Patient deprivation and perceived scan burden negatively impact on the quality of WB-MRI

Aim: To evaluate the association between cancer staging whole body WB-MRI (WB-MRI) image quality and patient demographics, distress and perceived scan burden Materials and Methods: A sample of patients prospectively recruited 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 inter-observer agreement. Data were analysed using Chi Square, Fisher Exact, t-tests and multinomial regression. Results: 114 patients were included in the study (53 lung, 61 colorectal; average age 65.3, 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 vs. an optimal scan (OR: 4.465, 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 as well as patients’ perceived experience of the WB-MRI, is related to image quality. Tailored protocols and individualised patient management before and during WB-MRI may improve scan quality

Predictors of patient preference for either whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) or CT/ PET-CT for staging colorectal or lung cancer

Introduction: Whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) may be more efficient in staging cancers, but can be harder for patients to tolerate. We examined predictors of patient preference for WB-MRI vs. CT/ PET-CT for staging colorectal or lung cancer. Methods: Patients recruited prospectively to two multicenter trials comparing diagnostic accuracy of WB-MRI with standard staging scans were sent two questionnaires: the first, administered at trial registration, captured demographics, educational level, and comorbidities; the second, administered after staging completion, measured emotional distress (GHQ-12), positive mood (PANAS), perceived scan burden, patients’ beliefs about WB-MRI, and preference for either WB-MRI or CT (colorectal trial), WB-MRI or PET-CT (lung trial). Preference for WB-MRI or CT / PET-CT were analysed using logistic regression. Results: Baseline and post-staging questionnaires were completed by 97 and 107 patients respectively. Overall, 56/107 (52%) preferred WB-MRI over standard scans, and were more likely to have no additional comorbidities, higher positive mood, greater awareness of potential benefits of WB-MRI, and lower levels of perceived WB-MRI scan burden. In adjusted analyses, only awareness of potential WB-MRI benefits remained a significant predictor (OR: 1.516, 95% CIs 1.006 to 2.284, p=0.047). Knowledge that WB-MRI does not use radiation predicted preference (adjusted OR: 3.018, 95% CIs 1.099 to 8.288, p=0.032), yet only 45/107 (42%) patients were aware of this attribute. Conclusions: A small majority of patients undergoing staging of colorectal or lung cancer prefer WB-MRI to CT/ PET-CT. Raising awareness of the potential benefits of WB-MRI, notably lack of ionising radiation, could influence preference

Predictors of patient preference for either whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) or CT/ PET-CT for staging colorectal or lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) may be more efficient in staging cancers, but can be harder for patients to tolerate. We examined predictors of patient preference for WB-MRI vs. CT/ PET-CT for staging colorectal or lung cancer. METHODS: Patients recruited prospectively to two multicentre trials comparing diagnostic accuracy of WB-MRI with standard staging scans were sent two questionnaires: the first, administered at trial registration, captured demographics, educational level and comorbidities; the second, administered after staging completion, measured emotional distress (GHQ-12), positive mood (PANAS), perceived scan burden, patients' beliefs about WB-MRI, and preference for either WB-MRI or CT (colorectal trial), WB-MRI or PET-CT (lung trial). Preference for WB-MRI or CT/ PET-CT was analysed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Baseline and post-staging questionnaires were completed by 97 and 107 patients, respectively. Overall, 56/107 (52%) preferred WB-MRI over standard scans and were more likely to have no additional comorbidities, higher positive mood, greater awareness of potential benefits of WB-MRI and lower levels of perceived WB-MRI scan burden. In adjusted analyses, only awareness of potential WB-MRI benefits remained a significant predictor (OR: 1.516, 95% CIs 1.006-2.284, P = 0.047). Knowledge that WB-MRI does not use radiation predicted preference (adjusted OR: 3.018, 95% CIs 1.099-8.288, P = 0.032), although only 45/107 (42%) patients were aware of this attribute. CONCLUSIONS: A small majority of patients undergoing staging of colorectal or lung cancer prefer WB-MRI to CT/ PET-CT. Raising awareness of the potential benefits of WB-MRI, notably lack of ionizing radiation, could influence preference

Patient experience and perceived acceptability of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for staging colorectal and lung cancer compared with current staging scans: a qualitative study

