Patient acceptability of CT colonography compared with double contrast barium enema: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial of symptomatic patients. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:2046-2055. [PMID: 21626363 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2154-y]

Computed tomographic colonography versus double-contrast barium enema for the preoperative evaluation of rectal cancer

PURPOSE

We investigated whether or not computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a viable alternative to double-contrast barium enema (BE) for a preoperative rectal cancer evaluation.

METHODS

The size and distance from the anal canal to the lower or upper tumor borders were laterally measured in 147 patients who underwent CTC and BE. Measurements were grouped into early cancer, advanced, and after chemoradiation therapy (CRT).

RESULTS

In the early and advanced cancer groups, all lesions were visualized by BE. In contrast, 3 (7.8%) early and 8 (7.3%) advanced cases, located at the anterior wall near the anal canal, were not visualized by CTC because of liquid level formation. In the CRT group, 16 (23.5%) and 4 (5.8%) cases were not visualized by CTC and BE, respectively. The BE and CTC size measurements were similar among cohorts. However, the distance from the anal canal's superior margin tended to be longer with BE, especially in early cancer. The differences in distance from the anal canal were significantly larger in the early cancer group than in the other two groups (p = 0.0024).

CONCLUSION

CTC may be a viable alternative imaging modality in some cases. However, BE should be employed in anterior wall cases near the anal canal and CRT cases.

A survey study investigating perceptions and acceptance of the whole-body imaging techniques used for the diagnosis of myeloma

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to investigate patient perceptions and acceptance of the three whole-body imaging (WBI) modalities used for diagnosing myeloma; radiographic skeletal survey (RSS), low-dose whole-body computed tomography (LD-WBCT) and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI). The secondary aim was to explore the factors affecting the acceptance of whole-body imaging for myeloma.

METHODS

60 participants (median age = 58.5 years old) recruited from three NHS trusts and social media completed a survey in which they scored their experiences of each WBI modality on nine 5-point rating scales. Spearman's correlation coefficient, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare scores between different WBI techniques. Participants were invited to provide additional open text responses for interpretation using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

All modalities demonstrated high levels of acceptability (median score = 4). WB-MRI was perceived as more stressful (p=<0.01) and claustrophobic (p=<0.01) than RSS and LD-WBCT. Thematic analysis showed patients understood the importance of imaging but had concerns about exacerbated pain and the results. WB-MRI was difficult to tolerate due to its duration. Respondents were averse to the physical manipulation required for RSS while remaining stationary was perceived as a benefit of LD-WBCT and WB-MRI. Staff interactions had both positive and negative effects on acceptance.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the psychological and physical burdens of WBI, patients accepted its role in facilitating diagnosis. Staff support is vital for facilitating a positive whole-body imaging experience. Healthcare practitioners can improve WBI acceptance by understanding the burdens imposed by WBI and adopting the personalised care model.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Patient experience can be improved by tailoring examinations to individual needs. RSS can be as burdensome as other WBI techniques and could be superseded by LD-WBCT or WB-MRI.

Predictors of patient preference for either whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) or CT/ PET-CT for staging colorectal or lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

Whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) may be more efficient in staging cancers, but can be harder for patients to tolerate. We examined predictors of patient preference for WB-MRI vs. CT/ PET-CT for staging colorectal or lung cancer.

METHODS

Patients recruited prospectively to two multicentre trials comparing diagnostic accuracy of WB-MRI with standard staging scans were sent two questionnaires: the first, administered at trial registration, captured demographics, educational level and comorbidities; the second, administered after staging completion, measured emotional distress (GHQ-12), positive mood (PANAS), perceived scan burden, patients' beliefs about WB-MRI, and preference for either WB-MRI or CT (colorectal trial), WB-MRI or PET-CT (lung trial). Preference for WB-MRI or CT/ PET-CT was analysed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Baseline and post-staging questionnaires were completed by 97 and 107 patients, respectively. Overall, 56/107 (52%) preferred WB-MRI over standard scans and were more likely to have no additional comorbidities, higher positive mood, greater awareness of potential benefits of WB-MRI and lower levels of perceived WB-MRI scan burden. In adjusted analyses, only awareness of potential WB-MRI benefits remained a significant predictor (OR: 1.516, 95% CIs 1.006-2.284, P = 0.047). Knowledge that WB-MRI does not use radiation predicted preference (adjusted OR: 3.018, 95% CIs 1.099-8.288, P = 0.032), although only 45/107 (42%) patients were aware of this attribute.

