Psychological impact and acceptability of magnetic resonance imaging and X-ray mammography: the MARIBS Study

被引:23
作者
Hutton, J. [1 ]
Walker, L. G. [2 ,3 ]
Gilbert, F. J. [4 ]
Evans, D. G. [5 ]
Eeles, R. [6 ,7 ]
Kwan-Lim, G. E. [6 ,7 ]
Thompson, D. [8 ]
Pointon, L. J. [9 ]
Sharp, D. M. [2 ,3 ]
Leach, M. O. [6 ,7 ]
机构
[1] N Lanarkshire Council, Motherwell ML1 1JE, Lanark, Scotland
[2] Univ Hull, Postgrad Med Inst, Inst Rehabil, Kingston Upon Hull HU3 2PG, Yorks, England
[3] Hull York Med Sch, Kingston Upon Hull HU3 2PG, Yorks, England
[4] Univ Aberdeen, Aberdeen Biomed Imaging Ctr, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, Scotland
[5] Cent Manchester Univ Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Manchester Acad Hlth Sci Ctr, Manchester M13 9WL, Lancs, England
[6] Canc Res UK Clin Magnet Resonance Res Grp, Inst Canc Res, Sutton SM2 5PT, Surrey, England
[7] Royal Marsden NHS Fdn Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, Surrey, England
[8] Univ Cambridge, Strangeways Res Lab, Dept Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Canc Res UK Genet Epidemiol Unit, Cambridge CB1 8RN, England
[9] Dana Farber Canc Inst, Early Drug Dev Ctr, Boston, MA 02115 USA
基金
英国医学研究理事会; 英国工程与自然科学研究理事会;
关键词
MARIBS; psychology; MRI; anxiety; breast cancer; HIGH FAMILIAL RISK; BREAST-CANCER; NATIONAL MULTICENTER; HOSPITAL ANXIETY; GENETIC RISK; WOMEN; MRI; HISTORY; SCALE; PERFORMANCE;
D O I
10.1038/bjc.2011.1
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: As part of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Screening (MARIBS), Study women with a family history of breast cancer were assessed psychologically to determine the relative psychological impact and acceptability of annual screening using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and conventional X-ray mammography (XRM). METHODS: Women were assessed psychologically at baseline (4 weeks before MRI and XRM), immediately before, and immediately after, both MRI and XRM, and at follow-up (6 weeks after the scans). RESULTS: Overall, both procedures were found to be acceptable with high levels of satisfaction (MRI, 96.3% and XRM, 97.7%; NS) and low levels of psychological morbidity throughout, particularly at 6-week follow-up. Low levels of self-reported distress were reported for both procedures (MRI, 13.5% and XRM, 7.8%), although MRI was more distressing (P = 0.005). Similarly, higher anticipatory anxiety was reported before MRI than before XRM (P = 0.003). Relative to XRM, MRI-related distress was more likely to persist at 6 weeks after the scans in the form of intrusive MRI-related thoughts (P = 0.006) and total MRI-related distress (P = 0.014). More women stated that they intended to return for XRM (96.3%) than for MRI (88%; P < 0.0005). These effects were most marked for the first year of screening, although they were also statistically significant in subsequent years. CONCLUSION: Given the proven benefits of MRI in screening for breast cancer in this population, these data point to the urgent need to provide timely information and support to women undergoing MRI. British Journal of Cancer (2011) 104, 578-586. doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.1 www.bjcancer.com (C) 2011 Cancer Research UK
引用
收藏
页码:578 / 586
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Magnetic resonance imaging and X-ray microtomography studies of a gel-forming tablet formulation
    Laity, P. R.
    Mantle, M. D.
    Gladden, L. F.
    Cameron, R. E.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS AND BIOPHARMACEUTICS, 2010, 74 (01) : 109 - 119
  • [32] Diagnostic performance of mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating mammographically visible breast masses
    Zhu, Xueli
    Cao, Yi
    Li, Ruidie
    Zhu, Mingxia
    Chen, Xin
    JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2021, 49 (09)
  • [33] Comparison of X-ray computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging to detect pest-infested fruits: A pilot study
    Kim, Taeyun
    Lee, Jaegi
    Sun, Gwang-Min
    Park, Byung-Gun
    Park, Hae-Jun
    Choi, Deuk-Soo
    Ye, Sung-Joon
    NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, 2022, 54 (02) : 514 - 522
  • [34] Cost-effectiveness of alternating magnetic resonance imaging and digital mammography screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers
    Chubiz, Jessica E. Cott
    Lee, Janie M.
    Gilmore, Michael E.
    Kong, Chung Y.
    Lowry, Kathryn P.
    Halpern, Elkan F.
    McMahon, Pamela M.
    Ryan, Paula D.
    Gazelle, G. Scott
    CANCER, 2013, 119 (06) : 1266 - 1276
  • [35] Comparison of breast cancer detection by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and mammography
    Yoshikawa M.I.
    Ohsumi S.
    Sugata S.
    Kataoka M.
    Takashima S.
    Kikuchi K.
    Mochizuki T.
    Radiation Medicine, 2007, 25 (5): : 218 - 223
  • [36] DCGANs for Realistic Breast Mass Augmentation in X-ray Mammography
    Alyafi, Basel
    Diaz, Oliver
    Marti, Robert
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2020: COMPUTER-AIDED DIAGNOSIS, 2020, 11314
  • [37] Analysis of results of the X-ray mammography in diagnostics on breast cancer
    E Vetukh
    T Davidovich
    Breast Cancer Research, 4 (Suppl 1)
  • [38] Effectiveness of Alternating Mammography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Screening Women With Deleterious BRCA Mutations at High Risk of Breast Cancer
    Le-Petross, Huong T.
    Whitman, Gary J.
    Atchley, Deanne P.
    Yuan, Ying
    Gutierrez-Barrera, Angelica
    Hortobagyi, Gabriel N.
    Litton, Jennifer K.
    Arun, Banu K.
    CANCER, 2011, 117 (17) : 3900 - 3907
  • [39] Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for staging of breast cancer: The pro CEM perspective
    Lobbes, M. B., I
    Heuts, E. M.
    Moossdorff, M.
    van Nijnatten, T. J. A.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2021, 142
  • [40] Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ with mammography, breast specific gamma imaging, and magnetic resonance imaging: A comparative study
    Brem, Rachel F.
    Fishman, Michael
    Rapelyea, Jocelyn A.
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2007, 14 (08) : 945 - 950