Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Radiology 5/2019

06.11.2018 | Gastrointestinal

Patients’ experience of screening CT colonography with reduced and full bowel preparation in a randomised trial

verfasst von: Lapo Sali, Leonardo Ventura, Grazia Grazzini, Alessandra Borgheresi, Silvia Delsanto, Massimo Falchini, Beatrice Mallardi, Paola Mantellini, Stefano Milani, Stefano Pallanti, Marco Zappa, Mario Mascalchi

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 5/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To assess patients’ experience of bowel preparation and procedure for screening CT colonography with reduced (r-CTC) and full cathartic preparation (f-CTC) that showed similar detection rate for advanced neoplasia in a randomised trial.

Methods

Six hundred seventy-four subjects undergoing r-CTC and 612 undergoing f-CTC in the SAVE trial were asked to complete two pre-examination questionnaires—(1) Life Orientation Test - Revised (LOT-R) assessing optimism and (2) bowel preparation questionnaire—and a post-examination questionnaire evaluating overall experience of CTC screening test. Items were analysed with chi-square and t test separately and pooled.

Results

LOT-R was completed by 529 (78%) of r-CTC and by 462 (75%) of f-CTC participants and bowel preparation questionnaire by 531 (79%) subjects in the r-CTC group and by 465 (76%) in the f-CTC group. Post-examination questionnaire was completed by 525 (78%) subjects in the r-CTC group and by 453 (74%) in the f-CTC group. LOT-R average score was not different between r-CTC (14.27 ± 3.66) and f-CTC (14.54 ± 3.35) (p = 0.22). In bowel preparation questionnaire, 88% of r-CTC subjects reported no preparation-related symptoms as compared to 70% of f-CTC subjects (p < 0.001). No interference of bowel preparation with daily activities was reported in 80% of subjects in the r-CTC group as compared to 53% of subjects in the f-CTC group (p < 0.001). In post-examination questionnaire, average scores for discomfort of the procedure were not significantly different between r-CTC (3.53 ± 0.04) and f-CTC (3.59 ± 0.04) groups (p = 0.84).

Conclusions

Reduced bowel preparation is better tolerated than full preparation for screening CT colonography.

