Racial/Ethnic Differences in Patient Experiences With and Preferences for Computed Tomography Colonography and Optical Colonoscopy

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Volumn 5, Issue 11, 2007, Pages 1306-1312

  Rajapaksa, Roshini C ^a   Macari, Michael ^a   Bini, Edmund J ^a,b  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID; NONSTEROID ANTIINFLAMMATORY AGENT; WARFARIN;

ABDOMINAL PAIN; ADULT; AGED; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; BLOATING; CANCER SCREENING; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; RACE DIFFERENCE; RATING SCALE;

AGED; COLONOGRAPHY, COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC; COLONOSCOPY; CONTINENTAL POPULATION GROUPS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEW YORK; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 35548990029     PISSN: 15423565     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2007.05.023     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Jemal A., Siegel R., Ward E., et al. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 57 (2007) 43-66
2. Ko C.W., Kreuter W., and Baldwin L.M. Effect of Medicare coverage on use of invasive colorectal cancer screening tests. Arch Intern Med 162 (2002) 2581-2586
3. Seeff L.C., Shapiro J.A., and Nadel M.R. Are we doing enough to screen for colorectal cancer?. Findings from the 1999 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. J Fam Pract 51 (2002) 761-766
4. Nadel M.R., Blackman D.K., Shapiro J.A., et al. Are people being screened for colorectal cancer as recommended?. Results from the National Health Interview Survey. Prev Med 35 (2002) 199-206
5. Richards R.J., and Reker D.M. Racial differences in use of colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and barium enema in Medicare beneficiaries. Dig Dis Sci 47 (2002) 2715-2719
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Colorectal cancer test use among persons aged > or = 50 years-United States, 2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 52 (2003) 193-196
7. Cokkinides V.E., Chao A., Smith R.A., et al. Correlates of underutilization of colorectal cancer screening among U.S. adults, age 50 years and older. Prev Med 36 (2003) 85-91
8. Ioannou G.N., Chapko M.K., and Dominitz J.A. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening participation in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol 98 (2003) 2082-2091
9. Cooper G.S., and Koroukian S.M. Racial disparities in the use of and indications for colorectal procedures in Medicare beneficiaries. Cancer 100 (2004) 418-424
10. Etzioni D.A., Ponce N.A., Babey S.H., et al. A population-based study of colorectal cancer test use: results from the 2001 California Health Interview Survey. Cancer 101 (2004) 2523-2532
11. Govindarajan R., Shah R.V., Erkman L.G., et al. Racial differences in the outcome of patients with colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 97 (2003) 493-498
12. Agrawal S., Bhupinderjit A., Bhutani M.S., et al. Colorectal cancer in African Americans. Am J Gastroenterol 100 (2005) 515-523
13. Summers R.M., Yao J., Pickhardt P.J., et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy computer-aided polyp detection in a screening population. Gastroenterology 129 (2005) 1832-1844
14. Cotton P.B., Durkalski V.L., Pineau B.C., et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 291 (2004) 1713-1719
15. Pickhardt P.J., Choi J.R., Hwang I., et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349 (2003) 2191-2200
16. Morrin M.M., Kruskal J.B., Farrell R.J., et al. Endoluminal CT colonography after an incomplete endoscopic colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172 (1999) 913-918
17. Angtuaco T.L., Banaad-Omiotek G.D., and Howden C.W. Differing attitudes toward virtual and conventional colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening: surveys among primary care physicians and potential patients. Am J Gastroenterol 96 (2001) 887-893
18. Thomeer M., Bielen D., Vanbeckevoort D., et al. Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue?. Eur Radiol 12 (2002) 1410-1415
19. Svensson M.H., Svensson E., Lasson A., et al. Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease. Radiology 222 (2002) 337-345
20. Bielen D., Thomeer M., Vanbeckevoort D., et al. Dry preparation for virtual CT colonography with fecal tagging using water-soluble contrast medium: initial results. Eur Radiol 13 (2003) 453-458
21. Gluecker T.M., Johnson C.D., Harmsen W.S., et al. Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. Radiology 227 (2003) 378-384
22. Ristvedt S.L., McFarland E.G., Weinstock L.B., et al. Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 98 (2003) 578-585
23. Taylor S.A., Halligan S., Saunders B.P., et al. Acceptance by patients of multidetector CT colonography compared with barium enema examinations, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181 (2003) 913-921
24. van Gelder R.E., Birnie E., Florie J., et al. CT colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology 233 (2004) 328-337
25. Iannaccone R., Laghi A., Catalano C., et al. Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 127 (2004) 1300-1311
26. Juchems M.S., Ehmann J., Brambs H.J., et al. 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 (2005) 664-670
27. Akerkar G.A., Yee J., Hung R., et al. Patient experience and preferences toward colon cancer screening: a comparison of virtual colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 54 (2001) 310-315
28. Bosworth H.B., Rockey D.C., Paulson E.K., et al. Prospective comparison of patient experience with colon imaging tests. Am J Med 119 (2006) 791-799
29. Forbes G.M., and Mendelson R.M. Patient acceptance of virtual colonoscopy. Endoscopy 32 (2000) 274-275
30. Laks S., Macari M., and Bini E.J. Positional change in colon polyps at CT colonography. Radiology 231 (2004) 761-766
31. Lui Y.W., Macari M., Israel G., et al. CT colonography data interpretation: effect of different section thicknesses-preliminary observations. Radiology 229 (2003) 791-797
32. Macari M., Bini E.J., Xue X., et al. Colorectal neoplasms: prospective comparison of thin-section low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection. Radiology 224 (2002) 383-392
33. Macari M., Bini E.J., Jacobs S.L., et al. Significance of missed polyps at CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183 (2004) 127-134
34. Macari M., Bini E.J., Jacobs S.L., et al. Colorectal polyps and cancers in asymptomatic average-risk patients: evaluation with CT colonography. Radiology 230 (2004) 629-636
35. Salmon P., Shah R., Berg S., et al. Evaluating customer satisfaction with colonoscopy. Endoscopy 26 (1994) 342-346
36. Edwards J.T., Mendelson R.M., Fritschi L., et al. Colorectal neoplasia screening with CT colonography in average-risk asymptomatic subjects: community-based study. Radiology 230 (2004) 459-464
37. The Multicentre Australian Colorectal Neoplasia Screening (MACS) Group. A comparison of colorectal neoplasia screening tests: a multicentre community-based study of the impact of consumer choice. Med J Aust 184 (2006) 546-550
38. Taylor S.A., Halligan S., Burling D., et al. Intra-individual comparison of patient acceptability of multidetector-row CT colonography and double-contrast barium enema. Clin Radiol 60 (2005) 207-214
39. Zalis M.E., Perumpillichira J.J., Magee C., et al. Tagging-based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability. Radiology 239 (2006) 149-159