Literature DB >> 15358854

CT colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study.

Rogier E van Gelder1, Erwin Birnie, Jasper Florie, Michiel P Schutter, Joep F Bartelsman, Pleun Snel, Johan S Laméris, Gouke J Bonsel, Jaap Stoker.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate short- and midterm patient preference of computed tomographic (CT) colonography relative to colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer and to elucidate determinants of preference.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer underwent CT colonography prior to scheduled colonoscopy. Patient experience and preference were assessed both directly after the examinations and 5 weeks after the examinations. Differences in pain, embarrassment, discomfort, and preference were assessed with the Wilcoxon signed rank sum test or a binomial test. Potential determinants of preference were investigated with logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: Data for 249 patients were included. Fewer patients experienced severe or extreme pain during CT colonography (seven [3%] of 245) than during colonoscopy (81 [34%] of 241) (P < .001). Directly after both examinations, 168 (71%) of 236 patients preferred CT colonography; 5 weeks later, 141 (61%) of 233 patients preferred CT colonography (P < .001). Initially, a painful colonoscopy examination (odds ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.08, 0.38) was a determinant of CT colonography preference. Similarly, a painful (odds ratio, 3.70; 95% CI: 1.54, 8.92) or an embarrassing (odds ratio, 4.46; 95% CI: 1.18, 16.88) CT colonography examination was a determinant of colonoscopy preference. After 5 weeks, the presence of polyps emerged as a determinant of colonoscopy preference (odds ratio, 1.94; 95% CI: 1.02, 3.70), while the role of experiences waned.
CONCLUSION: Patients preferred CT colonography to colonoscopy; however, this preference decreased in time, while outcome considerations gradually replaced temporary experiences of inconvenience.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15358854     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2331031208

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  43 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Current status of CT colonography.

Authors:  Suzanne M Frentz; Ronald M Summers
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy computer-aided polyp detection in a screening population.

Authors:  Ronald M Summers; Jianhua Yao; Perry J Pickhardt; Marek Franaszek; Ingmar Bitter; Daniel Brickman; Vamsi Krishna; J Richard Choi
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  CT colonography: advanced computer-aided detection scheme utilizing MTANNs for detection of "missed" polyps in a multicenter clinical trial.

Authors:  Kenji Suzuki; Don C Rockey; Abraham H Dachman
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Does training and experience influence the accuracy of computed tomography colonography interpretation?

Authors:  Greg Rosenfeld; Yi Tzu Nancy Fu; Brendan Quiney; Hong Qian; Darin Krygier; Jacquie Brown; Patrick Vos; Pari Tiwari; Jennifer Telford; Brian Bressler; Robert Enns
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-02-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 6.  Perforation rate in CT colonography: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Davide Bellini; Marco Rengo; Carlo Nicola De Cecco; Franco Iafrate; Cesare Hassan; Andrea Laghi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Patients' perception of diagnostic tests in the preoperative assessment of esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Marinke Westerterp; Henderik L van Westreenen; Marije Deutekom; Jaap Stoker; Paul Fockens; Emile Fi Comans; John Tm Plukker; Patrick Mm Bossuyt; J Jan B van Lanschot; Gerrit W Sloof
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2008-02-02       Impact factor: 2.711

8.  CT colonography with minimal bowel preparation: evaluation of tagging quality, patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy in two iodine-based preparation schemes.

Authors:  Marjolein H Liedenbaum; A H de Vries; C I B F Gouw; A F van Rijn; S Bipat; E Dekker; J Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-08-26       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Polyp measurement based on CT colonography and colonoscopy: variability and systematic differences.

Authors:  Ayso H de Vries; Shandra Bipat; Evelien Dekker; Marjolein H Liedenbaum; Jasper Florie; Paul Fockens; Roel van der Kraan; Elizabeth M Mathus-Vliegen; Johannes B Reitsma; Roel Truyen; Frans M Vos; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 5.315

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.