Key Points

• Reduced bowel preparation is better tolerated than full preparation for screening CT colonography.
• Procedure-related discomfort of screening CT colonography is not influenced by bowel preparation.
• Males tolerate bowel preparation and CT colonography screening procedure better than females.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC et al (2016) Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 315:2564–2575 US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC et al (2016) Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 315:2564–2575
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Wolf AMD, Fontham ETH, Church TR et al (2018) Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin 68:250–281CrossRefPubMed Wolf AMD, Fontham ETH, Church TR et al (2018) Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin 68:250–281CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Spada C, Stoker J, Alarcon O et al (2015) Clinical indications for computed tomographic colonography: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline. Eur Radiol 25:331–345CrossRefPubMed Spada C, Stoker J, Alarcon O et al (2015) Clinical indications for computed tomographic colonography: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline. Eur Radiol 25:331–345CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Stoop EM, de Haan MC, de Wijkerslooth TR et al (2012) Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 13:55–64CrossRefPubMed Stoop EM, de Haan MC, de Wijkerslooth TR et al (2012) Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 13:55–64CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Regge D, Iussich G, Segnan N et al (2017) Comparing CT colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy: a randomised trial within a population-based screening programme. Gut 66:1434–1440CrossRefPubMed Regge D, Iussich G, Segnan N et al (2017) Comparing CT colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy: a randomised trial within a population-based screening programme. Gut 66:1434–1440CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Sali L, Mascalchi M, Falchini M et al (2015) Reduced and full-preparation CT colonography, fecal immunochemical test, and colonoscopy for population screening of colorectal cancer: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 108. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv319 Sali L, Mascalchi M, Falchini M et al (2015) Reduced and full-preparation CT colonography, fecal immunochemical test, and colonoscopy for population screening of colorectal cancer: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 108. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​jnci/​djv319
7.
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Tutein Nolthenius CJ, Boellaard TN, de Haan MC et al (2016) Computer tomography colonography participation and yield in patients under surveillance for 6-9 mm polyps in a population-based screening trial. Eur Radiol 26:2762–2770CrossRefPubMed Tutein Nolthenius CJ, Boellaard TN, de Haan MC et al (2016) Computer tomography colonography participation and yield in patients under surveillance for 6-9 mm polyps in a population-based screening trial. Eur Radiol 26:2762–2770CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Giorgi Rossi P, Camilloni L, Cogo C et al (2012) Methods to increase participation in cancer screening programmes. Epidemiol Prev 36:1–104PubMed Giorgi Rossi P, Camilloni L, Cogo C et al (2012) Methods to increase participation in cancer screening programmes. Epidemiol Prev 36:1–104PubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Wools A, Dapper EA, de Leeuw JRJ (2016) Colorectal cancer screening participation: a systematic review. Eur J Pub Health 26:158–168CrossRef Wools A, Dapper EA, de Leeuw JRJ (2016) Colorectal cancer screening participation: a systematic review. Eur J Pub Health 26:158–168CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Cossu G, Saba L, Minerba L, Mascalchi M (2018) Colorectal cancer screening: the role of psychological, social and background factors in decision-making process. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health 14:63–69CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Cossu G, Saba L, Minerba L, Mascalchi M (2018) Colorectal cancer screening: the role of psychological, social and background factors in decision-making process. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health 14:63–69CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Zurück zum Zitat de Wijkerslooth TR, de Haan MC, Stoop EM et al (2012) Reasons for participation and nonparticipation in colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial of colonoscopy and CT colonography. Am J Gastroenterol 107:1777–1783CrossRefPubMed de Wijkerslooth TR, de Haan MC, Stoop EM et al (2012) Reasons for participation and nonparticipation in colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial of colonoscopy and CT colonography. Am J Gastroenterol 107:1777–1783CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Senore C, Correale L, Regge D et al (2018) Flexible sigmoidoscopy and CT colonography screening: patients’ experience with and factors for undergoing screening-insight from the Proteus Colon Trial. Radiology 286:873–883CrossRefPubMed Senore C, Correale L, Regge D et al (2018) Flexible sigmoidoscopy and CT colonography screening: patients’ experience with and factors for undergoing screening-insight from the Proteus