CONCLUSIONS

A small majority of patients undergoing staging of colorectal or lung cancer prefer WB-MRI to CT/ PET-CT. Raising awareness of the potential benefits of WB-MRI, notably lack of ionizing radiation, could influence preference.

Patient deprivation and perceived scan burden negatively impact the quality of whole-body MRI

AIM

To evaluate the association between the image quality of cancer staging whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) and patient demographics, distress, and perceived scan burden.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A sample of patients recruited prospectively to multicentre trials comparing WB-MRI with standard scans for staging lung and colorectal cancer were invited to complete two questionnaires. The baseline questionnaire, administered at recruitment, collated data on demographics, distress and co-morbidity. The follow-up questionnaire, completed after staging investigations, measured perceived WB-MRI scan burden (scored 1 low to 7 high). WB-MRI anatomical coverage, and technical quality was graded by a radiographic technician and grading combined to categorise the scan as "optimal", "sub-optimal" or "degraded". A radiologist categorised 30 scans to test interobserver agreement. Data were analysed using the chi-square, Fisher's exact, t-tests, and multinomial regression.

RESULTS

One hundred and fourteen patients were included in the study (53 lung, 61 colorectal; average age 65.3 years, SD=11.8; 66 men [57.9%]). Overall, 45.6% (n=52), scans were classified as "optimal" quality, 39.5% (n=45) "sub-optimal", and 14.9% (n=17) as "degraded". In adjusted analyses, greater deprivation level and higher patient-reported scan burden were both associated with a higher likelihood of having a sub-optimal versus an optimal scan (odds ratio [OR]: 4.465, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.454 to 13.709, p=0.009; OR: 1.987, CI: 1.153 to 3.425, p=0.013, respectively). None of the variables predicted the likelihood of having a degraded scan.

CONCLUSIONS

Deprivation and patients' perceived experience of the WB-MRI are related to image quality. Tailored protocols and individualised patient management before and during WB-MRI may improve image quality.

Whole-body MRI compared with standard pathways for staging metastatic disease in lung and colorectal cancer: the Streamline diagnostic accuracy studies

BACKGROUND

Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging is advocated as an alternative to standard pathways for staging cancer.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to compare diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, patient acceptability, observer variability and cost-effectiveness of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways in staging newly diagnosed non-small-cell lung cancer (Streamline L) and colorectal cancer (Streamline C).

DESIGN

The design was a prospective multicentre cohort study.

SETTING

The setting was 16 NHS hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years with histologically proven or suspected colorectal (Streamline C) or non-small-cell lung cancer (Streamline L).

INTERVENTIONS

Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging. Standard staging investigations (e.g. computed tomography and positron emission tomography-computed tomography).

REFERENCE STANDARD

Consensus panel decision using 12-month follow-up data.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was per-patient sensitivity difference between whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard staging pathways for metastasis. Secondary outcomes included differences in specificity, the nature of the first major treatment decision, time and number of tests to complete staging, patient experience and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Streamline C - 299 participants were included. Per-patient sensitivity for metastatic disease was 67% (95% confidence interval 56% to 78%) and 63% (95% confidence interval 51% to 74%) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (95% confidence interval -5% to 13%; p = 0.51). Specificity was 95% (95% confidence interval 92% to 97%) and 93% (95% confidence interval 90% to 96%) respectively, a difference of 2% (95% confidence interval -2% to 6%). Pathway treatment decisions agreed with the multidisciplinary team treatment decision in 96% and 95% of cases, respectively, a difference of 1% (95% confidence interval -2% to 4%). Time for staging was 8 days (95% confidence interval 6 to 9 days) and 13 days (95% confidence interval 11 to 15 days) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference of 5 days (95% confidence interval 3 to 7 days). The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was cheaper than the standard staging pathway: £216 (95% confidence interval £211 to £221) versus £285 (95% confidence interval £260 to £310). Streamline L - 187 participants were included. Per-patient sensitivity for metastatic disease was 50% (95% confidence interval 37% to 63%) and 54% (95% confidence interval 41% to 67%) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (95% confidence interval -7% to 15%; p = 0.73). Specificity was 93% (95% confidence interval 88% to 96%) and 95% (95% confidence interval 91% to 98%), respectively, a difference of 2% (95% confidence interval -2% to 7%). Pathway treatment decisions agreed with the multidisciplinary team treatment decision in 98% and 99% of cases, respectively, a difference of 1% (95% confidence interval -2% to 4%). Time for staging was 13 days (95% confidence interval 12 to 14 days) and 19 days (95% confidence interval 17 to 21 days) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference of 6 days (95% confidence interval 4 to 8 days). The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was cheaper than the standard staging pathway: £317 (95% confidence interval £273 to £361) versus £620 (95% confidence interval £574 to £666). Participants generally found whole-body magnetic resonance imaging more burdensome than standard imaging but most participants preferred the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging staging pathway if it reduced time to staging and/or number of tests.

