MR colonography vs. optical colonoscopy: Comparison of patients' acceptance in a screening population

European Radiology

Volumn 17, Issue 9, 2007, Pages 2286-2293

  Kinner, Sonja ^a   Kuehle, Christiane A ^a   Langhorst, Jost ^a,b   Ladd, Susanne C ^a   Nuefer, Michael ^a   Zoepf, Thomas ^a   Barkhausen, Joerg ^a   Gerken, Guido ^a   Lauenstein, Thomas C ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ESSEN   (Germany)

^b KLINIKEN ESSEN MITTE   (Germany)

^c EMORY UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Fecal tagging; MR colonography; Optical colonoscopy; Patient preferences; Patients acceptance

Indexed keywords

ANALGESIC AGENT; GADOTERATE MEGLUMINE; MIDAZOLAM MALEATE; PETHIDINE; RECOMBINANT GLUCAGON; SCOPOLAMINE BUTYL BROMIDE; SEDATIVE AGENT;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FECES ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAGNETIC RESONANCE COLONOGRAPHY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; SYMPTOMATOLOGY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BARIUM SULFATE; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; DIATRIZOATE MEGLUMINE; FEMALE; HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUNDS; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUNDS; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; QUESTIONNAIRES; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 34548093015     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-007-0643-9     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E et al (2005) Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 55:10-30
2. van Dam J, Cotton P, Johnson CD et al (2004) AGA future trends report: CT colonography. Gastroenterology 127:970
3. Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D et al (2003) Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: Clinical guidelines and rationale-update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 124:544
4. Dominitz JA, Eisen GM, Baron TH et al (2003) Complications of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 57:441-445
5. Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Melton LJ (2002) A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 97:3186-3194
6. Pappalardo G, Polettini E, Frattaroli FM et al (2000) Magnetic resonance colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colonic endoluminal lesions. Gastroenterology 119:300
7. Sosna J, Morrin MM, Kruskal JB, Lavin PT, Rosen MP, Raptopoulos V (2003) CT colonography of colorectal polyps: A metaanalysis. Am J Roentgenol 181:1593-1598
8. 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 237:893-904
9. Lauenstein TC (2006) MR colonography: Current status. Eur Radiol 16:1519-1526
10. Ajaj W, Lauenstein TC, Schneemann H et al (2005) Magnetic resonance colonography without bowel cleansing using oral and rectal stool softeners (fecal cracking)- a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 15:2079-2087
11. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD (2004) Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 232:735-738
12. Debatin JF, Luboldt W, Bauerfeind P (1999) Virtual colonoscopy in 1999: computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging? Endoscopy 31:174-179
13. Martin DR, Semelka RC (2006) Health effects of ionising radiation from diagnostic CT. Lancet 367:1712-1714
14. NAS (2005) Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII: National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu (accessed October 2006)
15. Ajaj W, Pelster G, Treichel U et al (2003) Dark lumen magnetic resonance colonography: Comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal pathology. Gut 52:1738-1743
16. Hartmann D, Bassler B, Schilling D et al (2005) Colorectal polyps: detection with dark-lumen MR colonography versus conventional colonoscopy. Radiology 238:143-149
17. Akerkar GA, Yee J, Hung R, McQuaid K (2001) Patient experience and preferences toward colon cancer screening: A comparison of virtual colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 54:310
18. Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS et al (2003) Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: Prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. Radiology 227:378-384
19. Juchems MS, Ehmann J, Brambs HJ, Aschoff AJ (2005) A retrospective evaluation of patient acceptance of computed tomography colonography ("virtual colonoscopy") in comparison with conventional colonoscopy in an average risk screening population. Acta Radiol 46:664-670
20. Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP (2003) Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 98:578-585
21. Svensson MH, Svensson E, Lasson A, Hellstrom M (2002) Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: Prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease. Radiology 222:337-345
22. Thomeer M, Bielen D, Vanbeckevoort D et al (2002) Patient acceptance for CT colonography: What is the real issue? Eur Radiol V12:1410-1415
23. van Gelder RE, Birnie E, Florie J et al (2004) CT colonography and colonoscopy: Assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology 233:328-337
24. Kuehle C, Goehde SC, Nuefer M, Barkhausen J, Lauenstein TC (2005) MR colonography without bowel cleansing: Diagnostic accuracy and patient acceptance. RSNA, Chicago
25. http://www.glucagenhypokit.com/Hypokit_Pi.pdf
26. Wardle J, Sutton S, Williamson S et al (2000) Psychosocial influences on older adults' interest in participating in bowel cancer screening. Prev Med 31:323
27. (2001) Trends in screening for colorectal cancer-United States, 1997 and 1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 50:162-166
28. Mant D, Fuller A, Northover J et al (1992) Patient compliance with colorectal cancer screening in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 42:18-20
29. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Saunders BP, Bassett P, Vance M, Bartram CI (2003) Acceptance by patients of multidetector CT colonography compared with barium enema examinations, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. Am J Roentgenol 181:913-921
30. Ajaj W, Lauenstein TC, Pelster G, Goehde SC, Debatin JF, Ruehm SG (2004) MR colonography: How does air compare to water for colonic distention? J Magn Reson Imaging 19:216-221
31. Goehde SC, Descher E, Boekstegers A et al (2005) Dark lumen MR colonography based on fecal tagging for detection of colorectal masses: accuracy and patient acceptance. Abdom Imaging 30:576-583
32. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Goh V et al (2003) Optimizing colonic distention for multi-detector row CT colonography: Effect of hyoscine butylbromide and rectal balloon catheter. Radiology 229:99-108
33. Arnesen RB, Adamsen S, Svendsen LB, Raaschou HO, von Benzon E, Hansen OH (2005) Missed lesions and false-positive findings on computed-tomographic colonography: A controlled prospective analysis. Endoscopy 37:937-944
34. Mulhall BP, Veerappan GR, Jackson JL (2005) Meta-analysis: Computed tomographic colonography. Ann Intern Med 142:635-650