols and individualised patient management before and during WB-MRI may improve image quality.