LIMITATIONS

Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging was interpreted by practitioners blinded to other clinical data, which may not fully reflect how it is used in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

In colorectal and non-small-cell lung cancer, the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging staging pathway has similar accuracy to standard staging pathways, is generally preferred by patients, improves staging efficiency and has lower staging costs. Future work should address the utility of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for treatment response assessment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN43958015 and ISRCTN50436483.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Colonoscopy in the very elderly

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is the gold standard test for investigating lower gastrointestinal symptoms and is an important therapeutic tool for colonic polypectomy. This paper is aimed at the general physician and examines the role of colonoscopy in very elderly patients by exploring the particular risks in this population, the yield of colonoscopy and potential alternative investigations.

SOURCES OF DATA

Original research and review articles were identified through selective PubMed searches. Guidelines were identified through interrogation of national and international society websites in addition to PubMed searches.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Advanced age alone is not a reason to avoid investigation. The decision to perform colonoscopy in this population must take into account indication and yield, risks of the procedure and bowel preparation, physical fitness of the patient, potential alternative and the ability to consent. As a general rule, the principle of 'first doing no harm' should be applied and requires balancing of the risks of the procedure and preparation with the benefits of doing the test.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

There is no defined upper age limit at which colonoscopy is contraindicated, however; the National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme stops inviting patients for screening and surveillance colonoscopy at age 75.

GROWING POINTS AND AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The concepts of 'first do no harm' and shared decision-making are not new but are increasingly important, particularly in this patient group. It is crucial to provide patients with information about risks, benefits and alternative investigations to empower their decision-making.

Perceived patient burden and acceptability of whole body MRI for staging lung and colorectal cancer; comparison with standard staging investigations

Objective:

To evaluate perceived patient burden and acceptability of whole body MRI (WB-MRI) compared to standard staging investigations, and identify predictors of reduced tolerance.

Methods:

Patients recruited to multicentre trials comparing WB-MRI with standard staging scans for lung and colorectal cancer were invited to complete two questionnaires: a baseline questionnaire at recruitment, measuring demographics, comorbidities, and distress; and a follow-up questionnaire after staging, measuring recovery time, comparative acceptability/satisfaction between WB-MRI and CT (colorectal cancer) and PET-CT (lung cancer), and perceived scan burden (scored 1, low; 7, high). 

Results:

115 patients (median age 66.3 years; 67 males) completed follow up and 103 baseline questionnaires. 69 (63.9%) reported “immediate” recovery from WB-MRI and 73 (65.2%) judged it “very acceptable”. Perceived WB-MRI burden was greater than for CT (p < 0.001) and PET-CT (p < 0.001). High distress and comorbidities were associated with greater WB-MRI burden in adjusted analyses, with deprivation only approaching significance (adjusted regression β = 0.223, p = 0.025; β = 0.191, p = 0.048; β = −0.186, p = 0.059 respectively). Age (p = 0.535), gender (p = 0.389), ethnicity (p = 0.081) and cancer type (p = 0.201) were not predictive of WB-MRI burden.

Conclusion:

 WB-MRI is marginally less acceptable and more burdensome than standard scans, particularly for patients with pre-existing distress and comorbidities. 

Advances in knowledge:

This research shows that WB-MRI scan burden, although low, is higher than for current staging modalities among patients with suspected colorectal or lung cancer. Psychological and physical comorbidities adversely impact on patient experience of WB-MRI. Patients with high distress or comorbid illness may need additional support to undergo a WB-MRI.

Colorectal Cancer Screening-Who, How, and When?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide. It is amenable to screening as it occurs in premalignant, latent, early, and curable stages. PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and national and international CRC screening guidelines were searched for CRC screening methods, populations, and timing. CRC screening can use direct or indirect tests, delivered opportunistically or via organized programs. Most CRCs are diagnosed after 60 years of age; most screening programs apply to individuals 50-75 years of age. Screening may reduce disease-specific mortality by detecting CRC in earlier stages, and CRC incidence by detecting premalignant polyps, which can subsequently be removed. In randomized controlled trials (RCTs) guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBt) was found to reduce CRC mortality by 13%-33%. Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) has no RCT data comparing it to no screening, but is superior to gFOBt. Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) trials demonstrated an 18% reduction in CRC incidence and a 28% reduction in CRC mortality. Currently, RCT evidence for colonoscopy screening is scarce. Although not yet corroborated by RCTs, it is likely that colonoscopy is the best screening modality for an individual. From a population perspective, organized programs are superior to opportunistic screening. However, no nation can offer organized population-wide colonoscopy screening. Thus, organized programs using cheaper modalities, such as FS/FIT, can be tailored to budget and capacity.

