Derna Busacchio1, Ketti Mazzocco1,2, Sara Gandini3, Paola Pricolo4, Marianna Masiero5, Paul Eugene Summers4, Grabriella Pravettoni1,2, Giuseppe Petralia2,6. 1. Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. 2. Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Experimental Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCSS, Milan, Italy. 4. Division of Radiology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. 5. Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 6. Precision Imaging and Research Unit - Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the satisfaction of asymptomatic subjects who self-referring Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging (WB-MRI) for early cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Subjects completed a pre-examination questionnaire, while waiting for their WB-MRI examination, recording demographics, expected discomfort, perceived knowledge and usefulness of the procedure and health risk perceptions, as well as a post-examination questionnaire, measuring discomfort experienced, acceptability and satisfaction with WB-MRI. We examined which factors influenced discomfort and satisfaction associated with WB-MRI. RESULTS: 65 asymptomatic subjects (median age 51; 29 females) completed the questionnaire. Before WB-MRI, 29% of subjects expected discomfort of some form with claustrophobia (27.7%) and exam duration (24.6%) being the most common concerns. Experienced discomfort due to shortness of breath was significantly lower than expected. This difference was significantly associated with the personal risk perception to get a disease (p = 0.01) and educational level (p = 0.002). More specifically, higher level of perceived personal risk of getting a disease and lower level of education were associated with higher expected than experienced discomfort. Similarly, experiencing less claustrophobia than expected was significantly associated with gender (p = 0.005) and more pronounced among females. A majority (83%) of subjects expressed high levels of satisfaction with WB-MRI for early cancer diagnosis and judged it more acceptable than other diagnostic exams. CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic subjects self-referring to WB-MRI for early cancer diagnosis showed high levels of satisfaction and acceptability with the examination. Nevertheless, a relevant proportion of participants reported some form of discomfort. Interestingly, participants with higher perceived personal risk to get a disease, lower education and females showed to expect higher discomfort than experienced. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Scope exists for measures to assess expected feelings and develop personalized interventions to reduce the stress anticipated by individuals deciding to undergo WB-MRI for early cancer diagnosis.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the satisfaction of asymptomatic subjects who self-referring Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging (WB-MRI) for early cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Subjects completed a pre-examination questionnaire, while waiting for their WB-MRI examination, recording demographics, expected discomfort, perceived knowledge and usefulness of the procedure and health risk perceptions, as well as a post-examination questionnaire, measuring discomfort experienced, acceptability and satisfaction with WB-MRI. We examined which factors influenced discomfort and satisfaction associated with WB-MRI. RESULTS: 65 asymptomatic subjects (median age 51; 29 females) completed the questionnaire. Before WB-MRI, 29% of subjects expected discomfort of some form with claustrophobia (27.7%) and exam duration (24.6%) being the most common concerns. Experienced discomfort due to shortness of breath was significantly lower than expected. This difference was significantly associated with the personal risk perception to get a disease (p = 0.01) and educational level (p = 0.002). More specifically, higher level of perceived personal risk of getting a disease and lower level of education were associated with higher expected than experienced discomfort. Similarly, experiencing less claustrophobia than expected was significantly associated with gender (p = 0.005) and more pronounced among females. A majority (83%) of subjects expressed high levels of satisfaction with WB-MRI for early cancer diagnosis and judged it more acceptable than other diagnostic exams. CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic subjects self-referring to WB-MRI for early cancer diagnosis showed high levels of satisfaction and acceptability with the examination. Nevertheless, a relevant proportion of participants reported some form of discomfort. Interestingly, participants with higher perceived personal risk to get a disease, lower education and females showed to expect higher discomfort than experienced. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Scope exists for measures to assess expected feelings and develop personalized interventions to reduce the stress anticipated by individuals deciding to undergo WB-MRI for early cancer diagnosis.
Authors: Silke Gillessen; Gerhardt Attard; Tomasz M Beer; Himisha Beltran; Alberto Bossi; Rob Bristow; Brett Carver; Daniel Castellano; Byung Ha Chung; Noel Clarke; Gedske Daugaard; Ian D Davis; Johann de Bono; Rodolfo Borges Dos Reis; Charles G Drake; Ros Eeles; Eleni Efstathiou; Christopher P Evans; Stefano Fanti; Felix Feng; Karim Fizazi; Mark Frydenberg; Martin Gleave; Susan Halabi; Axel Heidenreich; Celestia S Higano; Nicolas James; Philip Kantoff; Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen; Raja B Khauli; Gero Kramer; Chris Logothetis; Fernando Maluf; Alicia K Morgans; Michael J Morris; Nicolas Mottet; Vedang Murthy; William Oh; Piet Ost; Anwar R Padhani; Chris Parker; Colin C Pritchard; Mack Roach; Mark A Rubin; Charles Ryan; Fred Saad; Oliver Sartor; Howard Scher; Avishay Sella; Neal Shore; Matthew Smith; Howard Soule; Cora N Sternberg; Hiroyoshi Suzuki; Christopher Sweeney; Matthew R Sydes; Ian Tannock; Bertrand Tombal; Riccardo Valdagni; Thomas Wiegel; Aurelius Omlin Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-06-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Meletios A Dimopoulos; Jens Hillengass; Saad Usmani; Elena Zamagni; Suzanne Lentzsch; Faith E Davies; Noopur Raje; Orhan Sezer; Sonja Zweegman; Jatin Shah; Ashraf Badros; Kazuyuki Shimizu; Philippe Moreau; Chor-Sang Chim; Juan José Lahuerta; Jian Hou; Artur Jurczyszyn; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Pieter Sonneveld; Antonio Palumbo; Heinz Ludwig; Michele Cavo; Bart Barlogie; Kenneth Anderson; G David Roodman; S Vincent Rajkumar; Brian G M Durie; Evangelos Terpos Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ruth Ec Evans; Stuart A Taylor; Sandra Beare; Steve Halligan; Alison Morton; Alf Oliver; Andrea Rockall; Anne Miles Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Giuseppe Petralia; Fabio Zugni; Paul E Summers; Alberto Colombo; Paola Pricolo; Luigi Grazioli; Stefano Colagrande; Andrea Giovagnoni; Anwar R Padhani Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 3.469