Colon Trial. Radiology 286:873–883CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Utano K, Nagata K, Honda T et al (2017) Diagnostic performance and patient acceptance of reduced-laxative CT colonography for the detection of polypoid and non-polypoid neoplasms: a multicenter prospective trial. Radiology 282:399–407CrossRefPubMed Utano K, Nagata K, Honda T et al (2017) Diagnostic performance and patient acceptance of reduced-laxative CT colonography for the detection of polypoid and non-polypoid neoplasms: a multicenter prospective trial. Radiology 282:399–407CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Zalis ME, Blake MA, Cai W et al (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of laxative-free computed tomographic colonography for detection of adenomatous polyps in asymptomatic adults: a prospective evaluation. Ann Intern Med 156:692–702CrossRefPubMed Zalis ME, Blake MA, Cai W et al (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of laxative-free computed tomographic colonography for detection of adenomatous polyps in asymptomatic adults: a prospective evaluation. Ann Intern Med 156:692–702CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Sali L, Grazzini G, Carozzi F et al (2013) Screening for colorectal cancer with FOBT, virtual colonoscopy and optical colonoscopy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial in the Florence district (SAVE study). Trials 14:74CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sali L, Grazzini G, Carozzi F et al (2013) Screening for colorectal cancer with FOBT, virtual colonoscopy and optical colonoscopy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial in the Florence district (SAVE study). Trials 14:74CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Scheier MF, Carver CS, Bridges MW (1994) Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the life orientation test. J Pers Soc Psychol 67:1063–1078CrossRef Scheier MF, Carver CS, Bridges MW (1994) Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the life orientation test. J Pers Soc Psychol 67:1063–1078CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Senore C, Ederle A, Fantin A et al (2011) Acceptability and side-effects of colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy in a screening setting. J Med Screen 18:128–134CrossRefPubMed Senore C, Ederle A, Fantin A et al (2011) Acceptability and side-effects of colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy in a screening setting. J Med Screen 18:128–134CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Campanella D, Morra L, Delsanto S et al (2010) Comparison of three different iodine-based bowel regimens for CT colonography. Eur Radiol 20:348–358CrossRefPubMed Campanella D, Morra L, Delsanto S et al (2010) Comparison of three different iodine-based bowel regimens for CT colonography. Eur Radiol 20:348–358CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Nagata K, Okawa T, Honma A, Endo S, Kudo SE, Yoshida H (2009) Full-laxative versus minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CT colonography using 64-detector row CT: prospective blinded comparison of diagnostic performance, tagging quality, and patient acceptance. Acad Radiol 16:780–789 Nagata K, Okawa T, Honma A, Endo S, Kudo SE, Yoshida H (2009) Full-laxative versus minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CT colonography using 64-detector row CT: prospective blinded comparison of diagnostic performance, tagging quality, and patient acceptance. Acad Radiol 16:780–789
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Jensch S, Bipat S, Peringa J et al (2010) CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation. Eur Radiol 20:146–156CrossRefPubMed Jensch S, Bipat S, Peringa J et al (2010) CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation. Eur Radiol 20:146–156CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Iafrate F, Iannitti M, Ciolina M, Baldassari P, Pichi A, Laghi A (2015) Bowel cleansing before CT colonography: comparison between two minimal-preparation regimens. Eur Radiol 25:203–210 Iafrate F, Iannitti M, Ciolina M, Baldassari P, Pichi A, Laghi A (2015) Bowel cleansing before CT colonography: comparison between two minimal-preparation regimens. Eur Radiol 25:203–210
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Pollentine A, Mortimer A, McCoubrie P, Archer L (2012) Evaluation of two minimal-preparation regimes for CT colonography: optimising image quality and patient acceptability. Br J Radiol 85:1085–1092CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pollentine A, Mortimer A, McCoubrie P, Archer L (2012) Evaluation of two minimal-preparation regimes for CT colonography: optimising image quality and patient acceptability. Br J Radiol 85:1085–1092CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Jensch S, de Vries AH, Pot D et al (2008) Image quality and patient acceptance of four regimens with different amounts of mild laxatives for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:158–167CrossRefPubMed Jensch S, de Vries AH, Pot D et al (2008) Image quality and patient acceptance of four regimens with different amounts of mild laxatives for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:158–167CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Glaesmer H, Rief W, Martin A et al (2012) Psychometric properties and population-based norms of the Life Orientation Test Revised (LOT-R). Br J Health Psychol 17:432–445CrossRefPubMed