Objective To describe the experience and acceptability of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) staging compared with standard scans among patients with highly suspected or known colorectal or lung cancer. Design Qualitative study using one-to-one interviews with thematic analysis. Setting Patients recruited from 10 hospitals in London, East and South East England between March 2013 and July 2014. Participants 51 patients (31 male, age range 40–89 years), with varying levels of social deprivation, were recruited consecutively from two parallel clinical trials comparing the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of WB-MRI with standard scans for staging colorectal and lung cancer (‘Streamline-C’ and ‘Streamline-L’). WB-MRI was offered as an additional scan as part of the trials. Results In general WB-MRI presented a greater challenge than standard scans, although all but four patients completed the WB-MRI. Key challenges were enclosed space, noise and scan duration; reduced patient tolerance was associated with claustrophobia, pulmonary symptoms and existing comorbidities. Coping strategies facilitated scan tolerance and were grouped into (1) those intended to help with physical and emotional challenges, and (2) those focused on motivation to complete the scan, for example focusing on health benefit. Our study suggests that good staff communication could reduce anxiety and boost coping strategies. Conclusions Although WB-MRI was perceived as more challenging than standard scans, it was sufficiently acceptable and tolerated by most patients to potentially replace them if appropriate. Trial registration number ISRCTN43958015 and ISRCTN50436483

Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body MRI versus standard imaging pathways for metastatic disease in newly diagnosed non-small-cell lung cancer: the prospective Streamline L trial

BACKGROUND: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) could be an alternative to multi-modality staging of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its diagnostic accuracy, effect on staging times, number of tests needed, cost, and effect on treatment decisions are unknown. We aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of WB-MRI-based staging pathways with standard pathways in NSCLC. METHODS: The Streamline L trial was a prospective, multicentre trial done in 16 hospitals in England. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with newly diagnosed NSCLC that was potentially radically treatable on diagnostic chest CT (defined as stage IIIb or less). Exclusion criteria were severe systemic disease, pregnancy, contraindications to MRI, or histologies other than NSCLC. Patients underwent WB-MRI, the result of which was withheld until standard staging investigations were complete and the first treatment decision made. The multidisciplinary team recorded its treatment decision based on standard investigations, then on the WB-MRI staging pathway (WB-MRI plus additional tests generated), and finally on all tests. The primary outcome was difference in per-patient sensitivity for metastases between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways against a consensus reference standard at 12 months, in the per-protocol population. Secondary outcomes were difference in per-patient specificity for metastatic disease detection between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways, differences in treatment decisions, staging efficiency (time taken, test number, and costs) and per-organ sensitivity and specificity for metastases and per-patient agreement for local T and N stage. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN50436483, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26, 2013, and Sept 5, 2016, 976 patients were screened for eligibility. 353 patients were recruited, 187 of whom completed the trial; 52 (28%) had metastasis at baseline. Pathway sensitivity was 50% (95% CI 37-63) for WB-MRI and 54% (41-67) for standard pathways, a difference of 4% (-7 to 15, p=0·73). No adverse events related to imaging were reported. Specificity did not differ between WB-MRI (93% [88-96]) and standard pathways (95% [91-98], p=0·45). Agreement with the multidisciplinary team's final treatment decision was 98% for WB-MRI and 99% for the standard pathway. Time to complete staging was shorter for WB-MRI (13 days [12-14]) than for the standard pathway (19 days [17-21]); a 6-day (4-8) difference. The number of tests required was similar WB-MRI (one [1-1]) and standard pathways (one [1-2]). Mean per-patient costs were £317 (273-361) for WBI-MRI and £620 (574-666) for standard pathways. INTERPRETATION: WB-MRI staging pathways have similar accuracy to standard pathways, and reduce the staging time and costs. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research

Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body MRI versus standard imaging pathways for metastatic disease in newly diagnosed colorectal cancer: the prospective Streamline C trial

