AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Taylor, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Bartram, C. I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Taylor, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Bartram, C. I.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
AJR 2003; 181:913-921
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Acceptance by Patients of Multidetector CT Colonography Compared with Barium Enema Examinations, Flexible Sigmoidoscopy, and Colonoscopy

Stuart A. Taylor1, Steve Halligan1,2, Brian P. Saunders3, Paul Bassett1, Maggie Vance3 and Clive I. Bartram1

1 Department of Intestinal Imaging, Intestinal Imaging Centre, Level 4V, St. Mark's Hospital, Watford Rd., Northwick Park, London HA1 3UJ, United Kingdom.
2 Cancer Research UK Colorectal Cancer Unit, St. Mark's Hospital, Northwick Park, London HA1 3UJ, United Kingdom.
3 Wolfson Institute of Endoscopy, St. Mark's Hospital, Northwick Park, London HA1 3UJ, United Kingdom.

Received December 23, 2002; accepted after revision April 18, 2003.

 
Supported by the Royal College of Radiologists Research Fellowship and the Wexham Gastrointestinal Trust.

Address correspondence to S. Halligan (s.halligan{at}ic.ac.uk).


Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare patient acceptance of multidetector CT colonography, total colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema to ascertain any overall preference.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. One hundred sixty-eight patients underwent CT colonography followed by either flexible sigmoidoscopy (n = 59) or colonoscopy (n = 109). A 25-point questionnaire with principal components relating to satisfaction, worry, and physical discomfort was administered after CT colonography and after endoscopy, and a follow-up questionnaire was administered 1 week after the procedures. Questionnaires were also completed by 140 patients undergoing double-contrast barium enema examinations. Responses were compared using Wilcoxon's matched pairs test and the Mann-Whitney test.

RESULTS. Overall satisfaction was greater with colonoscopy (p = 0.01), but CT colonography caused less discomfort (p = 0.002), was better tolerated (p = 0.005), and was the preferred follow-up investigation of those expressing a preference (p = 0.003). Compared with flexible sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography caused less pain (p = 0.004), was more acceptable (p = 0.04), and was preferred as the follow-up investigation (p < 0.001). Tolerance of colonoscopy was significantly less in women (p = 0.03), but such was not the case for CT colonography (p = 0.58). Patients undergoing CT colonography were less worried (p < 0.001), were more satisfied (p = 0.001), and suffered less discomfort (p < 0.001) than those having barium enema.

CONCLUSION. Patients' experiences with barium enema examinations were significantly worse than with any other test. Although patients were most satisfied with colonoscopy, they reported more pain during both colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy than during CT colonography, and they also found CT more acceptable. In patients expressing a preference, CT colonography was the preferred follow-up investigation.


Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Evidence shows that screening for colorectal neoplasia reduces disease-specific mortality [1, 2], and recently the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a strong recommendation that clinicians screen men and women older than 50 years (USPSTF grade A recommendation) [3]. However, considerable debate remains as to the best method of screening: fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, barium enema, and, more recently, CT colonography have all been advocated [4, 5]. Although much of the debate centers on test characteristics such as sensitivity, specificity, and costs, acceptance is central to success because poor compliance will reduce the effectiveness of any screening program, no matter how accurate the test chosen. Data from breast and cervical cancer screening programs suggest that patients often find the experience painful, intrusive, embarrassing, and threatening [6, 7]; and pilot studies of flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening have often found compliance disappointingly low, with reported rates of 46.6% and 31.6%, respectively [8].

CT colonography has been increasingly advocated as a safer, less invasive, and more acceptable whole-colon investigation than endoscopy [5, 9, 10] while retaining adequate sensitivity for clinically significant lesions [1113]. It has been suggested that this improved acceptance will inevitably increase compliance if CT colonography were offered as part of a screening program. However, recent studies have been conflicting, with some finding CT more acceptable than endoscopy [14], whereas others have found it less so [15]. Furthermore, little work has compared CT colonography with flexible sigmoidoscopy, which has been shown to be potentially viable in a national screening program [16], or with barium enema, which also has its advocates [17]. We aimed to compare patient satisfaction for CT colonography, total colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema to ascertain any overall patient preference for colonic investigation.


Subjects and Methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Our local ethical review committee approved the study, and all subjects gave informed written consent. Between April 2001 and April 2002, 168 consecutive adult patients (median age, 65 years; range, 34–89 years; 84 women and 84 men) were recruited from an ongoing trial at our institution comparing multidetector CT colonography with conventional endoscopy. Of the cohort, 59 were referred for flexible sigmoidoscopy from a dedicated rectal bleeding clinic, and the remaining 109 patients were referred for colonoscopy from six nominated gastrointestinal medical and surgical outpatient clinics because of a clinical suspicion of colorectal neoplasia as follows: rectal bleeding (n = 22), change in bowel habit (n = 44), adenomatous polyp follow-up (n = 19), iron deficiency anemia (n = 6), family history of colorectal cancer (n = 6), palpable abdominal mass (n = 2), polyps seen on barium enema (n = 3), and follow-up of longstanding inflammatory bowel disease (n = 7). A second cohort of 140 consecutive patients (median age, 62 years; range, 21–88 years; 77 women and 63 men) referred for double-contrast barium enema was also recruited from the same nominated outpatient clinics. All patients had symptoms that suggested a possible colorectal neoplasm as follows: rectal bleeding (n = 15), change in bowel habit (n = 76), iron deficiency anemia (n = 41), family history of colorectal cancer (n = 2), and palpable abdominal mass (n = 6).

