MR colonography with limited bowel preparation: Patient acceptance compared with that of full-preparation colonoscopy

Radiology

Volumn 245, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 150-159

  Florie, Jasper ^a   Birnie, Erwin ^a   Van Gelder, Rogier E ^a   Jensch, Sebastiaan ^a,b   Haberkorn, Brigitte ^a   Bartelsman, Joep F ^a   Van Der Sluys Veer, Annet ^b   Snel, Pleun ^c   Van Der Hulst, Victor P M ^b   Bonsel, Gouke J ^a   Bossuyt, Patrick M M ^a   Stoker, Jaap ^a  

^a ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b Onze Lieye Vrouwe Gasthuis ^*  (Netherlands)

^c SLOTERVAART HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALGESIC AGENT; FENTANYL; FENTANYL JANSSEN; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE; GLUCAGON; KLEANPREP; LACTULOSE; LACTULOSE CF; MACROGOL; MIDAZOLAM; MIDAZOLAM MALEATE; RECOMBINANT GLUCAGON; SCOPOLAMINE BUTYL BROMIDE; SEDATIVE AGENT; SPASMOLYTIC AGENT; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; WATER;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; DIETARY FIBER; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTESTINE PREPARATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT POSITIONING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SUPINE POSITION;

ADENOMATOUS POLYPS; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CATHARTICS; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; GADOLINIUM; GASTROINTESTINAL AGENTS; HUMANS; LACTULOSE; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 34548686351     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2451061244     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Mandel JS, Church TR, Bond JH, et al. The effect of fecal occult-blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000;343(22):1603-1607.
2. Pignone M, Rich M, Teutsch SM, Berg AO, Lohr KN. Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: A summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137(2):132-141.
3. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993;329(27):1977-1981.
4. Denberg TD, Melhado TV, Coombes JM, et al. Predictors of nonadherence to screening colonoscopy. J Gen Intern Med 2005; 20(11):989-995.
5. Edwards JT, Mendelson RM, Fritschi L, et al. Colorectal neoplasia screening with CT colonography in average-risk asymptomatic subjects: community-based study. Radiology 2004;230(2):459-464.
6. Weishaupt D, Patak MA, Froehlich J, Ruehm SG, Debatin JF. Faecal tagging to avoid colonic cleansing before MRI colonography. Faucet 1999;354(9181):835- 836.
7. Lauenstein T, Holtmann G, Schoenfelder D, Bosk S, Ruehm SG, Debatin JF. MR colonography without colonic cleansing: a new strategy to improve patient acceptance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177(4):823-827.
8. Lauenstein TC, Goehde SC, Ruehm SG, Holtmann G, Debatin JF. MR colonography with barium-based fecal tagging: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2002;223(1):248-254.
9. Svensson MH, Svensson E, Lasson A, Hellstrom M. Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease. Radiology 2002;222(2):337-345.
10. van Gelder RE, Birnie E, Florie J, et al. CT colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology 2004;233(2):328-337.
11. Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP. Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98(3):578-585.
12. Akerkar GA, Yee J, Hung R, McQuaid K. Patient experience and preferences toward colon cancer screening: a comparison of virtual colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54(3):310-313.
13. Forbes GM, Mendelson RM. Patient acceptance of virtual colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2000;32(3):274-275.
14. Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, et al. Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. Radiology 2003;227(2):378-384.
15. Thomeer M, Bielen D, Vanbeckevoort D, et al. Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue? Eur Radiol 2002; 12(6):1410-1415.
16. Luboldt W, Bauerfeind P, Wildermuth S, Marincek B, Fried M, Debatin JF. Colonic masses: detection with MR colonography. Radiology 2000;216(2):383-388.
17. Ajaj W, Pelster G, Treichel U, et al. Dark lumen magnetic resonance colonography: comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal pathology. Gut 2003;52(12):1738-1743.
18. Hartmann D, Bassler B, Schilling D, et al. Colorectal polyps: detection with dark-lumen MR colonography versus conventional colonoscopy. Radiology 2006;238(1):143-149.
19. Pappalardo G, Polettini E, Frattaroli FM, et al. Magnetic resonance colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colonic endoluminal lesions. Gastroenterology 2000;119(2):300-304.
20. Goehde SC, Descher F, Boekstegers A, et al. Dark lumen MR colonography based on fecal tagging for detection of colorectal masses: accuracy and patient acceptance. Abdom Imaging 2005;30(5):576-583.
21. Morrin MM, Hochman MG, Farrell RJ, Marquesuzaa H, Rosenberg S, Edelman RR. MR colonography using colonic distention with air as the contrast material: work in progress. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176(1):144-146.
22. Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale - update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 2003;124(2):544-560.
23. Florie J, van Gelder RE, Haberkorn B, et al. Magnetic resonance colonography with limited bowel preparation: a comparison of three strategies. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25(4):766-774.
24. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003;349(23): 2191-2200.
25. Florie J, Jensch S, Nievelstein RA, et al. MR colonography with limited bowel preparation compared with optical colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Radiology 2007;243(1):122-131.