Cargando…

Patients’ perception of diagnostic tests in the preoperative assessment of esophageal cancer

OBJECTIVE: Defining an optimal staging strategy requires an evaluation of the effectiveness and costs of diagnostic tests and may include the burden of these tests for patients. This study evaluated the burden of cervical ultrasonography (US), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (C...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Westerterp, Marinke, van Westreenen, Henderik L, Deutekom, Marije, Stoker, Jaap, Fockens, Paul, Comans, Emile FI, Plukker, John TM, Bossuyt, Patrick MM, van Lanschot, J Jan B, Sloof, Gerrit W
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2770407/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19920957
_version_ 1782173652245020672
author Westerterp, Marinke
van Westreenen, Henderik L
Deutekom, Marije
Stoker, Jaap
Fockens, Paul
Comans, Emile FI
Plukker, John TM
Bossuyt, Patrick MM
van Lanschot, J Jan B
Sloof, Gerrit W
author_facet Westerterp, Marinke
van Westreenen, Henderik L
Deutekom, Marije
Stoker, Jaap
Fockens, Paul
Comans, Emile FI
Plukker, John TM
Bossuyt, Patrick MM
van Lanschot, J Jan B
Sloof, Gerrit W
author_sort Westerterp, Marinke
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Defining an optimal staging strategy requires an evaluation of the effectiveness and costs of diagnostic tests and may include the burden of these tests for patients. This study evaluated the burden of cervical ultrasonography (US), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with esophageal carcinoma (EC). METHODS: Consenting consecutive patients underwent a standard preoperative work-up. Burden of testing was evaluated with a self-report questionnaire addressing anxiety, embarrassment, and discomfort, each measured on a 1(none) to 5 (extreme) point-scale. An overall burden score was calculated by summing the three item scores. In addition, patients were asked to rank the four tests from least to most inconvenient. Statistical analysis was performed with nonparametric tests. RESULTS: 82 patients (67 , 15 ; mean age 64.3 yrs) participated. For most tests and most dimensions of burden, the large majority of subjects was in categories 1 and 2.With respect to anxiety, the rank order (from highest burden to lowest burden) was EUS, US, PET, and CT (average scores 1.7, 1.5, 1.4, and 1.2, respectively). For embarrassment, the rank order was EUS, PET, US, and CT (1.9, 1.5, 1.4, and 1.3 respectively). For discomfort, the rank order was EUS, PET, US and CT (2.0, 1.6, 1.4, and 1.2, respectively). And for total burden, the rank order was EUS, PET, US and CT (5.6, 4.6, 4.2, and 3.7). PET was ranked as least inconvenient by 35% of patients and as most inconvenient by 16% compared with the other tests. CONCLUSION: Significant but small differences were observed in patient burden for imaging tests to evaluate EC. The perceived burden of PET was lower than that of EUS, but higher than the burden of CT. However absolute values were low for all tests and therefore patient burden will not be a key feature for the construction of an optimal staging algorithm for EC.
format Text
id pubmed-2770407
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27704072009-11-17 Patients’ perception of diagnostic tests in the preoperative assessment of esophageal cancer Westerterp, Marinke van Westreenen, Henderik L Deutekom, Marije Stoker, Jaap Fockens, Paul Comans, Emile FI Plukker, John TM Bossuyt, Patrick MM van Lanschot, J Jan B Sloof, Gerrit W Patient Prefer Adherence Original Research OBJECTIVE: Defining an optimal staging strategy requires an evaluation of the effectiveness and costs of diagnostic tests and may include the burden of these tests for patients. This study evaluated the burden of cervical ultrasonography (US), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with esophageal carcinoma (EC). METHODS: Consenting consecutive patients underwent a standard preoperative work-up. Burden of testing was evaluated with a self-report questionnaire addressing anxiety, embarrassment, and discomfort, each measured on a 1(none) to 5 (extreme) point-scale. An overall burden score was calculated by summing the three item scores. In addition, patients were asked to rank the four tests from least to most inconvenient. Statistical analysis was performed with nonparametric tests. RESULTS: 82 patients (67 , 15 ; mean age 64.3 yrs) participated. For most tests and most dimensions of burden, the large majority of subjects was in categories 1 and 2.With respect to anxiety, the rank order (from highest burden to lowest burden) was EUS, US, PET, and CT (average scores 1.7, 1.5, 1.4, and 1.2, respectively). For embarrassment, the rank order was EUS, PET, US, and CT (1.9, 1.5, 1.4, and 1.3 respectively). For discomfort, the rank order was EUS, PET, US and CT (2.0, 1.6, 1.4, and 1.2, respectively). And for total burden, the rank order was EUS, PET, US and CT (5.6, 4.6, 4.2, and 3.7). PET was ranked as least inconvenient by 35% of patients and as most inconvenient by 16% compared with the other tests. CONCLUSION: Significant but small differences were observed in patient burden for imaging tests to evaluate EC. The perceived burden of PET was lower than that of EUS, but higher than the burden of CT. However absolute values were low for all tests and therefore patient burden will not be a key feature for the construction of an optimal staging algorithm for EC. Dove Medical Press 2008-02-02 /pmc/articles/PMC2770407/ /pubmed/19920957 Text en © 2008 Westerterp et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd. This is an Open Access article which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Westerterp, Marinke
van Westreenen, Henderik L
Deutekom, Marije
Stoker, Jaap
Fockens, Paul
Comans, Emile FI
Plukker, John TM
Bossuyt, Patrick MM
van Lanschot, J Jan B
Sloof, Gerrit W
Patients’ perception of diagnostic tests in the preoperative assessment of esophageal cancer
title Patients’ perception of diagnostic tests in the preoperative assessment of esophageal cancer
title_full Patients’ perception of diagnostic tests in the preoperative assessment of esophageal cancer
title_fullStr Patients’ perception of diagnostic tests in the preoperative assessment of esophageal cancer
title_full_unstemmed Patients’ perception of diagnostic tests in the preoperative assessment of esophageal cancer
title_short Patients’ perception of diagnostic tests in the preoperative assessment of esophageal cancer
title_sort patients’ perception of diagnostic tests in the preoperative assessment of esophageal cancer
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2770407/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19920957
work_keys_str_mv AT westerterpmarinke patientsperceptionofdiagnostictestsinthepreoperativeassessmentofesophagealcancer
AT vanwestreenenhenderikl patientsperceptionofdiagnostictestsinthepreoperativeassessmentofesophagealcancer
AT deutekommarije patientsperceptionofdiagnostictestsinthepreoperativeassessmentofesophagealcancer
AT stokerjaap patientsperceptionofdiagnostictestsinthepreoperativeassessmentofesophagealcancer
AT fockenspaul patientsperceptionofdiagnostictestsinthepreoperativeassessmentofesophagealcancer
AT comansemilefi patientsperceptionofdiagnostictestsinthepreoperativeassessmentofesophagealcancer
AT plukkerjohntm patientsperceptionofdiagnostictestsinthepreoperativeassessmentofesophagealcancer
AT bossuytpatrickmm patientsperceptionofdiagnostictestsinthepreoperativeassessmentofesophagealcancer
AT vanlanschotjjanb patientsperceptionofdiagnostictestsinthepreoperativeassessmentofesophagealcancer
AT sloofgerritw patientsperceptionofdiagnostictestsinthepreoperativeassessmentofesophagealcancer