CT Colonography
CT colonography in all 168 patients was performed before subsequent endoscopy and was performed using a standard technique [12, 14, 18]. All patients were instructed to maintain a clear liquid diet 24 hr before their appointment and underwent full bowel preparation with either two packets of sodium picosulphate and magnesium citrate (Picolax, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Berkshire, United Kingdom [UK]) (if scheduled for flexible sigmoidoscopy) or two packets of magnesium citrate (Citramag, Bioglan Laboratories, Hertfordshire, UK) supplemented with one packet of senna granules (Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare, Hull, UK) (if scheduled for colonoscopy). No tagging agents were used. One hundred twenty-five patients received IV spasmolytic (20–40 mg of hyoscine-N-butyl bromide [Buscopan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bracknell, UK]) before gas insufflation. Colonic insufflation was performed using an enema bag (E-Z-EM enema bag, E-Z-EM, Westbury, NY) filled with approximately 2500 mL of carbon dioxide. Distention was achieved by gentle squeezing of the enema bag to maximal patient tolerance. Scanning with the patient both prone and supine was performed using a multidetector CT scanner (four detector rows) (LightSpeed Plus, General Electric Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI) and the following parameters: 1.25- to 2.5-mm collimation; pitch of 6; 120 kVp; 50–100 mA; and 50% slice overlap. Images were reconstructed at half the nominal slice thickness. Image analysis was performed using a dedicated stand-alone workstation as is our usual practice.

Endoscopy
After completion of CT colonography, patients were escorted to the endoscopy suite to undergo either flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy, depending on the source of referral. Flexible sigmoidoscopy was performed by a single experienced practitioner using a standard 60-cm flexible sigmoidoscope (200s, Olympus, Southall, UK). No patient received spasmolytic or sedation during flexible sigmoidoscopy, although the endoscopist was free to use such medication if deemed necessary. Carbon dioxide was used to distend the colon during the procedure. All colonoscopies were performed using a standard colonoscope (CFQ240AL, Olympus). One hundred of the 109 colonoscopies were performed by a single experienced colonoscopist; the other nine were performed by one of three other experienced endoscopists. IV sedation (midazolam, Pheonix Pharma, Gloucester, UK), analgesia (pethidine, Pamergan P100, Martindale Pharmaceuticals, Romford, UK), and spasmolytic (10–40 mg of hyoscine-N-butyl bromide) were administered routinely before colonoscopy as is our usual practice. Sixteen of 109 patients received no sedation or analgesia because of personal preference, and of these, seven also received no spasmolytic. In total, 42 patients received 25 mg of pethidine and 1.25 mg of midazolam; 30 patients received 50 mg of pethidine and 1.25 mg of midazolam; 18 patients received 50 mg of pethidine and 2.5 mg of midazolam; and one patient each received 100 mg and 1.25 mg, 100 mg and 2.5 mg, and 100 mg and 4 mg of pethidine and midazolam. Nasal oxygen (2 L/min) was given routinely to all patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Barium Enema Examination
Barium enemas examinations were performed by one of three experienced radiographers according to a standard protocol consisting of multiple digital fluoroscopic spot images of the colon followed by two lateral decubitus overcouch radiographs. All patients were instructed to maintain a clear liquid diet 24 hr before their appointment and underwent full bowel preparation with two packets of sodium picosulphate and magnesium citrate (Picolax, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Berkshire, UK). Twenty milligrams of IV hyoscine-N-butyl bromide was administered routinely to all patients unless contraindicated, in which case 1 mg of glucagon (Nova Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Crawley, UK) was administered (eight patients). Barium preparation (94% w/w, PolibarTM, by weight, Polibar (barium sulphate) E-Z-EM, Westbury, NY) was diluted with 500 mL of water and instilled via a rectal catheter. Colonic distention was achieved with carbon dioxide introduced by manual compression of the gas-filled enema bag.

Questionnaires
Patients undergoing both CT colonography and subsequent endoscopy received a detailed written explanation of both procedures via the mail at least 1 week before their appointment. When the patient arrived at the CT suite on the day of the tests, the supervising radiologist also gave an oral explanation of both tests as part of the consent procedure for CT colonography. After CT colonography, the admitting nurse also gave an oral explanation when the patient arrived in the endoscopy suite.

