Literature DB >> 29140116

A Randomized Study of Patient Risk Perception for Incidental Renal Findings on Diagnostic Imaging Tests.

Stella K Kang1,2, Laura D Scherer3, Alec J Megibow1, Leslie J Higuita4, Nathanael Kim5, R Scott Braithwaite2,6, Angela Fagerlin7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess differences in patient distress, risk perception, and treatment preferences for incidental renal findings with descriptive versus combined descriptive and numeric graphical risk information.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized survey study was conducted for adult patients about to undergo outpatient imaging studies at a large urban academic institution. Two survey arms contained either descriptive or a combination of descriptive and numeric graphical risk information about three hypothetical incidental renal findings at CT: 2-cm (low risk) and 5-cm (high risk) renal tumors and a 2-cm (low risk) renal artery aneurysm. The main outcomes were patient distress, perceived risk (qualitative and quantitative), treatment preference, and valuation of lesion discovery.
RESULTS: Of 374 patients, 299 participated (79.9% response rate). With inclusion of numeric and graphical, rather than only descriptive, risk information about disease progression for a 2-cm renal tumor, patients reported less worry (3.56 vs 4.12 on a 5-point scale; p < 0.001) and favored surgical consultation less often (29.3% vs 46.9%; p = 0.003). The proportion choosing surgical consultation for the 2-cm renal tumor decreased to a similar level as for the renal artery aneurysm with numeric risk information (29.3% [95% CI, 21.7-36.8%] and 27.9% [95% CI, 20.5-35.3%], respectively). Patients overestimated the absolute risk of adverse events regardless of risk information type, but significantly more so when given descriptive information only, and valued the discovery of lesions regardless of risk information type (range, 4.41-4.81 on a 5-point scale).
CONCLUSION: Numeric graphical risk communication for patients about incidental renal lesions may facilitate accurate risk comprehension and support patients in informed decision making.

Entities:  

Keywords:  incidental lesions; renal mass; risk communication; shared decision making

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29140116      PMCID: PMC5876026          DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.18485

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  34 in total

Review 1.  Incidental lesions found on CT colonography: their nature and frequency.

Authors:  T Xiong; M Richardson; R Woodroffe; S Halligan; D Morton; R J Lilford
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Assessing the impact of incidental findings in a lung cancer screening study by using low-dose computed tomography.

Authors:  Michael J Kucharczyk; Ravi J Menezes; Alexander McGregor; Narinder S Paul; Heidi C Roberts
Journal:  Can Assoc Radiol J       Date:  2010-04-10       Impact factor: 2.248

3.  Patients' Knowledge, Beliefs, and Distress Associated with Detection and Evaluation of Incidental Pulmonary Nodules for Cancer: Results from a Multicenter Survey.

Authors:  Marc R Freiman; Jack A Clark; Christopher G Slatore; Michael K Gould; Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz; Renda Soylemez Wiener
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 15.609

4.  Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect.

Authors:  John M Hollingsworth; David C Miller; Stephanie Daignault; Brent K Hollenbeck
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-09-20       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Anatomic features of enhancing renal masses predict malignant and high-grade pathology: a preoperative nomogram using the RENAL Nephrometry score.

Authors:  Alexander Kutikov; Marc C Smaldone; Brian L Egleston; Brandon J Manley; Daniel J Canter; Jay Simhan; Stephen A Boorjian; Rosalia Viterbo; David Y T Chen; Richard E Greenberg; Robert G Uzzo
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-04-01       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  Economic and ethical impact of extrarenal findings on potential living kidney donor assessment with computed tomography angiography.

Authors:  Zeev V Maizlin; Stuart A Barnard; William A Gourlay; Jacqueline A Brown
Journal:  Transpl Int       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.782

Review 7.  The economic burden of incidentally detected findings.

Authors:  Alexander Ding; Jonathan D Eisenberg; Pari V Pandharipande
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.303

8.  Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel; Dylan M Smith; Holly A Derry; Jennifer B McClure; Azadeh Stark; Rosemarie K Pitsch; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2008-11

9.  Development and validation of a scale to measure disease-related symptoms of kidney cancer.

Authors:  David Cella; Susan Yount; Penny S Brucker; Hongyan Du; Ronald Bukowski; Nicholas Vogelzang; William P Bro
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.725

10.  The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices.

Authors:  Sarah T Hawley; Brian Zikmund-Fisher; Peter Ubel; Aleksandra Jancovic; Todd Lucas; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2008-08-27
View more
  5 in total

1.  Development and Pilot Evaluation of a Decision Aid for Small Kidney Masses.

Authors:  Shailin A Thomas; Mutita Siriruchatanon; Stephanie L Albert; Marc Bjurlin; Jason C Hoffmann; Aisha Langford; R Scott Braithwaite; Danil V Makarov; Angela Fagerlin; Stella K Kang
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 6.240

2.  Role of Patient Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences in Thyroid Cancer Surveillance.

Authors:  Joshua M Evron; David Reyes-Gastelum; Mousumi Banerjee; Laura D Scherer; Lauren P Wallner; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Sarah T Hawley; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Megan R Haymart
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 50.717

3.  Older adults' strategies for obtaining medication refills in hypothetical scenarios in the face of COVID-19 risk.

Authors:  Sarah E Vordenberg; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher
Journal:  J Am Pharm Assoc (2003)       Date:  2020-06-25

4.  Translation and validation of the Chinese version of medical maximizer-minimizer scale: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Fenghua Lai; Ling Pei; Shufan Yue; Xiaopei Cao; Haipeng Xiao; Yanbing Li; Jin Li
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Communicating treatment risks and benefits to cancer patients: a systematic review of communication methods.

Authors:  L F van de Water; J J van Kleef; W P M Dijksterhuis; I Henselmans; H G van den Boorn; N M Vaarzon Morel; K F Schut; J G Daams; E M A Smets; H W M van Laarhoven
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 4.147

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.