The Burden of Cystoscopic Bladder Cancer Surveillance: Anxiety, Discomfort, and Patient Preferences for Decision Making

OBJECTIVE

To examine discomfort, anxiety, and preferences for decision making in patients undergoing surveillance cystoscopy for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC).

METHODS

Veterans with a prior diagnosis of NMIBC completed validated survey instruments assessing procedural discomfort, worry, and satisfaction, and were invited to participate in semistructured focus groups about their experience and desire to be involved in surveillance decision making. Focus group transcripts were analyzed qualitatively, using (1) systematic iterative coding, (2) triangulation involving multiple perspectives from urologists and an implementation scientist, and (3) searching and accounting for disconfirming evidence.

RESULTS

Twelve patients participated in 3 focus groups. Median number of lifetime cystoscopy procedures was 6.5 (interquartile range 4-10). Based on survey responses, two-thirds of participants (64%) experienced some degree of procedural discomfort or worry, and all participants reported improvement in at least 2 dimensions of overall well-being following cystoscopy. Qualitative analysis of the focus groups indicated that participants experience preprocedural anxiety and worry about their disease. Although many participants did not perceive themselves as having a defined role in decision making surrounding their surveillance care, their preferences to be involved in decision making varied widely, ranging from acceptance of the physician's recommendation, to uncertainty, to dissatisfaction with not being involved more in determining the intensity of surveillance care.

CONCLUSION

Many patients with NMIBC experience discomfort, anxiety, and worry related to disease progression and not only cystoscopy. Although some patients are content to defer surveillance decisions to their physicians, others prefer to be more involved. Future work should focus on defining patient-centered approaches to surveillance decision making.

CT colonography: role in FOBT-based screening programs for colorectal cancer

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive imaging examination for the colon, and is safe, well tolerated and accurate for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced adenoma. While the role of CTC as a primary test for population screening of CRC is under investigation, the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) has been recommended for population screening of CRC in Europe. Subjects with positive FOBT are invited to undergo total colonoscopy, which has some critical issues, such as suboptimal compliance, contraindications and the possibility of an incomplete exploration of the colon. Based on available data, the integration of CTC in FOBT-based population screening programs for CRC may fall into three scenarios. First, CTC is recommended in FOBT-positive subjects when colonoscopy is refused, incomplete or contraindicated. For these indications CTC should replace double-contrast barium enema. Second, conversely, CTC is not currently recommended as a second-level examination prior to colonoscopy in all FOBT-positive subjects, as this strategy is most probably not cost-effective. Finally, CTC may be considered instead of colonoscopy for surveillance after adenoma removal, but specific studies are needed.

CT Colonography: an update on current and future indications

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive, patient-friendly, safe and robust colonic imaging modality. The technique is standardized and consolidated evidence from the literature shows that the diagnostic performances for the detection of colorectal cancer and large polyps are similar to colonoscopy (CS) and largely superior to alternative radiological exams, like barium enema. A clear understanding of the exact role of CTC will be beneficial to maximize the benefits and minimize the potential sources of frustration or disappointment for both referring clinicians and patients. Incomplete, failed, or unfeasible CS; investigation of elderly, and frail patients and assessment of diverticular disease are major indications supported by evidence-based data and agreed by the endoscopists. The use of CTC for symptomatic patients, colorectal cancer screening and colonic surveillance is still under debate and, thus, recommended only if CS is unfeasible or refused by patients.

Editorial on the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) guideline on clinical indications for CT colonography in the colorectal cancer diagnosis

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE)-European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) guideline was generated jointly by a team of researchers, including gastrointestinal radiologists and endoscopists, and represents the first full collaborative effort between the two specialties after years of turf battles involving CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy (CS). This guideline has a main educational purpose and it represents the attempt to find a consensus about the use of CTC in clinical practice based on the best current available evidence. Thus, it should not be considered as rules for establishing a legal standard of care. Main recommendations include the use of CTC as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia, the use of CTC in the case of incomplete CS, and the possible use of CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (CRC), when CS is contraindicated or not possible. ESGE-ESGAR guideline does not recommend CTC for population screening, but considers that CTC may be proposed as a CRC screening test on an individual basis (opportunistic screening) provided the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits and risks. With regard to patient management, referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm in diameter detected at CTC is recommended, considering surveillance only in case polyp removal is not possible. Knowledge about CTC is in continuous evolution and this means that a revision might be necessary in the future as new data appear.