A questionnaire was administered to patients to determine their subjective experience of the individual procedures. The questionnaire used was previously validated and was based on the responses derived from detailed interviews of a cohort of patients who had undergone full colonoscopy [19]. The questionnaire consisted of 25 individual items presented with the opposite separated by a seven-point scale. Three separate components that underlay each of the 25 individual items were identified using the technique of principal component analysis: satisfaction, worry, and physical discomfort [19] (Table 1). Patients were instructed to place a cross in one of the seven boxes between each item and its opposite, depending on their rating for the particular item. The questionnaire was designed so that a higher score reflected a more positive patient response. The questionnaire also included a 10-cm visual analog scale drawn between "no bloating" and "severe bloating" and between "no discomfort" and "severe discomfort," both during and after the procedure. Patients were asked to place a mark on the analog scale for each item that reflected their experience.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 1 Items on Seven-Point Questionnaire, Grouped by Principal Component

 

The CT radiographer gave two copies of the questionnaire (marked "CT" and "endoscopy," respectively) to patients after CT colonography was completed. Patients were instructed to complete the first questionnaire, pertaining to CT colonography, while they waited in the endoscopy suite and were asked to hand the completed questionnaire to the endoscopy staff before being admitted by the endoscopy nurse. Instructions and examples of how to complete the questionnaire were detailed on the form, and questionnaires were completed by patients in isolation so that their responses were not influenced by the presence of the radiographer. Patients were also reassured in advance that their completed responses would not be revealed to the CT or endoscopy staff. The second copy of the questionnaire, pertaining to endoscopy, was completed just before the patient left the department to go home, at which time any sedation given during the endoscopy was deemed sufficiently diminished to allow the patient to leave direct medical supervision and travel home safely. This second questionnaire was handed to the endoscopy receptionist as the patient departed.

Patients undergoing only barium enema examination were given a copy of the same questionnaire by a radiology nurse after completion of the examination. The patients completed this questionnaire before leaving the radiology department, under similar conditions to patients having endoscopy. The completed questionnaire was left with the radiology department receptionist.

A follow-up questionnaire was sent 1 week later to all patients who had undergone CT colonography and endoscopy. Patients were asked to circle one of several set responses to a series of questions about both CT colonography and endoscopy as follows: I felt I tolerated CT—well, fairly well, poorly, or very poorly. I felt I tolerated endoscopy—well, fairly well, poorly, or very poorly. Would you have the CT scan again?—yes, no, or maybe. Would you have endoscopy again?—yes, no, or maybe. If you had to have just one of the tests again, which would you prefer?—CT scan, endoscopy, or don't mind. Bearing in mind all you know about the risks and benefits of both tests, which do you feel is the most acceptable?—CT scan, endoscopy, or about the same.

Patients were also asked to indicate whether they had recovered from the CT colonography before the endoscopy started and how long they considered it took them to recover fully from endoscopy. A stamped and addressed envelope was included with the questionnaire to encourage patient response.

Statistical Analysis
Items were discarded from analysis if patients failed to mark a response or made more than one response. Initial analysis of the seven-point questionnaire indicated that responses were skewed toward the upper end of the distribution, so nonparametric methods were applied. Wilcoxon's matched pairs test was used to compare the responses to the questionnaires and the visual analog scales among CT colonography, colonoscopy, and flexible sigmoidoscopy. The responses from patients undergoing barium enema examination were compared separately with the responses from all patients undergoing CT colonography, colonoscopy, and flexible sigmoidoscopy using the Mann-Whitney test statistic. Any influence caused by the following patient characteristics was also determined using the Mann-Whitney test statistic: age (< 65 years, > 65 years), sex, use of hyoscine-N-butyl bromide, and whether a biopsy was performed or a polyp removed during endoscopy.

Few patients reported tolerating any procedure poorly or very poorly on the follow-up questionnaire, so those responses were combined with the group tolerating "fairly well" and were compared with the remaining "well" group using a paired exact test (binomial-based exact test). Similarly, few subjects indicated they would not have any procedure again, so these responses were combined with the group responding "maybe" and compared with the proportion who would have the test again. A comparison of which procedure was preferred and which was most acceptable was made using a one-sample test of proportions. Those who did not express a preference were not included in the analysis. The effect of patient characteristics (age, sex, and whether a biopsy sample was taken or polyp removed) on patient preference was assessed separately for each procedure using Fisher's exact test.


Results
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
A total of 144 patients (86%) undergoing CT colonography and endoscopy completed the seven-point questionnaire; and of these, 119 (71%) completed the visual analog scale. A total of 129 patients (77%) returned the follow-up questionnaire.

Of the 140 patients undergoing barium enema examination, 126 (90%) completed the seven-point questionnaire, of whom 103 (74%) filled in the visual analog scale.

Seven-Point Questionnaire
The median and interquartile ranges of the sum of all the individual items for each principal component are shown in Figure 1 for those undergoing CT colonography and colonoscopy and in Figure 2 for those undergoing CT colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Patients reported statistically greater satisfaction with colonoscopy than with CT colonography, although the median scores for this principal component were identical. The only individual item to reach significance for the satisfaction component was "staff were interested in me," with patients responding more favorably toward colonoscopy (p = 0.003). Again, median scores for this item were identical (median, 7; interquartile range, 7–7 for CT colonography and colonoscopy). No overall significant difference was seen between CT colonography and colonoscopy for the worry principal component, although patients were significantly more worried about what would be found during colonoscopy (median, 4; interquartile range, 1.75–7) than during CT colonography (median, 5; interquartile range, 2–7) (p = 0.02). Concerning the principal component of physical discomfort, patients found colonoscopy significantly worse than CT colonography (p = 0.002). Patients found colonoscopy more painful (median, 5, interquartile range, 3–7 vs median, 6, interquartile range, 4–7; p = 0.02), were more weary (median, 5.5, interquartile range, 3–7 vs median, 7, interquartile range, 5–7, p < 0.001), were more afraid of making a fool of themselves (median, 7; interquartile range, 6–7 for both; p = 0.01), and were more relieved when colonoscopy was over (median, 1, interquartile range, 1–2 vs median, 1, interquartile range, 1–4; p < 0.001).



