Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34047845›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2021

Prospective multicenter assessment of patient preferences for properties of gadolinium-based contrast media and their potential socioeconomic impact in a screening breast MRI setting.

Sean A Woolen, Jonathan P Troost, Shokoufeh Khalatbari, Akshat C Pujara, Jennifer S McDonald, Robert J McDonald, Prasad Shankar, Alana A Lewin, Amy N Melsaether, Steven M Westphal and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 61% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

17 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Sean A WoolenDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, UCSF, 350 Parnassus, San Francisco, CA, 94117, USA. sean.woolen@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4951-2173
Jonathan P TroostMichigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Shokoufeh KhalatbariMichigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Akshat C PujaraDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Jennifer S McDonaldDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Robert J McDonaldDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Prasad ShankarDepartment of Radiology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Alana A LewinDepartment of Radiology, Center for Biomedical Imaging, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Amy N MelsaetherDepartment of Radiology, Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Steven M WestphalDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Katherine H PattersonDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Ashley NettlesDepartment of Radiology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
John P WelbyDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Parth Pradip PatelDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Neud KirosDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Lisa PiccoliDepartment of Radiology, Center for Biomedical Imaging, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Matthew S DavenportDepartment of Radiology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Michigan Medicine · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USIndiana University School of MedicineNew York University · USEmory University · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR)UL1TR002240 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LUMENG, JULIE C, MASHOUR, GEORGE ALEXANDER · 2017 to 2022
$54.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002240NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR002240
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIt is unknown how patients prioritize gadolinium-based contrast media (GBCM) benefits (detection sensitivity) and risks (reactions, gadolinium retention, cost). The purpose of this study is to measure preferences for properties of GBCM in women at intermediate or high risk of breast cancer undergoing annual screening MRI.

methodsAn institutional reviewed board-approved prospective discrete choice conjoint survey was administered to patients at intermediate or high risk for breast cancer undergoing screening MRI at 4 institutions (July 2018-March 2020). Participants were given 15 tasks and asked to choose which of two hypothetical GBCM they would prefer. GBCMs varied by the following attributes: sensitivity for cancer detection (80-95%), intracranial gadolinium retention (1-100 molecules per 100 million administered), severe allergic-like reaction rate (1-19 per 100,000 administrations), mild allergic-like reaction rate (10-1000 per 100,000 administrations), out-of-pocket cost ($25-$100). Attribute levels were based on published values of existing GBCMs. Hierarchical Bayesian analysis was used to derive attribute "importance." Preference shares were determined by simulation.

resultsResponse (87% [247/284]) and completion (96% [236/247]) rates were excellent. Sensitivity (importance = 44.3%, 95% confidence interval = 42.0-46.7%) was valued more than GBCM-related risks (mild allergic-like reaction risk (19.5%, 17.9-21.1%), severe allergic-like reaction risk (17.0%, 15.8-18.1%), intracranial gadolinium retention (11.6%, 10.5-12.7%), out-of-pocket expense (7.5%, 6.8-8.3%)). Lower income participants placed more importance on cost and less on sensitivity (p < 0.01). A simulator is provided that models GBCM preference shares by GBCM attributes and competition.

conclusionsPatients at intermediate or high risk for breast cancer undergoing MRI screening prioritize cancer detection over GBCM-related risks, and prioritize reaction risks over gadolinium retention. KEY POINTS: • Among women undergoing annual breast MRI screening, cancer detection sensitivity (attribute "importance," 44.3%) was valued more than GBCM-related risks (mild allergic reaction risk 19.5%, severe allergic reaction risk 17.0%, intracranial gadolinium retention 11.6%, out-of-pocket expense 7.5%). • Prospective four-center patient preference data have been incorporated into a GBCM choice simulator that allows users to input GBCM properties and calculate patient preference shares for competitor GBCMs. • Lower-income women placed more importance on out-of-pocket cost and less importance on cancer detection (p < 0.01) when prioritizing GBCM properties.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaGadoliniumBayes TheoremFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPatient PreferenceProspective StudiesSocioeconomic FactorsContrast MediaGadoliniumContrast mediaGadoliniumMagnetic resonance imagingMass screeningPatient-centered care

Identifiers

PMID34047845
PMCPMC8160413
OpenAlexW3163959089

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.