Practice parameters for the treatment of colonic diverticular disease: Italian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgery (SICCR) guidelines

The mission of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR) is to optimize patient care. Providing evidence-based practice guidelines is therefore of key importance. About the present report it concernes the SICCR practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of diverticular disease of the colon. The guidelines are not intended to define the sole standard of care but to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the available therapeutic options.

CT colonography: a survey of general practitioners' knowledge and interest

PURPOSE

To verify the knowledge and interest of general practitioners on computed tomography colonography (CTC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 2014, a Web-based questionnaire was proposed to all general practitioners of [Milan, Italy]. The questionnaire consisted of ten questions concerning general practitioners' knowledge about CTC, including application of guidelines in clinical scenarios and diagnostic performance.

RESULTS

Out of 1,053 general practitioners, 231 (22%), 155 men and 76 women (mean age 58 years), completed the survey. We found a significant difference between the age of responders and that of non-responders (p = 0.0033). Of the 231 responders, 84% were aware of the possibility of using CTC as a method for examining the colon-rectum. However, only 57% were aware about low X-ray exposure delivered by CTC and about the possibility of using a reduced cleansing protocol. Only 48% were aware that CTC accuracy in diagnosing 10-mm or larger polyps and colorectal cancers was similar to that of conventional colonoscopy, while 62% were informed about CTC advantages in comparison with double-contrast barium enema; 59% thought that CTC had a potential role as a screening test; 85-86% suggested CTC in the case of refused or incomplete conventional colonoscopy; 79% suggested immediate conventional colonoscopy in the case of at least one 10-mm polyp. About 54% usually prescribe one CTC every 4-6 months, while 36% never have, 3% one CTC per month, and 7% one every 2-3 months. Ninety-four per cent declared that they were willing to attend a course on CTC.

CONCLUSION

General practitioners have limited knowledge concerning CTC. Radiological societies should fill this gap offering dedicated educational initiatives.

Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy or barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer in older symptomatic patients: two multicentre randomised trials with economic evaluation (the SIGGAR trials)

BACKGROUND

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a relatively new diagnostic test that may be superior to existing alternatives to investigate the large bowel.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic efficacy, acceptability, safety and cost-effectiveness of CTC with barium enema (BE) or colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Parallel randomised trials: BE compared with CTC and colonoscopy compared with CTC (randomisation 2 : 1, respectively).

SETTING

A total of 21 NHS hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged ≥ 55 years with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (CRC).

INTERVENTIONS

CTC, BE and colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

For the trial of CTC compared with BE, the primary outcome was the detection rate of CRC and large polyps (≥ 10 mm), with the proportion of patients referred for additional colonic investigation as a secondary outcome. For the trial of CTC compared with colonoscopy, the primary outcome was the proportion of patients referred for additional colonic investigation, with the detection rate of CRC and large polyps as a secondary outcome. Secondary outcomes for both trials were miss rates for cancer (via registry data), all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, patient acceptability, extracolonic pathology and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

A total of 8484 patients were registered and 5384 were randomised and analysed (BE trial: 2527 BE, 1277 CTC; colonoscopy trial: 1047 colonoscopy, 533 CTC). Detection rates in the BE trial were 7.3% (93/1277) for CTC, compared with 5.6% (141/2527) for BE (p = 0.0390). The difference was due to better detection of large polyps by CTC (3.6% vs. 2.2%; p = 0.0098), with no significant difference for cancer (3.7% vs. 3.4%; p = 0.66). Significantly more patients having CTC underwent additional investigation (23.5% vs. 18.3%; p = 0.0003). At the 3-year follow-up, the miss rate for CRC was 6.7% for CTC (three missed cancers) and 14.1% for BE (12 missed cancers). Significantly more patients randomised to CTC than to colonoscopy underwent additional investigation (30% vs. 8.2%; p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in detection rates for cancer or large polyps (10.7% for CTC vs. 11.4% for colonoscopy; p = 0.69), with no difference when cancers (p = 0.94) and large polyps (p = 0.53) were analysed separately. At the 3-year follow-up, the miss rate for cancer was nil for colonoscopy and 3.4% for CTC (one missed cancer). Adverse events were uncommon for all procedures. In 1042 of 1748 (59.6%) CTC examinations, at least one extracolonic finding was reported, and this proportion increased with age (p < 0.0001). A total of 149 patients (8.5%) were subsequently investigated, and extracolonic neoplasia was diagnosed in 79 patients (4.5%) and malignancy in 29 (1.7%). In the short term, CTC was significantly more acceptable to patients than BE or colonoscopy. Total costs for CTC and colonoscopy were finely balanced, but CTC was associated with higher health-care costs than BE. The cost per large polyp or cancer detected was £4235 (95% confidence interval £395 to £9656).

