Cancer Patient Experience in a Nuclear Medicine Department: Comparison Between Bone Scintigraphy and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT

Grilo, Ana Monteiro; Vieira, Lina; Carolino, Elisabete; Costa, Melissa; Galaio, Salomé; Melo, Inês; Geão, Ana; Santos, Andrea; Colarinha, P

doi:10.2967/jnmt.119.239285

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(83 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 15 18 20 23–26 29 30 32 33 35 37 38 44–46 49 52–54 56 58 60 61 There were six exceptions, which reported maximal mean severity scores of: 5.5 out of 10 (Likert scale) 17 ; 6.4 out of 10 (Likert scale) 50 ; 4.1 out of 7 (Likert scale), 40 33 out of 60 (STAI state anxiety subscale), 51 8.1 out of 14 (Health Questionnaire) 58 ; and 51.75 out of 80 (STAI). 59 Four of these scores occurred in studies where scans were performed for reasons other than screening, 17 50 51 59 one allowed scans for diagnosis or screening 40 and one allowed scans for screening only. 58 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scanxiety: a scoping review about scan-associated anxiety

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo identify available literature on prevalence, severity and contributing factors of scan-associated anxiety (‘scanxiety’) and interventions to reduce it.DesignSystematic scoping review.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, EBSCO CINAHL and PubMed up to July 2020.Study selectionEligible studies recruited people having cancer-related non-invasive scans (including screening) and contained a quantitative assessment of scanxiety.Data extractionDemographics and scanxiety outcomes were recorded, and data were summarised by descriptive statistics.ResultsOf 26 693 citations, 57 studies were included across a range of scan types (mammogram: 26/57, 46%; positron-emission tomography: 14/57, 25%; CT: 14/57, 25%) and designs (observation: 47/57, 82%; intervention: 10/57, 18%). Eighty-one measurement tools were used to quantify prevalence and/or severity of scanxiety, including purpose-designed Likert scales (17/81, 21%); the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (14/81, 17%) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (9/81, 11%). Scanxiety prevalence ranged from 0% to 64% (above prespecified thresholds) or from 13% to 83% (‘any’ anxiety, if no threshold). Mean severity scores appeared low in almost all measures that quantitatively measured scanxiety (54/62, 87%), regardless of whether anxiety thresholds were prespecified. Moderate to severe scanxiety occurred in 4%–28% of people in studies using descriptive measures. Nine of 20 studies assessing scanxiety prescan and postscan reported significant postscan reduction in scanxiety. Lower education, smoking, higher levels of pain, higher perceived risk of cancer and diagnostic scans (vs screening scans) consistently correlated with higher scanxiety severity but not age, gender, ethnicity or marital status. Interventions included relaxation, distraction, education and psychological support. Six of 10 interventions showed a reduction in scanxiety.ConclusionsPrevalence and severity of scanxiety varied widely likely due to heterogeneous methods of measurement. A uniform approach to evaluating scanxiety will improve understanding of the phenomenon and help guide interventions.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scanxiety: a scoping review about scan-associated anxiety

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is recognized that high-technology imaging presents a potential source of patient anxiety, which can limit adequate scan completion (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9). We sought to assess the claustrophobia rate in 2 ways.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A review of current literature regarding the patient experience of medical imaging revealed similar studies of patient experience and tolerability of MRI and nuclear imaging (4)(5)(6)(7)(8). Informed by one of these studies (4), a cross-sectional patient experience questionnaire was drafted, which contained 4 measures of scan experience (comfort, scan time, scan noise, and claustrophobia).…”

Section: Questionnaire Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These advantages allow for superior image quality and presentation using maximum-intensity projections but should be balanced against a patient's ability to tolerate the scan. Although there are limited published data on whether patients experience claustrophobia during g-camera examinations, claustrophobia is a shared theme with other high-technology medical imaging modalities such as MRI, for which potential negative experiences of discomfort and claustrophobia need to be considered (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9). One study showed that 10% of children undergoing 3-T MRI report feelings of claustrophobia (4), and in another study, up to 40% of adults undergoing MRI experience feelings of unpleasantness due to a "confined space" (8).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing the Patient Experience Between a 360° γ-Camera and a Conventional Dual-Head γ-Camera

