Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 7/2019

Open Access 01-07-2019 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Oncology

Patient preferences for whole-body MRI or conventional staging pathways in lung and colorectal cancer: a discrete choice experiment

Authors: Anne Miles, Stuart A. Taylor, Ruth E. C. Evans, Steve Halligan, Sandy Beare, John Bridgewater, Vicky Goh, Sam Janes, Neil Navani, Alf Oliver, Alison Morton, Andrea Rockall, Caroline S. Clarke, Stephen Morris, on behalf of the STREAMLINE investigators

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 7/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the importance placed by patients on attributes associated with whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) and standard cancer staging pathways and ascertain drivers of preference.

Methods

Patients recruited to two multi-centre diagnostic accuracy trials comparing WB-MRI with standard staging pathways in lung and colorectal cancer were invited to complete a discrete choice experiment (DCE), choosing between a series of alternate pathways in which 6 attributes (accuracy, time to diagnosis, scan duration, whole-body enclosure, radiation exposure, total scan number) were varied systematically. Data were analysed using a conditional logit regression model and marginal rates of substitution computed. The relative importance of each attribute and probabilities of choosing WB-MRI-based pathways were estimated.

Results

A total of 138 patients (mean age 65, 61% male, lung n = 72, colorectal n = 66) participated (May 2015 to September 2016). Lung cancer patients valued time to diagnosis most highly, followed by accuracy, radiation exposure, number of scans, and time in the scanner. Colorectal cancer patients valued accuracy most highly, followed by time to diagnosis, radiation exposure, and number of scans. Patients were willing to wait 0.29 (lung) and 0.45 (colorectal) weeks for a 1% increase in pathway accuracy. Patients preferred WB-MRI-based pathways (probability 0.64 [lung], 0.66 [colorectal]) if they were equivalent in accuracy, total scan number, and time to diagnosis compared with a standard staging pathway.

Conclusions

Staging pathways based on first-line WB-MRI are preferred by the majority of patients if they at least match standard pathways for diagnostic accuracy, time to diagnosis, and total scan number.