Glaesmer H, Rief W, Martin A et al (2012) Psychometric properties and population-based norms of the Life Orientation Test Revised (LOT-R). Br J Health Psychol 17:432–445CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat de Wijkerslooth TR, de Haan MC, Stoop EM et al (2012) Burden of colonoscopy compared to non-cathartic CT-colonography in a colorectal cancer screening programme: randomised controlled trial. Gut 61:1552–1559CrossRefPubMed de Wijkerslooth TR, de Haan MC, Stoop EM et al (2012) Burden of colonoscopy compared to non-cathartic CT-colonography in a colorectal cancer screening programme: randomised controlled trial. Gut 61:1552–1559CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF et al (2013) Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 45:142–150CrossRefPubMed Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF et al (2013) Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 45:142–150CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Wardle J, Miles A, Atkin W (2005) Gender differences in utilization of colorectal cancer screening. J Med Screen 12:20–27CrossRefPubMed Wardle J, Miles A, Atkin W (2005) Gender differences in utilization of colorectal cancer screening. J Med Screen 12:20–27CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Farraye FA, Wong M, Hurwitz S et al (2004) Barriers to endoscopic colorectal cancer screening: are women different from men? Am J Gastroenterol 99:341–349CrossRefPubMed Farraye FA, Wong M, Hurwitz S et al (2004) Barriers to endoscopic colorectal cancer screening: are women different from men? Am J Gastroenterol 99:341–349CrossRefPubMed
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Seeff LC, Nadel MR, Klabunde CN et al (2004) Patterns and predictors of colorectal cancer test use in the adult U.S. population. Cancer 100:2093–2103CrossRefPubMed Seeff LC, Nadel MR, Klabunde CN et al (2004) Patterns and predictors of colorectal cancer test use in the adult U.S. population. Cancer 100:2093–2103CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Obaro AE, Plumb AA, Fanshawe TR et al (2018) Post-imaging colorectal cancer or interval cancer rates after CT colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 3:326–336CrossRefPubMed Obaro AE, Plumb AA, Fanshawe TR et al (2018) Post-imaging colorectal cancer or interval cancer rates after CT colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 3:326–336CrossRefPubMed
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Liedenbaum MH, Denters MJ, Zijta FM et al (2011) Reducing the oral contrast dose in CT colonography: evaluation of faecal tagging quality and patient acceptance. Clin Radiol 66:30–37CrossRefPubMed Liedenbaum MH, Denters MJ, Zijta FM et al (2011) Reducing the oral contrast dose in CT colonography: evaluation of faecal tagging quality and patient acceptance. Clin Radiol 66:30–37CrossRefPubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Liedenbaum MH, de Vries AH, Gouw CI et al (2010) CT colonography with minimal bowel preparation: evaluation of tagging quality, patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy in two iodine-based preparation schemes. Eur Radiol 20:367–376CrossRefPubMed Liedenbaum MH, de Vries AH, Gouw CI et al (2010) CT colonography with minimal bowel preparation: evaluation of tagging quality, patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy in two iodine-based preparation schemes. Eur Radiol 20:367–376CrossRefPubMed
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Ghanouni A, Halligan S, Plumb A, Boone D, Wardle J, von Wagner C (2014) Non- or full-laxative CT colonography vs. endoscopic tests for colorectal cancer screening: a randomised survey comparing public perceptions and intentions to undergo testing. Eur Radiol 24:1477–1486 Ghanouni A, Halligan S, Plumb A, Boone D, Wardle J, von Wagner C (2014) Non- or full-laxative CT colonography vs. endoscopic tests for colorectal cancer screening: a randomised survey comparing public perceptions and intentions to undergo testing. Eur Radiol 24:1477–1486
35.
Zurück zum Zitat IJspeert JE, Tutein Nolthenius CJ, Kuipers EJ et al (2016) CT-colonography vs. colonoscopy for detection of high-risk sessile serrated polyps. Am J Gastroenterol 111:516–522CrossRefPubMed IJspeert JE, Tutein Nolthenius CJ, Kuipers EJ et al (2016) CT-colonography vs. colonoscopy for detection of high-risk sessile serrated polyps. Am J Gastroenterol 111:516–522CrossRefPubMed
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Mantellini P, Lippi G, Sali L et al (2018) Cost analysis of colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography in Italy. Eur J Health Econ 19:735–746CrossRefPubMed Mantellini P, Lippi G, Sali L et al (2018) Cost analysis of colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography in Italy. Eur J Health Econ 19:735–746CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Patients’ experience of screening CT colonography with reduced and full bowel preparation in a randomised trial
verfasst von
Lapo Sali
Leonardo Ventura
Grazia Grazzini
Alessandra Borgheresi
Silvia Delsanto
Massimo Falchini
Beatrice Mallardi
Paola Mantellini
Stefano Milani
Stefano Pallanti
Marco Zappa
Mario Mascalchi
Publikationsdatum
06.11.2018
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 5/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5808-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2019

European Radiology 5/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.