Literature DB >> 14500202

Acceptance by patients of multidetector CT colonography compared with barium enema examinations, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy.

Stuart A Taylor1, Steve Halligan, Brian P Saunders, Paul Bassett, Maggie Vance, Clive I Bartram.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare patient acceptance of multidetector CT colonography, total colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema to ascertain any overall preference. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. One hundred sixty-eight patients underwent CT colonography followed by either flexible sigmoidoscopy (n = 59) or colonoscopy (n = 109). A 25-point questionnaire with principal components relating to satisfaction, worry, and physical discomfort was administered after CT colonography and after endoscopy, and a follow-up questionnaire was administered 1 week after the procedures. Questionnaires were also completed by 140 patients undergoing double-contrast barium enema examinations. Responses were compared using Wilcoxon's matched pairs test and the Mann-Whitney test.
RESULTS: Overall satisfaction was greater with colonoscopy (p = 0.01), but CT colonography caused less discomfort (p = 0.002), was better tolerated (p = 0.005), and was the preferred follow-up investigation of those expressing a preference (p = 0.003). Compared with flexible sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography caused less pain (p = 0.004), was more acceptable (p = 0.04), and was preferred as the follow-up investigation (p < 0.001). Tolerance of colonoscopy was significantly less in women (p = 0.03), but such was not the case for CT colonography (p = 0.58). Patients undergoing CT colonography were less worried (p < 0.001), were more satisfied (p = 0.001), and suffered less discomfort (p < 0.001) than those having barium enema.
CONCLUSION: Patients' experiences with barium enema examinations were significantly worse than with any other test. Although patients were most satisfied with colonoscopy, they reported more pain during both colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy than during CT colonography, and they also found CT more acceptable. In patients expressing a preference, CT colonography was the preferred follow-up investigation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14500202     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.181.4.1810913

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  29 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic colonography screening for colorectal cancer in the medicare population.

Authors:  Amy B Knudsen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Carolyn M Rutter; James E Savarino; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz; Ann G Zauber
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-07-27       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Detection of relevant colonic neoplasms with PET/CT: promising accuracy with minimal CT dose and a standardised PET cut-off.

Authors:  Wolfgang Luboldt; Teresa Volker; Bärbel Wiedemann; Klaus Zöphel; Ursula Wehrmann; Arne Koch; Todd Toussaint; Nasreddin Abolmaali; Markus Middendorp; Daniela Aust; Jörg Kotzerke; Frank Grünwald; Thomas J Vogl; Hans-Joachim Luboldt
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  CT colonography in cancer detection: methods and results.

Authors:  Wolfgang Schima; Thomas Mang
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2004-04-06       Impact factor: 3.909

Review 4.  Investigating rectal bleeding.

Authors:  David Burling; James E East; Stuart A Taylor
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-12-15

5.  Comparative economic evaluation of data from the ACRIN National CT Colonography Trial with three cancer intervention and surveillance modeling network microsimulations.

Authors:  David J Vanness; Amy B Knudsen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Carolyn M Rutter; Ilana F Gareen; Benjamin A Herman; Karen M Kuntz; Ann G Zauber; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Eric J Feuer; Mei-Hsiu Chen; C Daniel Johnson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-08-03       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  CT colonography and cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  Ifigeneia Mavranezouli; James E East; Stuart A Taylor
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-06-27       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Role of CT colonography in symptomatic assessment, surveillance and screening.

Authors:  L Maximilian Almond; Douglas M Bowley; Sharad S Karandikar; Shuvro H Roy-Choudhury
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2011-03-19       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Predictors of CT colonography utilization among asymptomatic medicare beneficiaries.

Authors:  Hanna M Zafar; Jianing Yang; Michael Harhay; Anna Lev-Toaff; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  At what costs will screening with CT colonography be competitive? A cost-effectiveness approach.

Authors:  Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber; Rob Boer; Janneke Wilschut; J Dik F Habbema
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2009-03-01       Impact factor: 7.396

10.  Using CT colonography as a triage technique after a positive faecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  M H Liedenbaum; A F van Rijn; A H de Vries; H M Dekker; M Thomeer; C J van Marrewijk; L Hol; M G W Dijkgraaf; P Fockens; P M M Bossuyt; E Dekker; J Stoker
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 23.059

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.