OBJECTIVE: While colonoscopy is currently the preferred test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, the invasive and time-consuming characteristics of the test are often cited as reasons for noncompliance with screening. CT colonography (CTC) is a less invasive screening method that is comparable to colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. The aim of this project was to assess patient preferences between colonoscopy and CTC in an open access system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred fifty consecutive average-risk patients undergoing CRC screening completed a survey that assessed reasons for choosing CTC in lieu of colonoscopy, compliance with CRC screening if CTC was not offered, and which of the two tests they preferred. RESULTS: The most common reasons for undergoing CTC included convenience (33.6%), recommendation by referring provider (13.2%), and perceived safety (10.8%). Had CTC not been an available option, 91 of the 250 patients (36%) would have foregone CRC screening. Among the 57 patients who had experienced both procedures, 95% (n = 54) preferred CTC. CONCLUSION: These findings show the importance of providing CTC as an alternative screening option for CRC at our institution, which may increase CRC adherence screening rates.
OBJECTIVE: While colonoscopy is currently the preferred test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, the invasive and time-consuming characteristics of the test are often cited as reasons for noncompliance with screening. CT colonography (CTC) is a less invasive screening method that is comparable to colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. The aim of this project was to assess patient preferences between colonoscopy and CTC in an open access system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred fifty consecutive average-risk patients undergoing CRC screening completed a survey that assessed reasons for choosing CTC in lieu of colonoscopy, compliance with CRC screening if CTC was not offered, and which of the two tests they preferred. RESULTS: The most common reasons for undergoing CTC included convenience (33.6%), recommendation by referring provider (13.2%), and perceived safety (10.8%). Had CTC not been an available option, 91 of the 250 patients (36%) would have foregone CRC screening. Among the 57 patients who had experienced both procedures, 95% (n = 54) preferred CTC. CONCLUSION: These findings show the importance of providing CTC as an alternative screening option for CRC at our institution, which may increase CRC adherence screening rates.
Authors: B Dustin Pooler; Meghan G Lubner; David H Kim; Eva M Ryckman; Sri Sivalingam; Jie Tang; Stephen Y Nakada; Guang-Hong Chen; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-05-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: B Dustin Pooler; David H Kim; Cesare Hassan; Antonio Rinaldi; Elizabeth S Burnside; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: David S Weinberg; Perry J Pickhardt; David H Bruining; Kristin Edwards; Joel G Fletcher; Marc J Gollub; Eileen M Keenan; Sonia S Kupfer; Tianyu Li; Sam J Lubner; Arnold J Markowitz; Eric A Ross Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: B Dustin Pooler; Mark J Baumel; Brooks D Cash; Fouad J Moawad; Mark S Riddle; Amy M Patrick; Mark Damiano; Matthew H Lee; David H Kim; Alejandro Muñoz del Rio; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mark Benson; Jeff Pier; Sally Kraft; David Kim; Perry Pickhardt; Jennifer Weiss; Deepak Gopal; Mark Reichelderfer; Patrick Pfau Journal: J Gastrointestin Liver Dis Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 2.008