View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1. Graph depicts median score and interquartile range for three principal components for patients undergoing multidetector CT colonography ({circ}) and colonoscopy ({blacktriangleup}). Higher score reflects more positive patient response. Patients reported statistically significant greater satisfaction but more physical discomfort with colonoscopy than with CT colonography (p < 0.01 [asterisks]).

 


View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 2. Graph depicts median score and interquartile range for three principal components for patients undergoing multidetector CT colonography ({circ}) and flexible sigmoidoscopy ({blacksquare}). Higher score reflects more positive patient response. No significant difference was seen in overall responses between CT colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy for each principal component.

 

No difference was noted between the satisfaction or worry principal component when CT colonography was compared with flexible sigmoidoscopy, either overall or for any of the individual items examined (Fig. 2). The only item to have a median score of less than 6 was "worried what they would find," which had a median core of 5 for CT colonography. Although no significant difference was seen between sigmoidoscopy and CT colonography for the physical discomfort component, with respect to individual responses patients found sigmoidoscopy significantly more painful than CT (median, 5, interquartile range, 4–7 vs median, 6, interquartile range, 5–7; p = 0.004), would prefer to be less awake during sigmoidoscopy (median, 4, interquartile range, 4–5.25 vs median, 4, interquartile range, 4–6.25; p = 0.02), and reported more soreness after sigmoidoscopy (median, 6, interquartile range, 4–7 vs median, 7, interquartile range, 5–7; p = 0.02).

The comparison between individual item responses after barium enema examination and after endoscopy and CT colonography is shown in Table 2. The overall principal component analysis is shown in Figure 3. Patients undergoing barium enema were significantly less satisfied, more worried, and suffered more physical discomfort than patients undergoing either CT colonography, colonoscopy, or flexible sigmoidoscopy. In particular, patients found barium enema significantly less dignified, more confusing, more puzzling, and more worrying than any of the other procedures and were more afraid of making a fool of themselves.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 2 Responses to Questionnaire from Patients Undergoing Barium Enema Compared with Those Undergoing Multidetector CT Colonography, Colonoscopy, and Flexible Sigmoidoscopy

 


View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 3. Graph depicts median score and interquartile range for three principal components for patients undergoing barium enema ({square}) compared with those undergoing multidetector CT colonography ({circ}), colonoscopy ({blacktriangledown}), and flexible sigmoidoscopy ({blacksquare}). Higher score reflects more positive patient response. Quoted p values are derived from comparison of barium enema scores with each other procedure. Barium enema resulted in significantly worse scores for each principal component than did CT colonography, colonoscopy, or flexible sigmoidoscopy (p < 0.05 [single asterisks], p < 0.001 [double asterisks]).

 

Visual Analog Scale
Patients recorded significantly more bloating during CT colonography (median, 3; interquartile range, 1–6) than during colonoscopy (median, 2; interquartile range, 1–4; p = 0.002) but more discomfort during colonoscopy (median, 3, interquartile range, 1–7 vs median, 2, interquartile range, 0–5; p = 0.005). Patients also recorded significantly more discomfort during flexible sigmoidoscopy (median, 4; interquartile range, 2–5) than during CT colonography (p = 0.01). Patients reported significantly more bloating after barium enema examination than after CT colonography (p = 0.01) and colonoscopy (p = 0.003), and significantly more discomfort after barium enema examination than after CT colonography (p = 0.005) (Table 2).

Patient Characteristics
No significant effect of patient age was seen on the questionnaire responses for CT colonography, colonoscopy, or barium enema, although patients younger than 65 years scored significantly lower (i.e., worse) on the worry component for flexible sigmoidoscopy than those older than 65 years (median, 45, interquartile range, 38.8–45 vs median, 50, interquartile range, 45.5–54; p = 0.04). Younger patients also reported more bloating and discomfort on the visual analog scale after barium enema than did older patients (median, 3, interquartile range, 1–6.75 vs median, 1, interquartile range, 0–4; p = 0.008; and median, 2, interquartile range, 1–5 vs median, 1, interquartile range, 0–3; p = 0.02 respectively).

