Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): A multicentre randomised trial

The Lancet

Volumn 381, Issue 9873, 2013, Pages 1194-1202

  Atkin, Wendy ^a   Dadswell, Edward ^a   Wooldrage, Kate ^a   Kralj Hans, Ines ^a   Von Wagner, Christian ^b   Edwards, Rob ^c   Yao, Guiqing ^d   Kay, Clive ^e   Burling, David ^f   Faiz, Omar ^f   Teare, Julian ^g   Lilford, Richard J ^d   Morton, Dion ^d   Wardle, Jane ^b   Halligan, Steve ^b  

^a ST MARY S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^e BRADFORD TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^f ST MARK S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^g IMPERIAL COLLEGE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL PAIN; ADULT; AGED; ANEMIA; ARTICLE; BARIUM ENEMA; CANCER SIZE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COLITIS; COLON POLYP; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIARRHEA; FEMALE; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RECTUM HEMORRHAGE; SIGMOIDOSCOPY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; VOMITING;

EID: 84875843412     PISSN: 01406736     EISSN: 1474547X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62186-2     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Shah HA, Paszat LF, Saskin R, Stukel TA, Rabeneck L. Factors associated with incomplete colonoscopy: a population-based study. Gastroenterology 2007; 132: 2297-303.
2. Anderson J, Messina C, Cohn W, et al. Factors predictive of difficult colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 558-62.
3. Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Mariotto AB, et al. Adverse events after outpatient colonoscopy in the Medicare population. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150: 849-57.
4. Levin TR, Zhao W, Conell C, et al. Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system. Ann Intern Med 2006; 145: 880-86.
5. Pendsé DA, Taylor SA. Complications of CT colonography: a review. Eur J Radiol 2012; published online May 15. DOI:10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.04.011.
6. 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: 378-84.
7. Svensson MH, Svensson E, Lasson A, Hellström M. Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease. Radiology 2002; 222: 337-45.
8. 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: 328-37.
9. Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Halligan S, Marmo R. Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection - systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 2011; 259: 393-405.
10. Halligan S, Altman D, Taylor S, et al. CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: a systematic review, meta-analysis and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting. Radiology 2005; 237: 893-904.
11. Mulhall BP, Veerappan GR, Jackson JL. Meta-analysis: computed tomographic colonography. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142: 635-50.
12. American College of Radiology. ACR practice guideline for the performance of computed tomography (CT) colonography in adults, 2009. http://www.acr.org/~/ media/ACR/Documents/PGTS/guidelines/CT-Colonography.pdf (accessed Dec 11, 2012).
13. Burling D. CT colonography standards. Clin Radiol 2010; 65: 474-80.
14. Bowles C, Leicester R, Romaya C, Swarbrick E, Williams C, Epstein O. A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut 2004; 53: 277-83.
15. Halligan S, Wooldrage K, Dadswell E, et al, for the SIGGAR investigators. Computed tomographic colonography versus barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2013; published online Feb 14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62124-2.
16. von Wagner C, Smith S, Halligan S, et al, for the SIGGAR Investigators. Patient acceptability of CT colonography compared with double contrast barium enema: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial of symptomatic patients. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 2046-55.
17. von Wagner C, Ghanouni A, Halligan S, et al. Patient acceptability and psychological consequences of CT colonography compared with colonoscopy: results from a multicenter randomized controlled trial of symptomatic patients. Radiology 2012; 263: 723-31.
18. Halligan S, Dadswell E, Wooldrage K, et al. Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy or barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer in older symptomatic patients: two multicentre randomised trials with economic evaluation (SIGGAR). Health Technol Assess (in press).
19. Halligan S, Lilford RJ, Wardle J, et al. Design of a multicentre randomized trial to evaluate CT colonography versus colonoscopy or barium enema for diagnosis of colonic cancer in older symptomatic patients: the SIGGAR study. Trials 2007; 8: 32.
20. Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Guidelines for the training, appraisal and assessment of trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy and for the assessment of units for registration and reregistration, March 2006. http://www.bsg.org.uk/pdf-word-docs/jag-recommendations-2004.pdf (accessed Dec 11, 2012).
21. Barish MA, Soto JA, Ferrucci J T. Consensus on current clinical practice of virtual colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: 786-92.
22. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Device bulletin: reporting adverse incidents and disseminating medical device alerts. http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/dts-bs/documents/publication/con111568.pdf (accessed Dec 11, 2012).
23. Office for National Statistics. Cancer statistics registrations, England (series MB1), no. 40, 2009. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference- tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-222747 (accessed Jan 12, 2012).
24. Lee KJ, Thompson SG. Clustering by health professional in individually randomised trials. BMJ 2005; 330: 142-44.
25. Moll FL, Powell JT, Fraedrich G, et al. Management of abdominal aortic aneurysms clinical practice guidelines of the European society for vascular surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011; 41 (suppl 1): S1-58.
26. Office for National Statistics. Information paper: summary quality report for cancer statistics registrations, England, 2011. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/ guide-method/method-quality/quality/quality-information/social-statistics/ summary-quality-report-for-cancer-registration-statistics.pdf (accessed Dec 11, 2012).
27. Office for National Statistics. Births and deaths in England and Wales, 2011 (final). http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/quality/ quality-information/social-statistics/sqr-annual-mortality.pdf (accessed Dec 11, 2012).
28. Brenner H, Altenhofen L, Hoffmeister M. Sex, age, and birth cohort effects in colorectal neoplasms. Ann Intern Med 2010; 152: 697-703.
29. Hur C, Gazelle GS, Hsu EH, Halpern EF, Podolsky DK. The effect of prior colonic imaging on endoscopic productivity: potential impact of computed tomographic colonography. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 3: 1124-27.
30. Plumb AA, Halligan S, Taylor SA, Burling D, Patnick J. CT colonography in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: national survey of current practice. Clin Radiol 2012; published online Dec 11. DOI:10.1016/j.crad.2012.10. 018.
31. Nagata K, Okawa T, Honma A, Endo S, Kudo SE, Yoshida H. 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 2009; 16: 780-89.
32. Gavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT, Donnelly MT, Williams JG, Swarbrick ET. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut 2013; 62: 242-49.
33. Verma A, Mcgrath N, Bennett P, et al. Scope to improve: a multi-centre audit of 16 064 colonoscopies looking at caecal intubation rates, over a two-year period. Frontline Gastroenterol 2012; 3: 124-29.
34. Rex D, Rahmani E, Haseman J, Lemmel G, Kaster S, Buckley J. Relative sensitivity of colonoscopy and barium enema for detection of colorectal cancer in clinical practice. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 17-23.
35. Rabeneck L, Paszat LF. Circumstances in which colonoscopy misses cancer. Frontline Gastroenterol 2010; 1: 52-58.
36. Bressler B, Paszat LF, Chen Z, Rothwell DM, Vinden C, Rabeneck L. Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology 2007; 132: 96-102.
37. Doshi T, Rusinak D, Halvorsen RA, Rockey DC, Suzuki K, Dachman AH. CT colonography: false-negative interpretations. Radiology 2007; 244: 165-73.
38. Fletcher JG, Chen MH, Herman BA, et al. Can radiologist training and testing ensure high performance in CT colonography? Lessons from the National CT Colonography Trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: 117-25.
39. Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy. BSG quality and safety indicators for endoscopy. http://www.thejag.org.uk/ downloads%5CUnit%20Resources%5CBSG%20Quality%20and%20Safety%20Indicators.pdf (accessed Dec 11, 2012).
40. Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 1207-17.
41. Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Hanson ME, Hinshaw JL. CT colonography: performance and program outcome measures in an older screening population. Radiology 2010; 254: 493-500.
42. Tolan DJM, Armstrong EM, Chapman AH. Replacing barium enema with CT colonography in patients older than 70 years: the importance of detecting extracolonic abnormalities. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 1104-11.
43. Xiong T, McEvoy K, Morton DG, Halligan S, Lilford RJ. Resources and costs associated with incidental extracolonic findings from CT colonogaphy: a study in a symptomatic population. Br J Radiol 2006; 79: 948-61.