Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 7/2014

Open Access 01-07-2014 | Gastrointestinal

Non- or full-laxative CT colonography vs. endoscopic tests for colorectal cancer screening: A randomised survey comparing public perceptions and intentions to undergo testing

Authors: Alex Ghanouni, Steve Halligan, Andrew Plumb, Darren Boone, Jane Wardle, Christian von Wagner

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 7/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

Compare public perceptions and intentions to undergo colorectal cancer screening tests following detailed information regarding CT colonography (CTC; after non-laxative preparation or full-laxative preparation), optical colonoscopy (OC) or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS).

Methods

A total of 3,100 invitees approaching screening age (45-54 years) were randomly allocated to receive detailed information on a single test and asked to return a questionnaire. Outcomes included perceptions of preparation and test tolerability, health benefits, sensitivity and specificity, and intention to undergo the test.

Results

Six hundred three invitees responded with valid questionnaire data. Non-laxative preparation was rated more positively than enema or full-laxative preparations [effect size (r) = 0.13 to 0.54; p < 0.0005 to 0.036]; both forms of CTC and FS were rated more positively than OC in terms of test experience (r = 0.26 to 0.28; all p-values < 0.0005). Perceptions of health benefits, sensitivity and specificity (p = 0.250 to 0.901), and intention to undergo the test (p = 0.213) did not differ between tests (n = 144-155 for each test).

Conclusions

Despite non-laxative CTC being rated more favourably, this study did not find evidence that offering it would lead to substantially higher uptake than full-laxative CTC or other methods. However, this study was limited by a lower than anticipated response rate.

Key Points

• Improving uptake of colorectal cancer screening tests could improve health benefits
• Potential invitees rate CTC and flexible sigmoidoscopy more positively than colonoscopy
• Non-laxative bowel preparation is rated better than enema or full-laxative preparations
• These positive perceptions alone may not be sufficient to improve uptake
• Health benefits and accuracy are rated similarly for preventative screening tests
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brooks D, Saslow D, Shah M, Brawley OW (2011) Cancer screening in the United States, 2011. CA Cancer J Clin 61:8–30PubMedCrossRef
2.
von Wagner C, Baio G, Raine R et al (2011) Inequalities in participation in an organized national colorectal cancer screening programme: results from the first 2.6 million invitations in England. Int J Epidemiol 40:712–718CrossRef
3.
The NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care (2012) Breast Screening Programme, England 2010–2011, p 1–127
4.
The NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care (2011) Cervical screening programme, England 2010–2011, p 1–108
5.
de Haan MC, van Gelder RE, Graser A, Bipat S, Stoker J (2011) Diagnostic value of CT-colonography as compared to colonoscopy in an asymptomatic screening population: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 21:1747–1763PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
6.
de Wijkerslooth TR, de Haan MC, Stoop EM et al (2012) Burden of colonoscopy compared to non-cathartic CT-colonography in a colorectal cancer screening programme: randomised controlled trial. Gut 61:1552–1559PubMedCrossRef
7.
Mahgerefteh S, Fraifeld S, Blachar A, Sosna J (2009) CT colonography with decreased purgation: balancing preparation, performance, and patient acceptance. Am J Roentgenol 193:1531–1539CrossRef
8.
Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP (2003) Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 98:578–585PubMedCrossRef
9.
von Wagner C, Smith S, Halligan S et al (2011) Patient acceptability of CT colonography compared with double contrast barium enema: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial of symptomatic patients. Eur Radiol 21:2046–2055CrossRef
10.
Pickhardt PJ (2007) Colonic preparation for computed tomographic colonography: understanding the relative advantages and disadvantages of a noncathartic approach. Mayo Clin Proc 82:659–661PubMedCrossRef
11.
Ghanouni A, Halligan S, Taylor SA et al (2013) Evaluating patients’ preferences for type of bowel preparation prior to screening CT colonography: convenience and comfort versus sensitivity and specificity. Clin Radiol 68:1140–1145PubMedCrossRef
12.
13.
Hawley ST, Volk RJ, Krishnamurthy P, Jibaja-Weiss M, Vernon SW, Kneuper S (2008) Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients. Med Care 46:S10–S16PubMedCrossRef
14.
Hol L, de Bekker-Grob EW, van Dam L et al (2010) Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer 102:972–980PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
15.
van Dam L, Hol L, de Bekker-Grob EW et al (2010) What determines individuals’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening programmes? A discrete choice experiment. Eur J Cancer 46:150–159PubMedCrossRef
16.
Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Phillips KA, Marshall JK, Thabane L, Kulin NA (2007) Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health 10:415–430PubMedCrossRef
17.
18.
UK National Screening Committee (2000) Second report of the UK National Screening Committee, p 1–28
19.
20.
21.
Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I et al (2010) Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 375:1624–1633PubMedCrossRef
22.
Atkin WS, Cook CF, Cuzick J, Edwards R, Northover JMA, Wardle J (2002) Single flexible sigmoidoscopy screening to prevent colorectal cancer: baseline findings of a UK multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 359:1291–130020PubMedCrossRef
23.
Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I et al (2003) Computed Tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349:2191–2200PubMedCrossRef
24.
Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, MacCarty RL et al (2007) Effect of slice thickness and primary 2D versus 3D virtual dissection on colorectal lesion detection at CT colonography in 452 asymptomatic adults. Am J Roentgenol 189:672–680CrossRef
25.
26.
Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D et al (2009) Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut 58:241–248PubMedCrossRef
27.
Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Halligan S, Marmo R (2011) Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection — systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 259:393–405PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
28.
Zalis ME, Blake MA, Cai W et al (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of laxative-free computed tomographic colonography for detection of adenomatous polyps in asymptomatic adults. A prospective evaluation. Ann Intern Med 156:692–702PubMedCrossRef
29.
Johnson CD, Manduca A, Fletcher JG et al (2008) Noncathartic CT colonography with stool tagging: performance with and without electronic stool subtraction. Am J Roentgenol 190:361–366CrossRef
30.
Callstrom MR, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG et al (2001) CT colonography without cathartic preparation: feasibility study. Radiology 219:693–698PubMedCrossRef
31.
Halligan S, Altman DG, Taylor SA et al (2005) CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting. Radiology 237:893–904PubMedCrossRef
32.
Atalla MA, Rozen WM, Niewiadomski OD, Croxford MA, Cheung W, Ho Y-H (2010) Risk factors for colonic perforation after screening computed tomographic colonography: a multicentre analysis and review of the literature. J Med Screen 17:99–102PubMedCrossRef
33.
Iafrate F, Iussich G, Correale L et al (2013) Adverse events of computed tomography colonography: an Italian National Survey. Dig Liver Dis 45:645–650PubMedCrossRef
34.
Berrington de González A, Kim KP, Knudsen AB et al (2011) Radiation-related cancer risks from CT colonography screening: a risk-benefit analysis. Am J Roentgenol 196:816–823CrossRef
35.
Fox MC, Ericsson KA, Best R (2011) Do procedures for verbal reporting of thinking have to be reactive? A meta-analysis and recommendations for best reporting methods. Psychol Bull 137:316–344PubMedCrossRef
36.
Atkin WS, Edwards R, Wardle J et al (2001) Design of a multicentre randomised trial to evaluate flexible sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. J Med Screen 8:137–144PubMedCrossRef
37.
Power E, van Jaarsveld CH, McCaffery K, Miles A, Atkin W, Wardle J (2008) Understanding intentions and action in colorectal cancer screening. Ann Behav Med 35:285–294PubMedCrossRef
38.
Sutton S, Bickler G, Sancho-Aldridge J, Saidi G (1994) Prospective study of predictors of attendance for breast screening in inner London. J Epidemiol Community Health 48:65–73PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
39.
Champion VL (1984) Instrument development for health belief model constructs. Adv Nurs Sci 6:73–85CrossRef
40.
Olamijulo JA, Duncan ID (1997) Patient-based evaluation of a colposcopy information leaflet. J Obstet Gynaecol 17:394–398PubMedCrossRef
41.
Weinstein ND, Kwitel A, McCaul KD, Magnan RE, Gerrard M, Gibbons FX (2007) Risk perceptions: assessment and relationship to influenza vaccination. Health Psychol 26:146–151PubMedCrossRef
42.
Wardle J, McCaffery K, Nadel M, Atkin W (2004) Socioeconomic differences in cancer screening participation: comparing cognitive and psychosocial explanations. Soc Sci Med 59:249–261PubMedCrossRef
43.
Khalid-de Bakker C, Jonkers D, Smits K, Mesters I, Masclee A, Stockbrügger R (2011) Participation in colorectal cancer screening trials after first-time invitation: a systematic review. Endoscopy 43:1059–1086PubMedCrossRef
44.
Stoop EM, de Haan MC, de Wijkerslooth TR et al (2012) Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 13:55–64PubMedCrossRef
45.
Sterne JAC, White IR, Carlin JB et al (2009) Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. Br Med J 338:b2393CrossRef
46.
Lin OS, Kozarek RA, Gluck M et al (2012) Preference for colonoscopy versus computerized tomographic colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. J Gen Intern Med 27:1349–1360PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
47.
Sutton S, Wardle J, Taylor T et al (2000) Predictors of attendance in the United Kingdom flexible sigmoidoscopy screening trial. J Med Screen 7:99–104PubMedCrossRef
48.
Orbell S, Perugini M, Rakow T (2004) Individual differences in sensitivity to health communications: consideration of future consequences. Health Psychol 23:388–396PubMedCrossRef
49.
Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK (2001) General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Dec Making 21:37–44CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Non- or full-laxative CT colonography vs. endoscopic tests for colorectal cancer screening: A randomised survey comparing public perceptions and intentions to undergo testing
Authors
Alex Ghanouni
Steve Halligan
Andrew Plumb
Darren Boone
Jane Wardle
Christian von Wagner
Publication date
01-07-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 7/2014
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3187-9

Other articles of this Issue 7/2014

European Radiology 7/2014 Go to the issue

Breast

Underestimation rate of lobular intraepithelial neoplasia in vacuum-assisted breast biopsy

Musculoskeletal

Femoroacetabular impingement: normal values of the quantitative morphometric parameters in asymptomatic hips

Urogenital

Blood oxygenation level-dependent MR imaging as a predictor of therapeutic response to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in cervical cancer: a preliminary experience

Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Perfusion CT best predicts outcome after radioembolization of liver metastases: a comparison of radionuclide and CT imaging techniques

Ultrasound

Assessment of renal tissue elasticity by acoustic radiation force impulse quantification with histopathological correlation: preliminary experience in chronic kidney disease

Magnetic Resonance

Clinical value of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome: diagnosis of associated malformations, uterine rudiments and intrauterine endometrium