Women reported greater worry during CT colonography than did men (median, 46, interquartile range, 41–49 vs median, 48, interquartile range, 42.5–50; p = 0.03) and more discomfort during colonoscopy (median, 42, interquartile range, 36–49 vs median, 49, interquartile range, 41.5–55; p = 0.002). Women also reported more worry and discomfort during barium enema than did men (median, 38, interquartile range, 32.5–44 vs median, 45, interquartile range, 39–50; p = 0.001; and median, 39, interquartile range, 31–46 vs median, 47, interquartile range, 39–50; p = 0.01, respectively). No significant effect of spasmolytic or biopsy was seen on any of the three principal components or visual analogues for CT colonography, colonoscopy, or flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Follow-Up Questionnaires
Eight (6.2%) of the 129 responders indicated they had not recovered from the CT colonography before endoscopy, and eight (21%) of the 38 patients undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy and 18 (19.8%) of the 91 patients undergoing colonoscopy took more than 3 hr to recover from the endoscopy. The distribution of responses to the questionnaire is shown in Figures 4 and 5. CT colonography was significantly better tolerated than colonoscopy (p = 0.005), but no significant difference was seen between CT and sigmoidoscopy (p = 0.18). However, significantly fewer patients were prepared to undergo sigmoidoscopy again than to undergo CT colonography again (22 vs 29, p = 0.02). When asked which test they would prefer to have in the future, 55 patients (61.1%) who underwent colonoscopy expressed a preference, and significantly more of those preferred CT colonography (40/55, p = 0.001). Significantly more of the 60 patients who found one test more acceptable than the other favored CT colonography over colonoscopy (42/60, p = 0.003). Similarly, when asked which test they would prefer to have in the future, 22 (58%) of those who underwent sigmoidoscopy expressed a preference, of whom significantly more again preferred CT colonography (19/22, p < 0.001). Significantly more of the 20 patients who found one test more acceptable than the other favored CT colonography (15/20, p = 0.04).



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 4. Bar graph illustrates responses to follow-up questionnaire from patients undergoing multidetector CT colonography (white bars) and colonoscopy (black bars) (n = 91 replies). Significantly more patients tolerated CT colonography well than tolerated colonoscopy well. Patients expressing a preference (n = 55) significantly preferred CT colonography to colonoscopy; and of those expressing an opinion (n = 60), significantly more found CT colonography more acceptable (p < 0.005 [asterisks]).

 


View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 5. Bar graph illustrates responses to follow-up questionnaire from patients undergoing multidetector CT colonography (white bars) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (black bars) (n = 38 replies). Patients were significantly less likely to undergo sigmoidoscopy again than CT colonography. Of those expressing preference (n = 22), significantly more preferred CT colonography to sigmoidoscopy; and significantly more of those patients expressing opinion (n = 20) found CT colonography more acceptable (p < 0.05 [single asterisks], p < 0.005 [double asterisks]).

 

Patient Characteristics and Follow-Up Questionnaires
Colonoscopy was significantly less well tolerated by women than by men (22/51 vs 27/40, p = 0.03), and significantly fewer women would have the test again (32/51 vs 33/40, p = 0.03). Concerning sigmoidoscopy, although sex did not appear to significantly interact with tolerance, more women were significantly less willing to undergo the test again (4/14 vs 18/24, p = 0.02). Sex had no effect on patients' opinions of CT colonography. Neither age nor a history of endoscopic intervention had any significant effect on patient tolerance or willingness to undergo tests again for any of the three procedures. Also, no significant effect of age, sex, or endoscopic intervention was seen on patient test preference or assessment of acceptance. Patients expressing an overall preference for CT colonography reported that they were more satisfied (p = 0.007), less worried (p = 0.007), and suffered less physical discomfort (p = 0.004) after CT than those who preferred colonoscopy, but no significant difference was seen in questionnaire responses after colonoscopy for those patients expressing a preference for either test over the other. Similarly, questionnaire responses from those who underwent sigmoidoscopy were not significantly associated with their subsequent test preference.


Discussion
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
To date, most evaluation of CT colonography has centered on its technical performance—most notably, its generally very good sensitivity and specificity for the detection of clinically significant adenomatous polyps [1113]. These promising results have resulted in claims that CT colonography can potentially be implemented for colorectal cancer screening [5, 10]. However, test acceptance is directly related to compliance in the context of a screening program. Patients who perceive a test as more embarrassing, uncomfortable, time-consuming, or worrying are less likely to attend the examination [20]. Advocates of CT colonography have suggested it is more comfortable, less invasive, and more acceptable than endoscopy [21, 22], and they infer that compliance may be higher. However, assessment of patient acceptance of CT colonography has been relatively limited and results have been conflicting [14, 15]. Furthermore, to our knowledge no comparison has been done with flexible sigmoidoscopy or double-contrast barium enema examination, both of which have also been touted as potential screening modalities [16, 17]. Compliance with the most commonly advocated screening tests (fecal occult blood test and flexible sigmoidoscopy) is often disappointingly low, commonly less than 50% [23, 24], and it has been suggested that compliance for CT colonography would likely be greater.

We found that the barium enema was significantly less well tolerated than any other procedure in terms of overall patient satisfaction, worry, and physical discomfort. To our knowledge, ours is the first study that has shown that CT colonography is better tolerated than barium enema. This finding is compounded by the fact that CT is likely to be more sensitive and specific for the detection of colorectal neoplasia, although no direct comparison between CT colonography and barium enema has been published at the time of this writing. Indeed, we found more positive responses after colonoscopy than after barium enema, which is in keeping with other studies that have also reported greater discomfort during barium enema than during colonoscopy [25]. Interestingly, Steine [26] found patients reported more pain during colonoscopy, although we found no significant differences between barium enema and colonoscopy for either discomfort on the visual analog scale or response to the pain item on the seven-point questionnaire. This discrepancy may in part be explained by the medication administered to patients; patients recruited by Steine received intramuscular pethidine with no sedative, whereas patients in our study routinely received both IV pethidine and midazolam during colonoscopy.