CONCLUSIONS

CTC is superior to BE for detection of cancers and large polyps in symptomatic patients. CTC and colonoscopy detect a similar proportion of large polyps and cancers and their costs are also similar. CTC precipitates significantly more additional investigations than either BE or colonoscopy, and evidence-based referral criteria are needed. Further work is recommended to clarify the extent to which patients initially referred for colonoscopy or BE undergo subsequent abdominopelvic imaging, for example by computed tomography, which will have a significant impact on health economic estimates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95152621.

Computed tomography colonography in 2014: an update on technique and indications

Twenty years after its introduction, computed tomographic colonography (CTC) has reached its maturity, and it can reasonably be considered the best radiological diagnostic test for imaging colorectal cancer (CRC) and polyps. This examination technique is less invasive than colonoscopy (CS), easy to perform, and standardized. Reduced bowel preparation and colonic distention using carbon dioxide favor patient compliance. Widespread implementation of a new image reconstruction algorithm has minimized radiation exposure, and the use of dedicated software with enhanced views has enabled easier image interpretation. Integration in the routine workflow of a computer-aided detection algorithm reduces perceptual errors, particularly for small polyps. Consolidated evidence from the literature shows that the diagnostic performances for the detection of CRC and large polyps in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals are similar to CS and are largely superior to barium enema, the latter of which should be strongly discouraged. Favorable data regarding CTC performance open the possibility for many different indications, some of which are already supported by evidence-based data: incomplete, failed, or unfeasible CS; symptomatic, elderly, and frail patients; and investigation of diverticular disease. Other indications are still being debated and, thus, are recommended only if CS is unfeasible: the use of CTC in CRC screening and in surveillance after surgery for CRC or polypectomy. In order for CTC to be used appropriately, contraindications such as acute abdominal conditions (diverticulitis or the acute phase of inflammatory bowel diseases) and surveillance in patients with a long-standing history of ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease and in those with hereditary colonic syndromes should not be overlooked. This will maximize the benefits of the technique and minimize potential sources of frustration or disappointment for both referring clinicians and patients.

Using computed tomography colonography in patients at high risk of colorectal cancer - a prospective study in a university hospital in South America

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of our study was to report the results of the implementation of computed tomography colonography in a university hospital setting serving a Brazilian population at high risk of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

After creating a computed tomography colonography service in our institution, 85 patients at high risk of colorectal cancer underwent computed tomography colonography followed by a same-day optical colonoscopy from September 2010 to May 2012. The overall accuracy of computed tomography colonography in the detection of lesions ≥6 mm was compared to that of optical colonoscopy (direct comparison). All colonic segments were evaluated using quality imaging (amount of liquid and solid residual feces and luminal distension). To assess patient acceptance and preference, a questionnaire was completed before and after the computed tomography colonography and optical colonoscopy. Fisher's exact test was used to measure the correlations between colonic distension, discomfort during the exam, exam preference and interpretation confidence.

RESULTS

Thirteen carcinomas and twenty-two lesions ≥6 mm were characterized. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of computed tomography colonography were 100%, 98.2% and 98.6%, respectively. Computed tomography colonography was the preferred method of investigation for 85% of patients. The preparation was reported to cause only mild discomfort for 97.6% of patients. According to the questionnaires, there was no significant relationship between colonic distension and discomfort (p>0.05). Most patients (89%) achieved excellent bowel preparation. There was a statistically significant correlation between the confidence perceived in reading the computed tomography colonography and the quality of the preparation in each colonic segment (p≤0.001). The average effective radiation dose per exam was 7.8 mSv.

CONCLUSION

It was possible to institute an efficient computed tomography colonography service at a university hospital that primarily assists patients from the public health system, with high accuracy, good acceptance and effective radiation doses. Our results seem to be comparable to other centers of excellence and fall within acceptable published guidelines, showing that a successful computed tomography colonography program can be reproduced in a South American population screened in a university hospital.

