Impact of patient comfort on diagnostic image quality during PET/MR exam: A quantitative survey study for clinical workflow management

Abstract Background PET/MR is transferring from a powerful scientific research tool to an imaging modality in clinical routine practice. Whole body PET/MR screening usually takes 30–50 minutes to finish, during which a few factors might induce patient discomfort and further cause degraded image quality. The aim of this report is to investigate the patients' perception of the imaging procedure and its correlation with image quality. Methods One hundred and twenty patients (63 males and 57 females, average age = 51.3 years, range 22–70 years) who had been diagnosed with cancer or had previous history of cancer were recruited and scanned with a simultaneous PET/MR system. A questionnaire was given to all patients retrospectively after the PET/MR scan, which has nine questions to assess patients' feeling of the scan on a Likert scale scoring system (1–5, 1 as most satisfied). All PET/MR images were also visually examined by two experts independently to evaluate the quality of the images. Six body locations were assessed and each location was evaluated also with a Likert scale scoring system (1–5, 5 as the best quality). Mann–Whitney Utest was used for statistical analysis to check if there is significant correlation between image quality and patient perceptions. Results With a total of 120 patients, 118 questionnaires were filled and returned for analysis. The patients’ characteristics were summarized in Table 4. The statistics of the patients’ perception in the questionnaire were illustrated in Tables 5–7. Statistical significant correlations were found between MR image quality and patients’ characteristics/perception. Conclusion Our results show that PET/MR scanning is generally safe and comfortable for most of the patients. Statistical analysis does not support the hypothesis that bad patient’s perception leads to degraded image quality.

[1]  Raveendran Paramesran,et al.  Review of medical image quality assessment , 2016, Biomed. Signal Process. Control..

[2]  S. Plein,et al.  Tolerance of MRI vs. SPECT myocardial perfusion studies—A patient survey , 2004, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[3]  James S Babb,et al.  Comparison of Whole-Body (18)F FDG PET/MR Imaging and Whole-Body (18)F FDG PET/CT in Terms of Lesion Detection and Radiation Dose in Patients with Breast Cancer. , 2016, Radiology.

[4]  Dustin R Osborne,et al.  Reduction of Patient Anxiety in PET/CT Imaging by Improving Communication Between Patient and Technologist , 2014, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

[5]  V. Sossi,et al.  Combined PET/MRI: from Status Quo to Status Go. Summary Report of the Fifth International Workshop on PET/MR Imaging; February 15–19, 2016; Tübingen, Germany , 2016, Molecular Imaging and Biology.

[6]  Susanto Rahardja,et al.  A Perceptually Relevant MSE-Based Image Quality Metric , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[7]  R. Boellaard,et al.  Combined PET/MRI: Global Warming—Summary Report of the 6th International Workshop on PET/MRI, March 27–29, 2017, Tübingen, Germany , 2017, Molecular Imaging and Biology.

[8]  R. Shortman,et al.  A comparison of the psychological burden of PET/MRI and PET/CT scans and association to initial state anxiety and previous imaging experiences. , 2015, The British journal of radiology.

[9]  J. Lee,et al.  Added Value of Integrated Whole-Body PET/MRI for Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer: Comparison With Contrast-Enhanced MDCT. , 2016, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  Alan C. Bovik,et al.  No-Reference Image Quality Assessment in the Spatial Domain , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[11]  Guangming Shi,et al.  Reduced-Reference Image Quality Assessment With Visual Information Fidelity , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia.

[12]  Gerald Antoch,et al.  Oncologic PET/MRI, Part 2: Bone Tumors, Soft-Tissue Tumors, Melanoma, and Lymphoma , 2012, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  Munish Rattan,et al.  Analysis Of Various Quality Metrics for Medical Image Processing , 2012 .

[14]  A. Said,et al.  Objective no-reference image blur metric based on local phase coherence , 2009 .

[15]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[16]  Zhou Wang,et al.  No-Reference Quality Assessment of Contrast-Distorted Images Based on Natural Scene Statistics , 2015, IEEE Signal Processing Letters.

[17]  S. Schraub,et al.  An international prospective study of the EORTC cancer in-patient satisfaction with care measure (EORTC IN-PATSAT32). , 2005, European journal of cancer.

[18]  Kwanghoon Sohn,et al.  No-reference sharpness metric based on inherent sharpness , 2011 .

[19]  J. Brunberg,et al.  Adult claustrophobia, anxiety and sedation in MRI. , 1997, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[20]  Mohammed Ghanbari,et al.  Scope of validity of PSNR in image/video quality assessment , 2008 .

[21]  Hiroki Kato,et al.  Diagnostic performance of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging fusion images of gynecological malignant tumors: comparison with positron emission tomography/computed tomography , 2010, Japanese Journal of Radiology.

[22]  M. Schwaiger,et al.  Simultaneous 68Ga-PSMA HBED-CC PET/MRI Improves the Localization of Primary Prostate Cancer. , 2016, European urology.

[23]  Jiao Shuhong,et al.  No-reference image quality assessment algorithm based on weibull statistics of log-derivatives of natural scenes , 2014 .

[24]  T. Benzinger,et al.  Neurologic Applications of PET/MR Imaging. , 2017, Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America.

[25]  Douglas L. Arnold,et al.  No-reference quality measure in brain MRI images using binary operations, texture and set analysis , 2017, IET Image Process..