Kim et al. [27], using a case control study design similar to our own, found that patients perceived barium enema as less dignified than sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy; but unlike our results, those authors found sigmoidoscopy more painful than barium enema. Although data from case control studies may not be as valid as those from studies in which patients undergo both tests, the barium enema and CT colonography and endoscopy patient cohorts in our study were well matched in terms of demographics and were recruited from the same outpatient clinics. However, we cannot exclude that more subtle differences between the two groups induced by referral bias might have affected patients' responses to the questionnaires. This is an important consideration that may weaken our conclusions, although the frequency of significant differences between patient responses after barium enema compared with CT and endoscopy suggests a true difference in patient experience. Some divergence between the two groups also existed in bowel preparation regimes, although our questionnaires specifically referred to the tests themselves rather than to the experience of bowel purging.

With the exception of barium enema, patients were generally satisfied with all other modalities tested. However, satisfaction with colonoscopy was significantly greater than with CT colonography, albeit the actual difference was small overall. Perhaps not surprisingly, patients believed staff were more interested in them during colonoscopy than during CT colonography. By its very nature, CT colonography requires no sedation or continuous interaction with staff; the examination is performed by a machine rather than a doctor. Furthermore, rapid recovery eliminates the need for prolonged postprocedural observation, again possibly contributing to a sense of uninvolvement. Conversely, colonoscopy requires close patient monitoring combined with continuous staff–patient interaction both during and after the procedure, all likely to enhance perception of staff interest. Also, the ability to visualize the procedure in real time on a monitor increases patient satisfaction [28], an advantage that cannot easily be reproduced with CT colonography. Previous work has shown patient preference for endoscopy over a barium examination is largely related to staff interaction and the use of sedation [29].

However, patients did report significantly more physical discomfort during colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy than during CT colonography. Both types of endoscopy were deemed more painful and resulted in higher discomfort scores on the visual analog scale. Patients would have preferred to be less awake during sigmoidoscopy than during CT colonography despite the fact that sedation was not used for either procedure, implying greater pain during sigmoidoscopy. Although previous researchers have found greater discomfort during colonoscopy [14, 30], this is not a universal finding: Akerkar et al. [15] found CT colonography more painful than colonoscopy. Air was used for colonic distention in the study by Akerkar et al. as opposed to carbon dioxide as was used in this study, and compelling evidence exists that the latter is less painful [31]. However, Svensson et al. [14] also used air, suggesting that the distention agent alone does not explain discrepancy. For example, male sex is related to increased tolerance, and most patients recruited by Akerkar et al. were men.

When asked to express a preference as to which test would be most acceptable in the future, our patients found significantly in favor of CT colonography. However, a significant minority ({approx} 40%) had no preference as to which test they would have in the future. Overall, our findings mirror those of Svensson et al., [14] who found CT colonography strongly favored by the 71% of their cohort who expressed a preference; pain was more strongly associated with test preference than other psychologic factors were. Patients who preferred CT on follow-up recorded significantly better questionnaire responses after CT than those preferring colonoscopy, although the scores after endoscopy were no different between the two groups. This implies that a patient's experience of CT colonography rather than endoscopy was the more important factor in determining test preference, perhaps because of greater familiarity with conventional endoscopy than with a novel radiology technique.

Surprisingly, we found some evidence that younger patients tolerated procedures less well, particularly flexible sigmoidoscopy and barium enema. However, the most consistent finding was that of poorer female tolerance. Women found both colonoscopy and barium enema more uncomfortable than men did and were less likely to have either colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy again. Reduced female tolerance of endoscopy is well described [32], and women are less likely to express an interest in undergoing screening flexible sigmoidoscopy [20]. Such differences may be partly psychologic in origin; women find endoscopy more embarrassing than men. However, anatomic differences also contribute; for example, posthysterectomy adhesions impede sigmoid intubation [33]. We found no sex difference regarding tolerance or discomfort during CT colonography, with women just as willing to undergo CT again, suggesting that screening using CT colonography may help diminish differences in compliance between the sexes.

Although hyoscine-N-butyl bromide has been reported to decrease patient discomfort during barium enema examinations [34], we found no evidence that patients who received a spasmolytic before CT colonography suffered any less discomfort or were any more tolerant of the test. One of the major advantages of endoscopy is that it permits the performance of biopsy and polyp removal, but perhaps surprisingly, like Svensson et al. [14], we found no evidence that endoscopic intervention had any influence on patient preference or assessment of test acceptance.

Because of the nature of the procedures, it was not possible to randomize the order in which patients underwent each test, so the experience of colonoscopy may have been altered by the preceding CT colonography. This fact is a potential source of weakness, although only eight patients believed that they had not fully recovered from CT colonography before undergoing endoscopy. Furthermore, we used carbon dioxide for colonic distention, which is rapidly absorbed, and our endoscopists did not report undue difficulty after CT. Inexperienced endoscopists decrease patient satisfaction [32]. We attempted to minimize this potential confounder by ensuring that most endoscopies were performed by one of two experienced operators.