Colorectal cancer screening: tests, strategies, and perspectives

Screening has a central role in colorectal cancer (CRC) control. Different screening tests are effective in reducing CRC-specific mortality. Influence on cancer incidence depends on test sensitivity for pre-malignant lesions, ranging from almost no influence for guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) to an estimated reduction of 66–90% for colonoscopy. Screening tests detect lesions indirectly in the stool [gFOBT, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and fecal DNA] or directly by colonic inspection [flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, CT colonography (CTC), and capsule endoscopy]. CRC screening is cost-effective compared to no screening but no screening strategy is clearly better than the others. Stool tests are the most widely used in worldwide screening interventions. FIT will soon replace gFOBT. The use of colonoscopy as a screening test is increasing and this strategy has superseded all alternatives in the US and Germany. Despite its undisputed importance, CRC screening is under-used and participation rarely reaches 70% of target population. Strategies to increase participation include ensuring recommendation by physicians, introducing organized screening and developing new, more acceptable tests. Available evidence for DNA fecal testing, CTC, and capsule endoscopy is reviewed.

Italian consensus conference for colonic diverticulosis and diverticular disease

The statements produced by the Consensus Conference on Diverticular Disease promoted by GRIMAD (Gruppo Italiano Malattia Diverticolare, Italian Group on Diverticular Diseases) are reported. Topics such as epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, medical and surgical treatment of diverticular disease (DD) in patients with uncomplicated and complicated DD were reviewed by a scientific board of experts who proposed 55 statements graded according to level of evidence and strength of recommendation, and approved by an independent jury. Each topic was explored focusing on the more relevant clinical questions. Comparison and discussion of expert opinions, pertinent statements and replies to specific questions, were presented and approved based on a systematic literature search of the available evidence. Comments were added explaining the basis for grading the evidence, particularly for controversial areas.

Non- or full-laxative CT colonography vs. endoscopic tests for colorectal cancer screening: a randomised survey comparing public perceptions and intentions to undergo testing

Objectives

Compare public perceptions and intentions to undergo colorectal cancer screening tests following detailed information regarding CT colonography (CTC; after non-laxative preparation or full-laxative preparation), optical colonoscopy (OC) or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS).

Methods

A total of 3,100 invitees approaching screening age (45-54 years) were randomly allocated to receive detailed information on a single test and asked to return a questionnaire. Outcomes included perceptions of preparation and test tolerability, health benefits, sensitivity and specificity, and intention to undergo the test.

Results

Six hundred three invitees responded with valid questionnaire data. Non-laxative preparation was rated more positively than enema or full-laxative preparations [effect size (r) = 0.13 to 0.54; p < 0.0005 to 0.036]; both forms of CTC and FS were rated more positively than OC in terms of test experience (r = 0.26 to 0.28; all p-values < 0.0005). Perceptions of health benefits, sensitivity and specificity (p = 0.250 to 0.901), and intention to undergo the test (p = 0.213) did not differ between tests (n = 144-155 for each test).

Conclusions

Despite non-laxative CTC being rated more favourably, this study did not find evidence that offering it would lead to substantially higher uptake than full-laxative CTC or other methods. However, this study was limited by a lower than anticipated response rate.

Key Points

• Improving uptake of colorectal cancer screening tests could improve health benefits

• Potential invitees rate CTC and flexible sigmoidoscopy more positively than colonoscopy

• Non-laxative bowel preparation is rated better than enema or full-laxative preparations

• These positive perceptions alone may not be sufficient to improve uptake

• Health benefits and accuracy are rated similarly for preventative screening tests

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00330-014-3187-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Abdominal computed tomography, colonography and radiation exposure: what the surgeon needs to know

AIM

Abdominal computed tomography (CT) improves the accuracy of clinical diagnosis and facilitates patient management. Radiation exposure must be considered by requesting clinicians and is especially relevant owing to the increasing use of CT colonography for diagnosis and screening of colorectal disorders. This review describes the radiation dose of abdominopelvic CT and colonography and attempts to quantify the risk for the clinician.

METHOD

Articles were searched in the PubMed and Medline databases using combinations of the MeSH terms 'radiation', 'abdominal computed tomography' and 'colonography'. Electronic English language abstracts were read by two reviewers and the full article was retrieved if relevant to the review.

RESULTS

Abdominopelvic CT and CT colonography convey significant radiation dose to the patient but also have considerable diagnostic potential. In the right clinical context, the radiation risk should not be overestimated. Techniques to reduce the dose should be used. Repeated imaging in certain patients is a concern and should be monitored.

CONCLUSION

Radiation risk can be quantified and presented simply in a manner that both patients and doctors can comprehend and evaluate. This approach will diminish misconceptions and allow a rational choice of diagnostic test.

