OBJECTIVE: Prior research indicates CT colonography (CTC) would be a cost-effective colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test if widespread availability were to increase overall CRC screening adherence rates. The primary aims of this multicenter study were to evaluate patient experience and satisfaction with CTC screening and compare preference against screening colonoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 12-question survey instrument measuring pretest choice, experience, and satisfaction was given to a consecutive cohort of adults undergoing CTC screening in three disparate screening settings: university academic center, military medical center, and community practice. The study cohort was composed of individuals voluntarily participating in clinical CTC screening programs. RESULTS: A total of 1417 patients responded to the survey. The top reasons for choosing CTC for screening included "noninvasiveness" (68.0%), "avoidance of sedation/anesthesia" (63.1%), "ability to drive after the test" (49.2%), "avoidance of optical colonoscopy risks" (46.9%), and "identifying abnormalities outside the colon" (43.3%). Only 7.2% of patients reported pain during the CTC examination and only 2.5% reported greater than moderate discomfort. Of 441 patients who had experienced both CTC and optical colonoscopy, 77.1% preferred CTC and 13.8% preferred optical colonoscopy. Of all patients, 29.6% indicated that they may not have undergone optical colonoscopy screening if CTC were not available. Of all patients, 92.9% labeled their overall experience with CTC as "excellent" or "good," and 93.0% indicated they would choose CTC for their next screening. CONCLUSION: Respondents reported a very high satisfaction level with CTC, and those who had experienced both modalities indicated a preference for CTC over optical colonoscopy. These results suggest that CTC has the potential to increase adherence to CRC screening guidelines if widely available.
OBJECTIVE: Prior research indicates CT colonography (CTC) would be a cost-effective colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test if widespread availability were to increase overall CRC screening adherence rates. The primary aims of this multicenter study were to evaluate patient experience and satisfaction with CTC screening and compare preference against screening colonoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 12-question survey instrument measuring pretest choice, experience, and satisfaction was given to a consecutive cohort of adults undergoing CTC screening in three disparate screening settings: university academic center, military medical center, and community practice. The study cohort was composed of individuals voluntarily participating in clinical CTC screening programs. RESULTS: A total of 1417 patients responded to the survey. The top reasons for choosing CTC for screening included "noninvasiveness" (68.0%), "avoidance of sedation/anesthesia" (63.1%), "ability to drive after the test" (49.2%), "avoidance of optical colonoscopy risks" (46.9%), and "identifying abnormalities outside the colon" (43.3%). Only 7.2% of patients reported pain during the CTC examination and only 2.5% reported greater than moderate discomfort. Of 441 patients who had experienced both CTC and optical colonoscopy, 77.1% preferred CTC and 13.8% preferred optical colonoscopy. Of all patients, 29.6% indicated that they may not have undergone optical colonoscopy screening if CTC were not available. Of all patients, 92.9% labeled their overall experience with CTC as "excellent" or "good," and 93.0% indicated they would choose CTC for their next screening. CONCLUSION: Respondents reported a very high satisfaction level with CTC, and those who had experienced both modalities indicated a preference for CTC over optical colonoscopy. These results suggest that CTC has the potential to increase adherence to CRC screening guidelines if widely available.
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; Inku Hwang; James A Butler; Michael L Puckett; Hans A Hildebrandt; Roy K Wong; Pamela A Nugent; Pauline A Mysliwiec; William R Schindler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J Patrick Waring; Todd H Baron; William K Hirota; Jay L Goldstein; Brian C Jacobson; Jonathan A Leighton; J Shawn Mallery; Douglas O Faigel Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Theodore J Shinners; Perry J Pickhardt; Andrew J Taylor; Debra A Jones; Cara H Olsen Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: A Graser; P Stieber; D Nagel; C Schäfer; D Horst; C R Becker; K Nikolaou; A Lottes; S Geisbüsch; H Kramer; A C Wagner; H Diepolder; J Schirra; H J Roth; D Seidel; B Göke; M F Reiser; F T Kolligs Journal: Gut Date: 2008-10-13 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Cesare Hassan; Andrea Laghi; Angelo Zullo; David H Kim; Sergio Morini Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sidney Winawer; Robert Fletcher; Douglas Rex; John Bond; Randall Burt; Joseph Ferrucci; Theodore Ganiats; Theodore Levin; Steven Woolf; David Johnson; Lynne Kirk; Scott Litin; Clifford Simmang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Michael Pignone; Melissa Rich; Steven M Teutsch; Alfred O Berg; Kathleen N Lohr Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-07-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sumedha V Chablani; Noah Cohen; Drusilla White; Steven H Itzkowitz; Katherine DuHamel; Lina Jandorf Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2017-10
Authors: Igor Trilisky; Kristen Wroblewski; Michael W Vannier; John M Horne; Abraham H Dachman Journal: Radiographics Date: 2014 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
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: 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