Although it is possible that patients remained under the influence of sedation when completing the postcolonoscopy questionnaire, all were deemed fit to leave the department, and responses made at that time correlate well with responses to the same questionnaire given 24 hr later [14]. Furthermore, our study included a follow-up questionnaire administered at least 1 week after the procedures, which allowed patients to give a more considered view. We attempted to keep the follow-up questions as open as possible but accept that differences in wording can have a significant effect on patient responses. Although most patients were told their CT and endoscopy results, they did not receive formal reports and may not have been fully aware of differences in test performances when filling in the follow-up questionnaires. We investigated symptomatic patients, and caution must be exercised when applying our findings to an asymptomatic screening population.

In conclusion, we have shown that multidetector CT colonography is more acceptable than barium enema examination, raising the possibility that it may be the radiologic investigation of choice in symptomatic patients. Levels of overall satisfaction are slightly greater with colonoscopy, but CT colonography causes less discomfort, is better tolerated, and is the preferred follow-up test for those expressing a preference. Compared with flexible sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography causes less pain, is more acceptable, and is preferred for follow-up. Decreased tolerance in women is not found with CT colonography.


Acknowledgments
 
We thank the Royal College of Radiologists Research Fellowship and the Wexham Gastrointestinal Trust for funding.


References
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 

  1. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet 1996;348:1472 –1477[Medline]
  2. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy: the National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med1993; 329:1977 –1981[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. 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 U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med2002; 137:132 –141[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology1997; 112:594 –642[Medline]
  5. Johnson CD, Dachman AH. CT colonography: the next colon screening examination? Radiology2000; 216:331 –341[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Gram IT, Slenker SE. Cancer anxiety and attitudes toward mammography among screening attenders, nonattenders, and women never invited. Am J Public Health1992; 82:249 –251[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Seow A, Wong ML, Smith WC, Lee HP. Beliefs and attitudes as determinants of cervical cancer screening: a community-based study in Singapore. Prev Med1995; 24:134 –141[Medline]
  8. Verne JE, Aubrey R, Love SB, Talbot IC, Northover JM. Population based randomized study of uptake and yield of screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy compared with screening by faecal occult blood testing. BMJ 1998;317:182 –185[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Ferrucci JT. Colon cancer screening with virtual colonoscopy: promise, polyps, politics. (Eugene W. Caldwell lecture) AJR 2001;177:975 –988[Free Full Text]
  10. Morrin MM, Farrell RJ, Kruskal JB, LaMont JT. Virtual colonoscopy: a kinder, gentler colorectal cancer screening test? Lancet 1999;354:1048 –1049[Medline]
  11. Macari M, Bini EJ, Xue X, et al. Colorectal neoplasms: prospective comparison of thin-section low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection. Radiology2002; 224:383 –392[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Schroy PC III, Barish MA, Clarke PD, Ferrucci JT. A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med1999; 341:1496 –1503[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Yee J, Akerkar GA, Hung RK, Steinauer-Gebauer AM, Wall SD, McQuaid KR. Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients. Radiology2001; 219:685 –692[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. 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. Radiology2002; 222:337 –345[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. 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 Endosc2001; 54:310 –315[Medline]
  16. Atkin WS. Single flexible sigmoidoscopy screening to prevent colorectal cancer: baseline findings of a UK multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2002;359:1291 –1300[Medline]
  17. Levine MS, Glick SN, Rubesin SE, Laufer I. Double-contrast barium enema examination and colorectal cancer: a plea for radiologic screening. Radiology2002; 222:313 –315[Free Full Text]
  18. Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Carbone I, et al. Detection of colorectal lesions with virtual computed tomographic colonography. Am J Surg 2002;183:124 –131[Medline]
  19. Salmon P, Shah R, Berg S, Williams C. Evaluating customer satisfaction with colonoscopy. Endoscopy1994; 26:342 –346[Medline]
  20. Wardle J, Sutton S, Williamson S, et al. Psychosocial influences on older adults' interest in participating in bowel cancer screening. Prev Med 2000;31:323 –334[Medline]
  21. Johnson CD, Ahlquist DA. Computed tomography colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a new method for colorectal screening. Gut 1999;44:301 –305[Free Full Text]
  22. Ferrucci JT. CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening: lessons from mammography. AJR2000; 174:1539 –1541[Free Full Text]
  23. Mant D, Fuller A, Northover J, et al. Patient compliance with colorectal cancer screening in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 1992;42:18 –20[Medline]
  24. Olynyk JK, Aquilia S, Fletcher DR, Dickinson JA. Flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk subjects: a community-based pilot project. Med J Aust1996; 165:74 –76[Medline]
