Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30937589›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2019

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

Anne Miles, Stuart A Taylor, Ruth E C Evans, Steve Halligan, Sandy Beare, John Bridgewater, Vicky Goh, Sam Janes, Neil Navani, Alf Oliver and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

15 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Anne MilesDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HX, UK. ae.miles@bbk.ac.uk.
Stuart A TaylorCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS, UK.
Ruth E C EvansDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HX, UK.
Steve HalliganCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS, UK.
Sandy BeareCancer Research UK and University College London Clinical Trials Centre, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 4TJ, UK.
John BridgewaterUCL Cancer Institute, Paul O Gorman Building, 72 Huntley Street London, London, WC1E 6DD, UK.
Vicky GohCancer Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, UK.
Sam JanesLungs for Living Research Centre, Division of Medicine, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
Neil NavaniDepartment of Thoracic Medicine, UCLH and Lungs for Living Research Centre, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
Alf OliverNational Cancer Research Institute, Angel Building, 407 St John Street, London, EC1V 4AD, UK.
Alison MortonNational Cancer Research Institute, Angel Building, 407 St John Street, London, EC1V 4AD, UK.
Andrea RockallDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Kensington, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.
Caroline S ClarkeResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, Upper Third Floor, UCL Medical School (Royal Free Campus), Rowland Hill Street, London, NW3 2PF, UK.
Stephen MorrisResearch Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
STREAMLINE investigators
University College London · GBCancer Research UK · GBKing's College London · GBRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBBirkbeck, University of London · GBNational Cancer Research Institute · GBThe Royal Free Hospital · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16463Department of Health 10/68/01Department of Health EME/13/122/01Department of Health ICA-CDRF-2017-03-053
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo 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.

methodsPatients 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.

resultsA 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.

conclusionsStaging 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.

Indexed as

AdultAgedColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPatient PreferencePositron-Emission TomographyPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProspective StudiesRegression AnalysisSurveys and QuestionnairesCancerMagnetic resonance imagingPatient preferencePositron emission tomographyTomography, X-ray computed

Identifiers

PMID30937589
PMCPMC6554244
OpenAlexW2933753081

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.