Background: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging(WB-MRI) may be an alternative to multi-modality staging of colon cancer but its relative diagnostic accuracy, effect on staging times, test number, cost, and impact on treatment decisions are unknown. We undertook a prospective multicentre cohort study to address this (ISRCTN43958015). Methods: We recruited from 16 English hospitals. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with newly diagnosed colon cancer. Patients underwent WB-MRI, the result of which was withheld until standard staging investigations were complete. The multi-disciplinary team (MDT) recorded its first treatment decision based on standard investigations, then the alternate WB-MRI staging pathway (WB-MRI plus any additional tests generated), and finally on all tests combined. The primary outcome was difference in per-patient sensitivity for metastases between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways against a consensus reference standard at 12-months. Differences in treatment decisions, staging time, test number, and costs were secondary outcomes. Findings: 299 patients completed the trial; 68 (23%) had metastasis at baseline. The WB-MRI pathway was 68% (95% CI 56 to 78) sensitive, not significantly different from standard pathways (63% [51 to 74]), a 4% (-5 to 13) difference, p=0.508. Specificity was not significantly different (95% [92 to 97], vs. 94% [90 to 96]). Agreement with the MDT final treatment decision was 96% and 95% for WB-MRI and standard pathways respectively. Time to complete staging was significantly shorter for WB-MRI (8 days [6 to 9] vs. 13 days [11 to 15]), a 5-day (3 to 7) difference. WB-MRI pathways required significantly fewer tests (median 1 [1 to 1] vs. 2 [2 to 2]), a difference of 1 (1 to 1). Mean per-patient staging costs were £216 and £285 for WB-MRI and standard pathways respectively. Interpretation: WB-MRI staging pathways are as accurate as standard pathways, but reduce tests, staging time, and cost

Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body MRI versus standard imaging pathways for metastatic disease in newly diagnosed non-small-cell lung cancer: The prospective Streamline L trial.

BACKGROUND: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) could be an alternative to multi-modality staging of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its diagnostic accuracy, effect on staging times, number of tests needed, cost, and effect on treatment decisions are unknown. We aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of WB-MRI-based staging pathways with standard pathways in NSCLC. METHODS: The Streamline L trial was a prospective, multicentre trial done in 16 hospitals in England. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with newly diagnosed NSCLC that was potentially radically treatable on diagnostic chest CT (defined as stage IIIb or less). Exclusion criteria were severe systemic disease, pregnancy, contraindications to MRI, or histologies other than NSCLC. Patients underwent WB-MRI, the result of which was withheld until standard staging investigations were complete and the first treatment decision made. The multidisciplinary team recorded its treatment decision based on standard investigations, then on the WB-MRI staging pathway (WB-MRI plus additional tests generated), and finally on all tests. The primary outcome was difference in per-patient sensitivity for metastases between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways against a consensus reference standard at 12 months, in the per-protocol population. Secondary outcomes were difference in per-patient specificity for metastatic disease detection between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways, differences in treatment decisions, staging efficiency (time taken, test number, and costs) and per-organ sensitivity and specificity for metastases and per-patient agreement for local T and N stage. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN50436483, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26, 2013, and Sept 5, 2016, 976 patients were screened for eligibility. 353 patients were recruited, 187 of whom completed the trial; 52 (28%) had metastasis at baseline. Pathway sensitivity was 50% (95% CI 37-63) for WB-MRI and 54% (41-67) for standard pathways, a difference of 4% (-7 to 15, p=0·73). No adverse events related to imaging were reported. Specificity did not differ between WB-MRI (93% [88-96]) and standard pathways (95% [91-98], p=0·45). Agreement with the multidisciplinary team's final treatment decision was 98% for WB-MRI and 99% for the standard pathway. Time to complete staging was shorter for WB-MRI (13 days [12-14]) than for the standard pathway (19 days [17-21]); a 6-day (4-8) difference. The number of tests required was similar WB-MRI (one [1-1]) and standard pathways (one [1-2]). Mean per-patient costs were £317 (273-361) for WBI-MRI and £620 (574-666) for standard pathways. INTERPRETATION: WB-MRI staging pathways have similar accuracy to standard pathways, and reduce the staging time and costs

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

The original MEMTAB Abstracts in Diagnostic and Prognostic Research contains the incorrect year on individual abstracts in the PDF [1].“Diagnostic and Prognostic Research 2016” under the correspondence line should therefore have been written as “Diagnostic and Prognostic Research 2017” as the journal did not launch until 2017