Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Patient satisfaction with ultrasound, whole-body CT and whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI for pre-operative ovarian cancer staging: a multicenter prospective cross-sectional survey.
Pinto, Patrícia; Valentin, Lil; Borcinová, Martina; Wiesnerová, Markéta; Filip, Fruhauf; Burgetova, Andrea; Masek, Martin; Lambert, Lukas; Chiappa, Valentina; Franchi, Dorella; Testa, Antonia Carla; Moro, Francesca; Avesani, Giacomo; Panico, Camilla; Alessi, Sarah; Pricolo, Paola; Vigorito, Raffaella; Calareso, Giuseppina; Kocian, Roman; Slama, Jiri; Fagotti, Anna; Urbinati, Ailyn Mariela Vidal; Signorelli, Mauro; Bertolina, Francesca; Cibula, David; Fischerova, Daniela.
Affiliation
  • Pinto P; Department of Gynecology, Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Lisbon Francisco Gentil, Lisboa, Portugal.
  • Valentin L; First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
  • Borcinová M; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Skane University Hospital, Malmo, Sweden.
  • Wiesnerová M; Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
  • Filip F; Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
  • Burgetova A; Masaryk University Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Brno, Czech Republic.
  • Masek M; Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
  • Lambert L; Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
  • Chiappa V; Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
  • Franchi D; Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
  • Testa AC; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Foundation IRCCS National Cancer Institute, Milan, Italy.
  • Moro F; Preventive Gynecology Unit, Division of Gynaecology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
  • Avesani G; Dipartimento Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
  • Panico C; Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Lazio, Italy.
  • Alessi S; Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Lazio, Italy.
  • Pricolo P; Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Lazio, Italy.
  • Vigorito R; Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Lazio, Italy.
  • Calareso G; Division of Radiology, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, Milan, Italy.
  • Kocian R; Division of Radiology, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, Milan, Italy.
  • Slama J; Department of Radiology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
  • Fagotti A; Department of Radiology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
  • Urbinati AMV; Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
  • Signorelli M; Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
  • Bertolina F; Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Lazio, Italy.
  • Cibula D; Preventive Gynecology Unit, Division of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
  • Fischerova D; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Foundation IRCCS National Cancer Institute, Milan, Italy.
Int J Gynecol Cancer ; 34(6): 871-878, 2024 Jun 03.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38531539
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

In addition to the diagnostic accuracy of imaging methods, patient-reported satisfaction with imaging methods is important.

OBJECTIVE:

To report a secondary outcome of the prospective international multicenter Imaging Study in Advanced ovArian Cancer (ISAAC Study), detailing patients' experience with abdomino-pelvic ultrasound, whole-body contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT), and whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (WB-DWI/MRI) for pre-operative ovarian cancer work-up.

METHODS:

In total, 144 patients with suspected ovarian cancer at four institutions in two countries (Italy, Czech Republic) underwent ultrasound, CT, and WB-DWI/MRI for pre-operative work-up between January 2020 and November 2022. After having undergone all three examinations, the patients filled in a questionnaire evaluating their overall experience and experience in five domains preparation before the examination, duration of examination, noise during the procedure, radiation load of CT, and surrounding space. Pain perception, examination-related patient-perceived unexpected, unpleasant, or dangerous events ('adverse events'), and preferred method were also noted.

RESULTS:

Ultrasound was the preferred method by 49% (70/144) of responders, followed by CT (38%, 55/144), and WB-DWI/MRI (13%, 19/144) (p<0.001). The poorest experience in all domains was reported for WB-DWI/MRI, which was also associated with the largest number of patients who reported adverse events (eg, dyspnea). Patients reported higher levels of pain during the ultrasound examination than during CT and WB-DWI/MRI (p<0.001) 78% (112/144) reported no pain or mild pain, 19% (27/144) moderate pain, and 3% (5/144) reported severe pain (pain score >7 of 10) during the ultrasound examination. We did not identify any factors related to patients' preferred method.

CONCLUSION:

Ultrasound was the imaging method preferred by most patients despite being associated with more pain during the examination in comparison with CT and WB-DWI/MRI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT03808792.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Ovarian Neoplasms / Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Ultrasonography / Patient Satisfaction / Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging Limits: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Middle aged Language: En Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Journal subject: GINECOLOGIA / NEOPLASIAS Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Portugal Country of publication: United kingdom

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Ovarian Neoplasms / Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Ultrasonography / Patient Satisfaction / Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging Limits: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Middle aged Language: En Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Journal subject: GINECOLOGIA / NEOPLASIAS Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Portugal Country of publication: United kingdom