  25. Van Ness MM, Chobanian SJ, Winters C Jr, Diehl AM, Esposito RL, Cattau EL Jr. A study of patient acceptance of double-contrast barium enema and colonoscopy: which procedure is preferred by patients? Arch Intern Med 1987;147:2175 –2176[Abstract]
  26. Steine S. Which hurts the most? a comparison of pain rating during double-contrast barium enema examination and colonoscopy. Radiology1994; 191:99 –101[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Kim LS, Koch J, Yee J, Halvorsen R, Cello JP, Rockey DC. Comparison of patients' experiences during imaging tests of the colon. Gastrointest Endosc2001; 54:67 –74[Medline]
  28. Taylor T, Williamson S, Wardle J, Borrill J, Sutton S, Atkin W. Acceptability of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in older adults in the United Kingdom. J Med Screen2000; 7:38 –45[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Stevenson GE, Norman G, Frost R, Somers S. Barium meal or endoscopy? a prospective randomized study of patient preference and physician decision making. Clin Radiol1991; 44:317 –321[Medline]
  30. Thomeer M, Bielen D, Vanbeckevoort D, et al. Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue? Eur Radiol2002; 12:1410 –1415[Medline]
  31. Holemans JA, Matson MB, Hughes JA, Seed P, Rankin SC. A comparison of air, CO2 and an air/CO2 mixture as insufflation agents for double contrast barium enema. Eur Radiol1998; 8:274 –276[Medline]
  32. Schoen RE, Weissfeld JL, Bowen NJ, Switzer G, Baum A. Patient satisfaction with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1790 –1796[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Marshall JB, Perez RA, Madsen RW. Usefulness of a pediatric colonoscope for routine colonoscopy in women who have undergone hysterectomy. Gastrointest Endosc2002; 55:838 –841[Medline]
  34. Bova JG, Jurdi RA, Bennett WF. Antispasmodic drugs to reduce discomfort and colonic spasm during barium enemas: comparison of oral hyoscyamine, IV glucagon, and no drug. AJR1993; 161:965 –968[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
BMJHome page
D. Burling, J. E East, and S. A Taylor
Investigating rectal bleeding
BMJ, December 15, 2007; 335(7632): 1260 - 1262.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
V A Sahni and D Burling
The new NHS colorectal cancer screening programme and the potential role of radiology?
Br. J. Radiol., October 1, 2007; 80(958): 778 - 781.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
C. D. Johnson, J. G. Fletcher, R. L. MacCarty, J. N. Mandrekar, W. S. Harmsen, P. J. Limburg, and L. A. Wilson
Effect of Slice Thickness and Primary 2D Versus 3D Virtual Dissection on Colorectal Lesion Detection at CT Colonography in 452 Asymptomatic Adults
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2007; 189(3): 672 - 680.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
B Saar, A Meining, A Beer, M Settles, H Helmberger, E Frimberger, E J Rummeny, and T Rosch
Prospective study on bright lumen magnetic resonance colonography in comparison with conventional colonoscopy
Br. J. Radiol., April 1, 2007; 80(952): 235 - 241.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
radtechHome page
D. S. WERDERMAN
CT Colonography
Radiol. Technol., March 1, 2007; 78(4): 309CT - 324CT.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ImagingHome page
A SLATER
Alteration in bowel habit
Imaging, December 1, 2006; 18(4): 208 - 217.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
T Xiong, K McEvoy, D G Morton, S Halligan, and R J Lilford
Resources and costs associated with incidental extracolonic findings from CT colonogaphy: a study in a symptomatic population
Br. J. Radiol., December 1, 2006; 79(948): 948 - 961.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
D. Burling, S. Halligan, A. Slater, M. J. Noakes, and S. A. Taylor
Potentially Serious Adverse Events at CT Colonography in Symptomatic Patients: National Survey of the United Kingdom
Radiology, May 1, 2006; 239(2): 464 - 471.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
S A Taylor, S Halligan, A Slater, D Burling, M Marshall, and C I Bartram
Comparison of Radiologists' confidence in excluding significant colorectal neoplasia with multidetector-row CT colonography compared with double contrast barium enema.
Br. J. Radiol., March 1, 2006; 79(939): 208 - 214.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
D. Burling, S. A. Taylor, S. Halligan, L. Gartner, M. Paliwalla, C. Peiris, L. Singh, P. Bassett, and C. Bartram
Automated Insufflation of Carbon Dioxide for MDCT Colonography: Distension and Patient Experience Compared with Manual Insufflation
Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2006; 186(1): 96 - 103.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN INTERN MEDHome page
B. P. Mulhall, G. R. Veerappan, and J. L. Jackson
Meta-Analysis: Computed Tomographic Colonography
Ann Intern Med, April 19, 2005; 142(8): 635 - 650.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
W. Ajaj, T. C. Lauenstein, G. Pelster, G. Holtmann, S. G. Ruehm, J. F. Debatin, and S. C. Goehde
MR Colonography in Patients with Incomplete Conventional Colonoscopy
Radiology, February 1, 2005; 234(2): 452 - 459.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. Cohnen, C. Vogt, A. Beck, K. Andersen, W. Heinen, S. vom Dahl, V. Aurich, D. Haeussinger, and U. Moedder
Feasibility of MDCT Colonography in Ultra-Low-Dose Technique in the Detection of Colorectal Lesions: Comparison with High-Resolution Video Colonoscopy
Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2004; 183(5): 1355 - 1359.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
J. F. Bruzzi, H. M. Fenlon, S. Halligan, S. Taylor, P. Bassett, and C. Bartram
Colonic Distention in Multi-Detector Row CT Colonography [letter] * Dr Halligan and colleagues respond:
Radiology, April 1, 2004; 231(1): 282 - 283.
[Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow