Lapo Sali1,2, Leonardo Ventura3, Grazia Grazzini3, Alessandra Borgheresi4, Silvia Delsanto5, Massimo Falchini6, Beatrice Mallardi3, Paola Mantellini3, Stefano Milani6, Stefano Pallanti7, Marco Zappa3, Mario Mascalchi6. 1. Department of Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences "Mario Serio", University of Florence, Viale Morgagni 50, 50134, Florence, Italy. lapo.sali@unifi.it. 2. IFCA Hospital, Via del Pergolino 6, 50139, Florence, Italy. lapo.sali@unifi.it. 3. Institute for Cancer Research, Prevention and Oncological Network (ISPRO), Via Cosimo il Vecchio 2, 50139, Florence, Italy. 4. School of Radiology, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Piazza Roma 22, 60121, Ancona, Italy. 5. im3D S.p.A, Via Livorno 60, 10153, Turin, Italy. 6. Department of Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences "Mario Serio", University of Florence, Viale Morgagni 50, 50134, Florence, Italy. 7. Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess patients' experience of bowel preparation and procedure for screening CT colonography with reduced (r-CTC) and full cathartic preparation (f-CTC) that showed similar detection rate for advanced neoplasia in a randomised trial. METHODS:Six hundred seventy-four subjects undergoing r-CTC and 612 undergoing f-CTC in the SAVE trial were asked to complete two pre-examination questionnaires-(1) Life Orientation Test - Revised (LOT-R) assessing optimism and (2) bowel preparation questionnaire-and a post-examination questionnaire evaluating overall experience of CTC screening test. Items were analysed with chi-square and t test separately and pooled. RESULTS:LOT-R was completed by 529 (78%) of r-CTC and by 462 (75%) of f-CTC participants and bowel preparation questionnaire by 531 (79%) subjects in the r-CTC group and by 465 (76%) in the f-CTC group. Post-examination questionnaire was completed by 525 (78%) subjects in the r-CTC group and by 453 (74%) in the f-CTC group. LOT-R average score was not different between r-CTC (14.27 ± 3.66) and f-CTC (14.54 ± 3.35) (p = 0.22). In bowel preparation questionnaire, 88% of r-CTC subjects reported no preparation-related symptoms as compared to 70% of f-CTC subjects (p < 0.001). No interference of bowel preparation with daily activities was reported in 80% of subjects in the r-CTC group as compared to 53% of subjects in the f-CTC group (p < 0.001). In post-examination questionnaire, average scores for discomfort of the procedure were not significantly different between r-CTC (3.53 ± 0.04) and f-CTC (3.59 ± 0.04) groups (p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Reduced bowel preparation is better tolerated than full preparation for screening CT colonography. KEY POINTS: • Reduced bowel preparation is better tolerated than full preparation for screening CT colonography. • Procedure-related discomfort of screening CT colonography is not influenced by bowel preparation. • Males tolerate bowel preparation and CT colonography screening procedure better than females.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To assess patients' experience of bowel preparation and procedure for screening CT colonography with reduced (r-CTC) and full cathartic preparation (f-CTC) that showed similar detection rate for advanced neoplasia in a randomised trial. METHODS: Six hundred seventy-four subjects undergoing r-CTC and 612 undergoing f-CTC in the SAVE trial were asked to complete two pre-examination questionnaires-(1) Life Orientation Test - Revised (LOT-R) assessing optimism and (2) bowel preparation questionnaire-and a post-examination questionnaire evaluating overall experience of CTC screening test. Items were analysed with chi-square and t test separately and pooled. RESULTS: LOT-R was completed by 529 (78%) of r-CTC and by 462 (75%) of f-CTCparticipants and bowel preparation questionnaire by 531 (79%) subjects in the r-CTC group and by 465 (76%) in the f-CTC group. Post-examination questionnaire was completed by 525 (78%) subjects in the r-CTC group and by 453 (74%) in the f-CTC group. LOT-R average score was not different between r-CTC (14.27 ± 3.66) and f-CTC (14.54 ± 3.35) (p = 0.22). In bowel preparation questionnaire, 88% of r-CTC subjects reported no preparation-related symptoms as compared to 70% of f-CTC subjects (p < 0.001). No interference of bowel preparation with daily activities was reported in 80% of subjects in the r-CTC group as compared to 53% of subjects in the f-CTC group (p < 0.001). In post-examination questionnaire, average scores for discomfort of the procedure were not significantly different between r-CTC (3.53 ± 0.04) and f-CTC (3.59 ± 0.04) groups (p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Reduced bowel preparation is better tolerated than full preparation for screening CT colonography. KEY POINTS: • Reduced bowel preparation is better tolerated than full preparation for screening CT colonography. • Procedure-related discomfort of screening CT colonography is not influenced by bowel preparation. • Males tolerate bowel preparation and CT colonography screening procedure better than females.
Authors: Thomas R de Wijkerslooth; Margriet C de Haan; Esther M Stoop; Patrick M Bossuyt; Maarten Thomeer; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Monique E van Leerdam; Paul Fockens; Ernst J Kuipers; Jaap Stoker; Evelien Dekker Journal: Gut Date: 2011-12-23 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Heide Glaesmer; Winfried Rief; Alexandra Martin; Ricarda Mewes; Elmar Brähler; Markus Zenger; Andreas Hinz Journal: Br J Health Psychol Date: 2011-07-21
Authors: Andrew M D Wolf; Elizabeth T H Fontham; Timothy R Church; Christopher R Flowers; Carmen E Guerra; Samuel J LaMonte; Ruth Etzioni; Matthew T McKenna; Kevin C Oeffinger; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Louise C Walter; Kimberly S Andrews; Otis W Brawley; Durado Brooks; Stacey A Fedewa; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Rebecca L Siegel; Richard C Wender; Robert A Smith Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Thomas R de Wijkerslooth; Margriet C de Haan; Esther M Stoop; Patrick M Bossuyt; Maarten Thomeer; Monique E van Leerdam; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Paul Fockens; Ernst J Kuipers; Jaap Stoker; Evelien Dekker Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Karina W Davidson; John W Epling; Francisco A R García; Matthew W Gillman; Diane M Harper; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Ann E Kurth; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Douglas K Owens; William R Phillips; Maureen G Phipps; Michael P Pignone; Albert L Siu Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: M H Liedenbaum; M J Denters; F M Zijta; V F van Ravesteijn; S Bipat; F M Vos; E Dekker; J Stoker Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2010-09-29 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: C Hassan; M Bretthauer; M F Kaminski; M Polkowski; B Rembacken; B Saunders; R Benamouzig; O Holme; S Green; T Kuiper; R Marmo; M Omar; L Petruzziello; C Spada; A Zullo; J M Dumonceau Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2013-01-18 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Cristiano Spada; Cesare Hassan; Davide Bellini; David Burling; Giovanni Cappello; Cristina Carretero; Evelien Dekker; Rami Eliakim; Margriet de Haan; Michal F Kaminski; Anastasios Koulaouzidis; Andrea Laghi; Philippe Lefere; Thomas Mang; Sebastian Manuel Milluzzo; Martina Morrin; Deirdre McNamara; Emanuele Neri; Silvia Pecere; Mathieu Pioche; Andrew Plumb; Emanuele Rondonotti; Manon Cw Spaander; Stuart Taylor; Ignacio Fernandez-Urien; Jeanin E van Hooft; Jaap Stoker; Daniele Regge Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-05 Impact factor: 5.315