Diagnostic bone imaging in patients with prostate cancer: patient experience and acceptance of NaF-PET/CT,choline-PET/CT,whole-body MRI,and bone SPECT/CT

Abstract

Background

Patient acceptance is an important factor when implementing imaging methods in clinical practice in line with availability, diagnostic accuracy, and cost-effectiveness.

Purpose

To investigate patient experience and acceptance regarding18F-sodium fluoride (NaF) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), 11 C-choline-PET/CT, whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI), and 99mTc-hydroxymethane diphosphonate (HDP) single photon emission/computed tomography (SPECT/CT).

Material and Methods

One hundred and forty-nine patients with prostate cancer filled in a questionnaire regarding their experience of the imaging procedures they had been undergoing as part of a diagnostic accuracy study. Each patient had been undergoing a NaF-PET/CT, a WB-MRI, and either a SPECT/CT (group A) or a choline-PET/CT (group B).

Results

All four imaging methods received overall experience ratings at the favorable end of a 5-point Likert scale with the two PET/CT scans receiving marginally better average ratings (2.0) compared to SPECT/CT (2.2) and WB-MRI (2.3). The arm positioning above the head was the most uncomfortable part of the three nuclear medicine scans, whereas the acoustic noise was the most unpleasant part of the WB-MRI. The experience of staff instruction was relatively strongly correlated to the overall scanning experience of all four imaging modalities. Overall, the patients were willing to repeat the four imaging methods and NaF-PET/CT was the method most preferred in both groups.

Conclusion

Four imaging procedures were evaluated from the perspective of a selected group of prostate cancer patients. NaF-PET/CT, choline-PET/CT, WB-MRI, and bone SPECT/CT are well accepted imaging methods, and most patients prefer NaF-PET/CT.

Keywords

Patient experience patient acceptance whole-body MRI PET/CT SPECT/CT prostate cancer

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

HJA

Kwee

Vermoolen

et al.

Whole-body MRI vs. CT for staging lymphoma: Patient experience. Eur J Radiol 2014; 83: 163–166.

Andersson

Johansson

Wassberg

et al.

Assessment of whether patients knowledge, satisfaction, and experience regarding their 18F-fluoride PET/CT examination affects image quality. J Nucl Med Technol 2016; 44: 21–25.

Nielsen

Eiberg

Løgager

et al.

Patient acceptance of whole-body magnetic resonance angiography: A prospective questionnaire study. Acta Radiol 2010; 51: 277–283.

R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2014. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/.

Lumley

Diehr

Emerson

et al.

The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets. Annu Rev Public Health 2002; 23: 151–169.

Norman

. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2010; 15: 625–632.

Carifio

Perla

. Resolving the 50 year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Med Edu 2008; 42: 1150–1152.

Shortman

Neriman

Hoath

et al.

A comparison of the psychological burden of PET/MRI and PET/CT scans and association to initial state anxiety and previous imaging experiences. Br J Radiol 2015; 88: 1–6.

Zacho

Manresa

JAB

Aleksyniene

et al.

Three-minute SPECT/CT is sufficient for the assessment of bone metastases as add-on to planar bone scintigraphy: Prospective head-to-head comparison to 11-min SPECT. EJNMMI Res 2017; 7: 1–1.

10.

Padhani

Lecouvet

Tunariu

et al.

METastasis reporting and data system for prostate cancer: Practical Guidelines for acquistion, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging-based evaluations of multiorgan involvment in advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 81–92.

11.

Törnqvist

Månsson

Larsson

et al.

It’s like being in another world - Patients’ lived experience of magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Nurs 2006; 15: 954–961.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.20 MB