Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29528257›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2018

Perceived patient burden and acceptability of whole body MRI for staging lung and colorectal cancer; comparison with standard staging investigations.

Ruth Ec Evans, Stuart A Taylor, Sandra Beare, Steve Halligan, Alison Morton, Alf Oliver, Andrea Rockall, Anne Miles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Evaluating participant experiences and tolerability with MR Linac imaging.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. The Acceptability of Diagnostic Tests in the United Kingdom.Patient preference and adherence · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ruth Ec Evans1 Deparment of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London , London , UK.
Stuart A Taylor2 Division of Medicine, Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London , London , UK.
Sandra Beare3 Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre , London , UK.
Steve Halligan2 Division of Medicine, Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London , London , UK.
Alison Morton4 C/O National Cancer Research Institute, Angel Building , London , UK.
Alf Oliver4 C/O National Cancer Research Institute, Angel Building , London , UK.
Andrea Rockall5 Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Kensington , London , UK.
Anne Miles1 Deparment of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London , London , UK.

Funding

Department of Health 10/68/01Department of Health EME/13/122/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate perceived patient burden and acceptability of whole body MRI (WB-MRI) compared to standard staging investigations, and identify predictors of reduced tolerance.

methodsPatients recruited to multicentre trials comparing WB-MRI with standard staging scans for lung and colorectal cancer were invited to complete two questionnaires: a baseline questionnaire at recruitment, measuring demographics, comorbidities, and distress; and a follow-up questionnaire after staging, measuring recovery time, comparative acceptability/satisfaction between WB-MRI and CT (colorectal cancer) and PET-CT (lung cancer), and perceived scan burden (scored 1, low; 7, high).  Results: 115 patients (median age 66.3 years; 67 males) completed follow up and 103 baseline questionnaires. 69 (63.9%) reported "immediate" recovery from WB-MRI and 73 (65.2%) judged it "very acceptable". Perceived WB-MRI burden was greater than for CT (p < 0.001) and PET-CT (p < 0.001). High distress and comorbidities were associated with greater WB-MRI burden in adjusted analyses, with deprivation only approaching significance (adjusted regression β = 0.223, p = 0.025; β = 0.191, p = 0.048; β = -0.186, p = 0.059 respectively). Age (p = 0.535), gender (p = 0.389), ethnicity (p = 0.081) and cancer type (p = 0.201) were not predictive of WB-MRI burden.

conclusionWB-MRI is marginally less acceptable and more burdensome than standard scans, particularly for patients with pre-existing distress and comorbidities.  Advances in knowledge: This research shows that WB-MRI scan burden, although low, is higher than for current staging modalities among patients with suspected colorectal or lung cancer. Psychological and physical comorbidities adversely impact on patient experience of WB-MRI. Patients with high distress or comorbid illness may need additional support to undergo a WB-MRI.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnxietyColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographySurveys and QuestionnairesTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID29528257
PMCPMC6223281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.