Komber

Little

Cade

et al. 2021

J. Nucl. Med. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our aim was to explore whether the 360 g-camera design of the Veriton-CT scanner adversely affects the rate of scan noncompletion due to claustrophobia or other patient experience factors, when compared with a standard dual-head Discovery NM/CT 670 g-camera. Methods: This was a single-center prospective study of all nuclear medicine studies on either of the 2 g-cameras. It was recorded whether the patient completed the scan as protocoled or, because of claustrophobia, had a shortened scan or no scan. The patients were also offered a patient experience questionnaire, with domains of comfort, scan time, scan noise, and claustrophobia assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. Results: Over a 4-mo period, 296 patients were scanned on the Discovery and 274 patients on the Veriton-CT. There was a scan noncompletion rate, due to claustrophobia, of 1.35% for the Discovery and 1.46% for the Veriton-CT. Of the 570 patients involved, 354 (62%) returned their questionnaires. There was no statistical difference between the responses for comfort, scan time, scan noise, or feelings of claustrophobia. Conclusion: The study provides evidence that the 360 g-camera design of the Veriton-CT does not lead to a significantly increased scan failure rate due to claustrophobia and that there is no change in the subjective experience for patients.

show abstract

“…Th ey found that the most prominent factor causing anxiety in both bone scintigraphy and PET/CT scan was the imaging time. 26 In a recent study using the STAI questionnaire 25 , Sun et al found that patients with a confi rmed diagnosis of a malignancy had higher anxiety levels than asymptomatic healthy people undergoing cancer screening. In their study, the procedure was introduced to the patients before the PET/CT scan by a video recording, and the number of patients with anxiety was found to be decreased in the patient group compared to the control group, with lower STAI-related scores.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patients’ Opinions About Pet/Ct Scans, Evaluated Before and After Oncological Imaging

İlçe¹,

Vargol²,

Halis³

et al. 2021

Sakarya Medical Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging is used for many purposes such as diagnosis and staging of cancer patients and there may be different worries and opinions about this method. It is known patients may be anxious before PET/CT scan, but it is not well known whether their opinions continue after scanning. The aim of this study was to evaluate pre-and post-imaging worries and opinions of oncological patients referred to the Nuclear Medicine Clinic for PET/CT imaging. Materials and MethodsSociodemographic data form, STAI-I state, STAI-II trait anxiety forms, pre-test and post-test forms evaluating confidence-knowledge-worry about PET/CT procedure which is prepared by study team were applied to cancer patients referred to Nuclear Medicine Clinic.Results Confidence and worry were associated with gender, living place, well informed and being knowledgeable about the illness (p<0.05). In pre-test, it is observed that men relied PET/CT imaging more than women. However, there was no significant difference in post-test confidence scores. Before scanning, women were more worried than men. The worry scores of the patients living in rural areas both before PET/CT and after PET/CT procedure were higher than those living in urban areas and it was inversely correlated with knowledge and confidence Conclusion PET/CT procedure can be an alarming experience for patients. In this process, well informed and being knowledgeable is associated with lower worry and higher confidence. Making this process more reassuring can contribute to decreased worry.

show abstract

Cancer Patient Experience in a Nuclear Medicine Department: Comparison Between Bone Scintigraphy and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT

Cited by 9 publications

References 34 publications

Scanxiety: a scoping review about scan-associated anxiety

Scanxiety: a scoping review about scan-associated anxiety

Comparing the Patient Experience Between a 360° γ-Camera and a Conventional Dual-Head γ-Camera

Patients’ Opinions About Pet/Ct Scans, Evaluated Before and After Oncological Imaging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Cancer Patient Experience in a Nuclear Medicine Department: Comparison Between Bone Scintigraphy and 18F-FDG PET/CT

Cited by 9 publications

References 34 publications

Scanxiety: a scoping review about scan-associated anxiety

Scanxiety: a scoping review about scan-associated anxiety

Comparing the Patient Experience Between a 360° γ-Camera and a Conventional Dual-Head γ-Camera

Patients’ Opinions About Pet/Ct Scans, Evaluated Before and After Oncological Imaging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Cancer Patient Experience in a Nuclear Medicine Department: Comparison Between Bone Scintigraphy and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT