Top

Published in:

01-05-2019 | Gastrointestinal

Patients’ experience of screening CT colonography with reduced and full bowel preparation in a randomised trial

Authors: Lapo Sali, Leonardo Ventura, Grazia Grazzini, Alessandra Borgheresi, Silvia Delsanto, Massimo Falchini, Beatrice Mallardi, Paola Mantellini, Stefano Milani, Stefano Pallanti, Marco Zappa, Mario Mascalchi

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 5/2019

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.

Available only for authorised users

US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC et al (2016) Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 315:2564–2575

Wolf AMD, Fontham ETH, Church TR et al (2018) Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin 68:250–281CrossRefPubMed

Spada C, Stoker J, Alarcon O et al (2015) Clinical indications for computed tomographic colonography: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline. Eur Radiol 25:331–345CrossRefPubMed

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 13:55–64CrossRefPubMed

Regge D, Iussich G, Segnan N et al (2017) Comparing CT colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy: a randomised trial within a population-based screening programme. Gut 66:1434–1440CrossRefPubMed

Sali L, Mascalchi M, Falchini M et al (2015) Reduced and full-preparation CT colonography, fecal immunochemical test, and colonoscopy for population screening of colorectal cancer: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 108. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv319

Sali L, Regge D (2016) CT colonography for population screening of colorectal cancer: hints from European trials. Br J Radiol 89:20160517CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Tutein Nolthenius CJ, Boellaard TN, de Haan MC et al (2016) Computer tomography colonography participation and yield in patients under surveillance for 6-9 mm polyps in a population-based screening trial. Eur Radiol 26:2762–2770CrossRefPubMed

Giorgi Rossi P, Camilloni L, Cogo C et al (2012) Methods to increase participation in cancer screening programmes. Epidemiol Prev 36:1–104PubMed

10.

Wools A, Dapper EA, de Leeuw JRJ (2016) Colorectal cancer screening participation: a systematic review. Eur J Pub Health 26:158–168CrossRef

11.

Cossu G, Saba L, Minerba L, Mascalchi M (2018) Colorectal cancer screening: the role of psychological, social and background factors in decision-making process. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health 14:63–69CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

de Wijkerslooth TR, de Haan MC, Stoop EM et al (2012) Reasons for participation and nonparticipation in colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial of colonoscopy and CT colonography. Am J Gastroenterol 107:1777–1783CrossRefPubMed

13.

Senore C, Correale L, Regge D et al (2018) Flexible sigmoidoscopy and CT colonography screening: patients’ experience with and factors for undergoing screening-insight from the Proteus Colon Trial. Radiology 286:873–883CrossRefPubMed

14.

Utano K, Nagata K, Honda T et al (2017) Diagnostic performance and patient acceptance of reduced-laxative CT colonography for the detection of polypoid and non-polypoid neoplasms: a multicenter prospective trial. Radiology 282:399–407CrossRefPubMed

15.

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 156:692–702CrossRefPubMed

16.

Sali L, Grazzini G, Carozzi F et al (2013) Screening for colorectal cancer with FOBT, virtual colonoscopy and optical colonoscopy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial in the Florence district (SAVE study). Trials 14:74CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Scheier MF, Carver CS, Bridges MW (1994) Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the life orientation test. J Pers Soc Psychol 67:1063–1078CrossRef

18.

Senore C, Ederle A, Fantin A et al (2011) Acceptability and side-effects of colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy in a screening setting. J Med Screen 18:128–134CrossRefPubMed

19.

Campanella D, Morra L, Delsanto S et al (2010) Comparison of three different iodine-based bowel regimens for CT colonography. Eur Radiol 20:348–358CrossRefPubMed

20.

Nagata K, Okawa T, Honma A, Endo S, Kudo SE, Yoshida H (2009) Full-laxative versus minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CT colonography using 64-detector row CT: prospective blinded comparison of diagnostic performance, tagging quality, and patient acceptance. Acad Radiol 16:780–789

21.

Jensch S, Bipat S, Peringa J et al (2010) CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation. Eur Radiol 20:146–156CrossRefPubMed

22.

Iafrate F, Iannitti M, Ciolina M, Baldassari P, Pichi A, Laghi A (2015) Bowel cleansing before CT colonography: comparison between two minimal-preparation regimens. Eur Radiol 25:203–210

23.

Pollentine A, Mortimer A, McCoubrie P, Archer L (2012) Evaluation of two minimal-preparation regimes for CT colonography: optimising image quality and patient acceptability. Br J Radiol 85:1085–1092CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Jensch S, de Vries AH, Pot D et al (2008) Image quality and patient acceptance of four regimens with different amounts of mild laxatives for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:158–167CrossRefPubMed

25.

Glaesmer H, Rief W, Martin A et al (2012) Psychometric properties and population-based norms of the Life Orientation Test Revised (LOT-R). Br J Health Psychol 17:432–445CrossRefPubMed

26.

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 61:1552–1559CrossRefPubMed

27.

Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF et al (2013) Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 45:142–150CrossRefPubMed

28.

Wardle J, Miles A, Atkin W (2005) Gender differences in utilization of colorectal cancer screening. J Med Screen 12:20–27CrossRefPubMed

29.

Farraye FA, Wong M, Hurwitz S et al (2004) Barriers to endoscopic colorectal cancer screening: are women different from men? Am J Gastroenterol 99:341–349CrossRefPubMed

30.

Seeff LC, Nadel MR, Klabunde CN et al (2004) Patterns and predictors of colorectal cancer test use in the adult U.S. population. Cancer 100:2093–2103CrossRefPubMed

31.

Obaro AE, Plumb AA, Fanshawe TR et al (2018) Post-imaging colorectal cancer or interval cancer rates after CT colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 3:326–336CrossRefPubMed

32.

Liedenbaum MH, Denters MJ, Zijta FM et al (2011) Reducing the oral contrast dose in CT colonography: evaluation of faecal tagging quality and patient acceptance. Clin Radiol 66:30–37CrossRefPubMed

33.

Liedenbaum MH, de Vries AH, Gouw CI et al (2010) CT colonography with minimal bowel preparation: evaluation of tagging quality, patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy in two iodine-based preparation schemes. Eur Radiol 20:367–376CrossRefPubMed

34.

Ghanouni A, Halligan S, Plumb A, Boone D, Wardle J, von Wagner C (2014) Non- or full-laxative CT colonography vs. endoscopic tests for colorectal cancer screening: a randomised survey comparing public perceptions and intentions to undergo testing. Eur Radiol 24:1477–1486

35.

IJspeert JE, Tutein Nolthenius CJ, Kuipers EJ et al (2016) CT-colonography vs. colonoscopy for detection of high-risk sessile serrated polyps. Am J Gastroenterol 111:516–522CrossRefPubMed

36.

Mantellini P, Lippi G, Sali L et al (2018) Cost analysis of colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography in Italy. Eur J Health Econ 19:735–746CrossRefPubMed

Title: Patients’ experience of screening CT colonography with reduced and full bowel preparation in a randomised trial
Authors: Lapo Sali
Leonardo Ventura
Grazia Grazzini
Alessandra Borgheresi
Silvia Delsanto
Massimo Falchini
Beatrice Mallardi
Paola Mantellini
Stefano Milani
Stefano Pallanti
Marco Zappa
Mario Mascalchi
Publication date: 01-05-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 5/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5808-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Patients’ experience of screening CT colonography with reduced and full bowel preparation in a randomised trial

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2019

Differentiation of triple-negative breast cancer from other subtypes through whole-tumor histogram analysis on multiparametric MR imaging

Correction to: Morphological MRI-based features provide pretreatment survival prediction in glioblastoma

Prognostic value of a new semiquantitative score system for adenosine stress myocardial perfusion by CMR

Percutaneous treatment of benign bilioenteric anastomotic strictures: temporary covered stent placement versus balloon dilatation

Use of artificial neural networks to predict anterior communicating artery aneurysm rupture: possible methodological considerations

Deep learning analysis of left ventricular myocardium in CT angiographic intermediate-degree coronary stenosis improves the diagnostic accuracy for identification of functionally significant stenosis