Literature DB >> 17522866

MR colonography vs. optical colonoscopy: comparison of patients' acceptance in a screening population.

Sonja Kinner1, Christiane A Kuehle, Jost Langhorst, Susanne C Ladd, Michael Nuefer, Thomas Zoepf, Joerg Barkhausen, Guido Gerken, Thomas C Lauenstein.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare optical colonoscopy to fecal-tagging-based MR colonography in a screening population in terms of comfort and acceptance ratings as well as for future preferences as colorectal cancer screening examinations. Two hundred eighty-four asymptomatic patients (mean age 59 years) underwent MRC and OC within 4 weeks. While MRC was based on a fecal tagging technique, OC was performed after bowel cleansing. For OC, sedatives and analgesics were used. Patients evaluated both modalities and certain aspects of the examination according to a 10-point-scale with higher scores denoting a worse experience. Furthermore, preferences for future examinations were evaluated. No significant difference was noted for the overall acceptance of OC (mean value 3.0) and MRC (mean value 3.4). For MRC, the placement of the rectal tube was rated as the most unpleasant part, whereas bowel purgation was regarded most inconvenient for OC. Patients aged 55 years and older perceived most aspects less unpleasant than younger patients. Of the patients, 46% preferred MRC for future screening examinations (OC: 44%). OC and MRC have comparable general acceptance levels in a screening population. Especially for patients declining endoscopy as a screening method MRC may evolve as an attractive alternative.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17522866     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-007-0643-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  31 in total

1.  Complications of colonoscopy.

Authors:  Jason A Dominitz; Glenn M Eisen; Todd H Baron; Jay L Goldstein; William K Hirota; Brian C Jacobson; John F Johanson; Jonathan A Leighton; J Shawn Mallery; Hareth M Raddawi; John J Vargo; J Patrick Waring; Robert D Fanelli; Jo Wheeler-Harbough; Douglas O Faigel
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Health effects of ionising radiation from diagnostic CT.

Authors:  Diego R Martin; Richard C Semelka
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2006-05-27       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Cancer statistics, 2005.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Taylor Murray; Elizabeth Ward; Alicia Samuels; Ram C Tiwari; Asma Ghafoor; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 508.702

4.  Trends in screening for colorectal cancer--United States, 1997 and 1999.

Authors: 
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2001-03-09       Impact factor: 17.586

5.  Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease.

Authors:  Maria H Svensson; Elisabeth Svensson; Anders Lasson; Mikael Hellström
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue?

Authors:  M Thomeer; D Bielen; D Vanbeckevoort; S Dymarkowski; A Gevers; P Rutgeerts; M Hiele; E Van Cutsem; G Marchal
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-04-24       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences.

Authors:  Thomas M Gluecker; C Daniel Johnson; William S Harmsen; Kenneth P Offord; Ann M Harris; Lynn A Wilson; David A Ahlquist
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 11.105

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

Authors:  Rogier E van Gelder; Erwin Birnie; Jasper Florie; Michiel P Schutter; Joep F Bartelsman; Pleun Snel; Johan S Laméris; Gouke J Bonsel; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-09-09       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Gavin C Harewood; Maurits J Wiersema; L Joseph Melton
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  CT colonography of colorectal polyps: a metaanalysis.

Authors:  Jacob Sosna; Martina M Morrin; Jonathan B Kruskal; Philip T Lavin; Max P Rosen; Vassilios Raptopoulos
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  [MR colography: technique, indications, and findings].

Authors:  T C Lauenstein; S Kinner; S C Ladd
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 0.635

2.  Patient experiences of MR colonography and colonoscopy: a qualitative study.

Authors:  R Hafeez; C V Wagner; S Smith; P Boulos; S Halligan; S Bloom; S A Taylor
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 3.  Preference for colonoscopy versus computerized tomographic colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Authors:  Otto S Lin; Richard A Kozarek; Michael Gluck; Geoffrey C Jiranek; Johannes Koch; Kris V Kowdley; Shayan Irani; Matthew Nguyen; Jason A Dominitz
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  The potential of imaging techniques as a screening tool for colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Marjolein J E Greuter; Johannes Berkhof; Remond J A Fijneman; Erhan Demirel; Jie-Bin Lew; Gerrit A Meijer; Jaap Stoker; Veerle M H Coupé
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Satisfaction and experience with colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review of validated patient reported outcome measures.

Authors:  A Selva; C Selva; Y Álvarez-Pérez; N Torà; P López; R Terraza-Núñez; V Rodríguez; I Solà
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-10-27       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  Dark-lumen MR colonography with fecal tagging: a comparison of water enema and air methods of colonic distension for detecting colonic neoplasms.

Authors:  Sonia Rodriguez Gomez; Mario Pagés Llinas; Antoni Castells Garangou; Carmen De Juan Garcia; Josep M Bordas Alsina; Jordi Rimola Gibert; Juan R Ayuso Colella; Carmen Ayuso Colella
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-03-05       Impact factor: 7.034

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.