Key Points

• WB-MRI staging pathways are preferred to standard pathways by the majority of patients provided they at least match standard staging pathways for accuracy, total scan number, and time to diagnosis.
• For patients with lung cancer, time to diagnosis was the attribute valued most highly, followed by accuracy, radiation dose, number of additional scans, and time in a scanner. Preference for patients with colorectal cancer was similar.
• Most (63%) patients were willing to trade attributes, such as faster diagnosis, for improvements in pathway accuracy and reduced radiation exposure.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ciliberto M, Maggi F, Treglia G et al (2013) Comparison between whole-body MRI and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET or PET/CT in oncology: a systematic review. Radiol Oncol 47:206–218CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ciliberto M, Maggi F, Treglia G et al (2013) Comparison between whole-body MRI and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET or PET/CT in oncology: a systematic review. Radiol Oncol 47:206–218CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Usuda K, Sagawa M, Maeda S et al (2016) Diagnostic performance of whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging compared to PET-CT plus brain MRI in staging clinically resectable lung cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 17:2775–2780PubMed Usuda K, Sagawa M, Maeda S et al (2016) Diagnostic performance of whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging compared to PET-CT plus brain MRI in staging clinically resectable lung cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 17:2775–2780PubMed
3.
go back to reference Evans REC, Taylor S, Janes S et al (2017) 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. BMJ Open 7:e016391 Evans REC, Taylor S, Janes S et al (2017) 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. BMJ Open 7:e016391
4.
go back to reference Evans REC, Taylor S, Beare S et al (2018) Perceived patient burden and acceptability of whole body MRI for staging lung and colorectal cancer; comparison with standard staging investigations. Br J Radiol 91:20170731CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Evans REC, Taylor S, Beare S et al (2018) Perceived patient burden and acceptability of whole body MRI for staging lung and colorectal cancer; comparison with standard staging investigations. Br J Radiol 91:20170731CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Dewey M, Schink T, Dewey CF (2007) Claustrophobia during magnetic resonance imaging: cohort study in over 55,000 patients. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:1322–1327CrossRef Dewey M, Schink T, Dewey CF (2007) Claustrophobia during magnetic resonance imaging: cohort study in over 55,000 patients. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:1322–1327CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Hummel JM, Steuten LG, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CJ, Mulder N, Ijzerman MJ (2013) Preferences for colorectal cancer screening techniques and intention to attend: a multi-criteria decision analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 11:499–507CrossRefPubMed Hummel JM, Steuten LG, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CJ, Mulder N, Ijzerman MJ (2013) Preferences for colorectal cancer screening techniques and intention to attend: a multi-criteria decision analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 11:499–507CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Petersen GS, Knudsen JL, Vinter MM (2015) Cancer patients’ preferences of care within hospitals: a systematic literature review. Int J Qual Health Care 27:384–395CrossRefPubMed Petersen GS, Knudsen JL, Vinter MM (2015) Cancer patients’ preferences of care within hospitals: a systematic literature review. Int J Qual Health Care 27:384–395CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Ryan M, Watson W, Gerard K (2008) Practical issues in conducting a discrete choice experiment. In: Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M (eds) Using discrete choice experiments to value health and healthcare. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 73–97CrossRef Ryan M, Watson W, Gerard K (2008) Practical issues in conducting a discrete choice experiment. In: Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M (eds) Using discrete choice experiments to value health and healthcare. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 73–97CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Lancsar E, Louviere J (2008) Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics 26:661–677CrossRefPubMed Lancsar E, Louviere J (2008) Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics 26:661–677CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D et al (2011) Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health 14:403–413CrossRefPubMed Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D et al (2011) Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health 14:403–413CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Taylor SA, Mallett S, Miles A et al (2017) Streamlining staging of lung and colorectal cancer with whole body MRI; study protocols for two multicentre, non-randomised, single-arm, prospective diagnostic accuracy studies (streamline C and streamline L). BMC Cancer 17:299CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Taylor SA, Mallett S, Miles A et al (2017) Streamlining staging of lung and colorectal cancer with whole body MRI; study protocols for two multicentre, non-randomised, single-arm, prospective diagnostic accuracy studies (streamline C and streamline L). BMC Cancer 17:299CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Ohno Y, Koyama H, Onishi Y et al (2008) Non-small cell lung cancer: whole-body MR examination for M-stage assessment--utility for whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging compared with integrated FDG PET/CT. Radiology 248:643–654CrossRefPubMed Ohno Y, Koyama H, Onishi Y et al (2008) Non-small cell lung cancer: whole-body MR examination for M-stage assessment--utility for whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging compared with integrated FDG PET/CT. Radiology 248:643–654CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Ohno Y, Koyama H, Yoshikawa T et al (2015) Three-way comparison of whole-body MR, coregistered whole-body FDG PET/MR, and integrated whole-body FDG PET/CT imaging: TNM and stage assessment capability for non-small cell lung cancer patients. Radiology 275:849–861CrossRefPubMed Ohno Y, Koyama H, Yoshikawa T et al (2015) Three-way comparison of whole-body MR, coregistered whole-body FDG PET/MR, and integrated whole-body FDG PET/CT imaging: TNM and stage assessment capability for non-small cell lung cancer patients. Radiology 275:849–861CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
go back to reference Hahn G, Shaprio S (1966) A catalogue and computer program for the design and analysis of orthogonal symmetric and asymmetric fractional factorial experiments. General Electric Research and Development Centre, Schenectady Hahn G, Shaprio S (1966) A catalogue and computer program for the design and analysis of orthogonal symmetric and asymmetric fractional factorial experiments. General Electric Research and Development Centre, Schenectady
16.
go back to reference Vallejo-Torres L, Melnychuk M, Vindrola-Padros C et al (2018) Discrete-choice experiment to analyse preferences for centralizing specialist cancer surgery services. Br J Surg 105:587–596CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Vallejo-Torres L, Melnychuk M, Vindrola-Padros C et al (2018) Discrete-choice experiment to analyse preferences for centralizing specialist cancer surgery services. Br J Surg 105:587–596CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol 54:1063–1070CrossRef Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol 54:1063–1070CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Crawford JR, Henry JD (2004) The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol 43:245–265CrossRefPubMed Crawford JR, Henry JD (2004) The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol 43:245–265CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Hauber AB, Gonzalez JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG et al (2016) Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health 19:300–315CrossRefPubMed Hauber AB, Gonzalez JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG et al (2016) Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health 19:300–315CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Adams HJ, Kwee TC, Vermoolen MA, Ludwig I, Bierings MB, Nievelstein RA (2014) Whole-body MRI vs. CT for staging lymphoma: patient experience. Eur J Radiol 83:163–166CrossRefPubMed Adams HJ, Kwee TC, Vermoolen MA, Ludwig I, Bierings MB, Nievelstein RA (2014) Whole-body MRI vs. CT for staging lymphoma: patient experience. Eur J Radiol 83:163–166CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Eshed I, Althoff CE, Hamm B, Hermann KG (2007) Claustrophobia and premature termination of magnetic resonance imaging examinations. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:401–404CrossRefPubMed Eshed I, Althoff CE, Hamm B, Hermann KG (2007) Claustrophobia and premature termination of magnetic resonance imaging examinations. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:401–404CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Patient preferences for whole-body MRI or conventional staging pathways in lung and colorectal cancer: a discrete choice experiment
Authors
Anne Miles
Stuart A. Taylor
Ruth E. C. Evans
Steve Halligan
Sandy Beare
John Bridgewater
Vicky Goh
Sam Janes
Neil Navani
Alf Oliver
Alison Morton
Andrea Rockall
Caroline S. Clarke
Stephen Morris
on behalf of the STREAMLINE investigators
Publication date
01-07-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 7/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06153-4

Other articles of this Issue 7/2019

European Radiology 7/2019 Go to the issue