OBJECTIVE: The perceived burden of diagnostic tests by patients during the assessment of esophageal cancer warrants attention with the current increase in repeated imaging for purposes of disease monitoring during and after treatment. The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the experienced burden associated with repeated MRI and positron emission tomography with integrated CT (PET/CT) examinations during neoadjuvant treatment for esophageal cancer from the perspective of the patient. METHODS: In 27 patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for esophageal cancer MRI and PET/CT examinations were performed before nCRT, during nCRT and before surgery. The experienced burden during repeated MRI and PET/CT examinations was evaluated with a self-report questionnaire addressing discomfort, pain, anxiety and embarrassment, each measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = none; up to 5 = very much). In addition, a comparative assessment was used to rank MRI, PET/CT and baseline endoscopy. RESULTS: All scans were performed without the occurrence of an adverse event. Few patients experienced discomfort (mean score ±SD: 1.9 ± 1.0 for MRI vs 2.0 ± 1.0 for PET/CT, p = 0.586), pain (1.1 ± 0.4 for MRI vs 1.3 ± 0.7 for PET/CT, p = 0.059), anxiety (1.0 ± 0.2 for MRI vs 1.0 ± 0.2 for PET/CT, p = 1.000) and embarrassment (1.0 ± 0 for MRI vs 1.0 ± 0.2 for PET/CT, p = 0.317) during both MRI and PET/CT. Patients preferred MRI over PET/CT (67% vs 22%, respectively, p = 0.023), and MRI over endoscopy (59% vs 19%, respectively, p = 0.027). In the comparison between PET/CT and endoscopy, 59% of patients preferred PET/CT and 26% preferred endoscopy (p = 0.093). CONCLUSION: Repeated imaging with both MRI and PET/CT is generally well-tolerated for the assessment of response to treatment in esophageal cancer patients. Shorter acquisition times and altered body positioning during scanning will likely improve patient experience. Advances in knowledge: This paper demonstrates that MRI and PET/CT are generally well-tolerated imaging procedures for the assessment of response to treatment in esophageal cancer patients. When asked to rank different tests, patients preferred MRI over PET/CT and endoscopy.
OBJECTIVE: The perceived burden of diagnostic tests by patients during the assessment of esophageal cancer warrants attention with the current increase in repeated imaging for purposes of disease monitoring during and after treatment. The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the experienced burden associated with repeated MRI and positron emission tomography with integrated CT (PET/CT) examinations during neoadjuvant treatment for esophageal cancer from the perspective of the patient. METHODS: In 27 patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for esophageal cancer MRI and PET/CT examinations were performed before nCRT, during nCRT and before surgery. The experienced burden during repeated MRI and PET/CT examinations was evaluated with a self-report questionnaire addressing discomfort, pain, anxiety and embarrassment, each measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = none; up to 5 = very much). In addition, a comparative assessment was used to rank MRI, PET/CT and baseline endoscopy. RESULTS: All scans were performed without the occurrence of an adverse event. Few patients experienced discomfort (mean score ±SD: 1.9 ± 1.0 for MRI vs 2.0 ± 1.0 for PET/CT, p = 0.586), pain (1.1 ± 0.4 for MRI vs 1.3 ± 0.7 for PET/CT, p = 0.059), anxiety (1.0 ± 0.2 for MRI vs 1.0 ± 0.2 for PET/CT, p = 1.000) and embarrassment (1.0 ± 0 for MRI vs 1.0 ± 0.2 for PET/CT, p = 0.317) during both MRI and PET/CT. Patients preferred MRI over PET/CT (67% vs 22%, respectively, p = 0.023), and MRI over endoscopy (59% vs 19%, respectively, p = 0.027). In the comparison between PET/CT and endoscopy, 59% of patients preferred PET/CT and 26% preferred endoscopy (p = 0.093). CONCLUSION: Repeated imaging with both MRI and PET/CT is generally well-tolerated for the assessment of response to treatment in esophageal cancerpatients. Shorter acquisition times and altered body positioning during scanning will likely improve patient experience. Advances in knowledge: This paper demonstrates that MRI and PET/CT are generally well-tolerated imaging procedures for the assessment of response to treatment in esophageal cancerpatients. When asked to rank different tests, patients preferred MRI over PET/CT and endoscopy.
Authors: Lawrence B Cohen; Julie S Wecsler; John N Gaetano; Ariel A Benson; Kenneth M Miller; Valerie Durkalski; James Aisenberg Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Anne Brédart; Darius Razavi; Chris Robertson; Stefania Brignone; Dora Fonzo; Jean-Yves Petit; J C J M de Haes Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2002-02
Authors: S Youssefzadeh; K Eibenberger; T Helbich; R Dorffner; K Dantendorfer; M Breitenseher; G Wolf Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 1997-11 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Sophie E Heethuis; Peter S N van Rossum; Irene M Lips; Lucas Goense; Francine E Voncken; Onne Reerink; Richard van Hillegersberg; Jelle P Ruurda; Marielle E Philippens; Marco van Vulpen; Gert J Meijer; Jan J W Lagendijk; Astrid L H M W van Lier Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2016-06-10 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Lucas Goense; Peter S N van Rossum; Johannes B Reitsma; Marnix G E H Lam; Gert J Meijer; Marco van Vulpen; Jelle P Ruurda; Richard van Hillegersberg Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Alicia S Borggreve; Lucas Goense; Peter S N van Rossum; Sophie E Heethuis; Richard van Hillegersberg; Jan J W Lagendijk; Marnix G E H Lam; Astrid L H M W van Lier; Stella Mook; Jelle P Ruurda; Marco van Vulpen; Francine E M Voncken; Berthe M P Aleman; Annemarieke Bartels-Rutten; Jingfei Ma; Penny Fang; Benjamin C Musall; Steven H Lin; Gert J Meijer Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-01-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kim Tam Bui; Roger Liang; Belinda E Kiely; Chris Brown; Haryana M Dhillon; Prunella Blinman Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Alicia S Borggreve; Sophie E Heethuis; Mick R Boekhoff; Lucas Goense; Peter S N van Rossum; Lodewijk A A Brosens; Astrid L H M W van Lier; Richard van Hillegersberg; Jan J W Lagendijk; Stella Mook; Jelle P Ruurda; Gert J Meijer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 5.315