Quantifying public preferences for different bowel preparation options prior to screening CT colonography: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

CT colonography (CTC) may be an acceptable test for colorectal cancer screening but bowel preparation can be a barrier to uptake. This study tested the hypothesis that prospective screening invitees would prefer full-laxative preparation with higher sensitivity and specificity for polyps, despite greater burden, over less burdensome reduced-laxative or non-laxative alternatives with lower sensitivity and specificity.

DESIGN

Discrete choice experiment.

SETTING

Online, web-based survey.

PARTICIPANTS

2819 adults (45-54 years) from the UK responded to an online invitation to take part in a cancer screening study. Quota sampling ensured that the sample reflected key demographics of the target population and had no relevant bowel disease or medical qualifications. The analysis comprised 607 participants.

INTERVENTIONS

After receiving information about screening and CTC, participants completed 3-4 choice scenarios. Scenarios showed two hypothetical forms of CTC with different permutations of three attributes: preparation, sensitivity and specificity for polyps.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants considered the trade-offs in each scenario and stated their preferred test (or chose neither).

RESULTS

Preparation and sensitivity for polyps were both significant predictors of preferences (coefficients: -3.834 to -6.346 for preparation, 0.207-0.257 for sensitivity; p<0.0005). These attributes predicted preferences to a similar extent. Realistic specificity values were non-significant (-0.002 to 0.025; p=0.953). Contrary to our hypothesis, probabilities of selecting tests were similar for realistic forms of full-laxative, reduced-laxative and non-laxative preparations (0.362-0.421). However, they were substantially higher for hypothetical improved forms of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparations with better sensitivity for polyps (0.584-0.837).

CONCLUSIONS

Uptake of CTC following non-laxative or reduced-laxative preparations is unlikely to be greater than following full-laxative preparation as perceived gains from reduced burden may be diminished by reduced sensitivity. However, both attributes are important so a more sensitive form of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparation might improve uptake substantially.

Evaluating patients' preferences for type of bowel preparation prior to screening CT colonography: convenience and comfort versus sensitivity and specificity

AIMS

To explore the relative value patients place on comfort and convenience versus test sensitivity and specificity in the context of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty semi-structured interviews were carried out with patients attending hospital for radiological tests unrelated to CTC. Preferences for CTC with different types of bowel preparation for CTC screening were examined and interviews were analysed thematically. The discussion guide included separate sections on CTC, bowel preparation methods (non-, reduced- and full-laxative), and sensitivity and specificity. Patients were given information on each topic in turn and asked about their views and preferences during each section.

RESULTS

Following information about the test, patients' attitudes towards CTC were positive. Following information on bowel preparation, full-laxative purgation was anticipated to cause more adverse physical and lifestyle effects than using reduced- or non-laxative preparation. However, stated preferences were approximately equally divided, largely due to patients anticipating that non-laxative preparations would reduce test accuracy (because the bowel was not thoroughly cleansed). Following information on sensitivity and specificity (which supported patients' expectations), the predominant stated preference was for full-laxative preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are likely to value test sensitivity and specificity over a more comfortable and convenient preparation. Future research should test this hypothesis on a larger sample.

CT colonography for investigation of patients with symptoms potentially suggestive of colorectal cancer: a review of the UK SIGGAR trials

This paper argues for the use of CT colonography (CTC) to investigate patients with symptoms potentially suggestive of colorectal cancer. It describes the rationale for the UK Special Interest Group in Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (SIGGAR) randomised controlled trials that compared CTC with barium enema (BE) or colonoscopy for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients. Diagnostic outcomes from the trials are detailed for both intra- and extracolonic disease, along with psychological reactions of patients to the tests, and cost-effectiveness of the different diagnostic strategies. The author concludes that BE should be replaced by CTC immediately and that CTC is a sensitive, acceptable and equally cost-effective alternative to colonoscopy in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or undesirable.

Computed tomographic colonography versus barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Barium enema (BE) is widely available for diagnosis of colorectal cancer despite concerns about its accuracy and acceptability. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) might be a more sensitive and acceptable alternative. We aimed to compare CTC and BE for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients in clinical practice.

METHODS

This pragmatic multicentre randomised trial recruited patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer from 21 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were aged 55 years or older and regarded by their referring clinician as suitable for radiological investigation of the colon. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to BE or CTC by computer-generated random numbers, in blocks of six, stratified by trial centre and sex. We analysed the primary outcome-diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large (≥10 mm) polyps-by intention to treat. The trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 95152621.

FINDINGS

3838 patients were randomly assigned to receive either BE (n=2553) or CTC (n=1285). 34 patients withdrew consent, leaving for analysis 2527 assigned to BE and 1277 assigned to CTC. The detection rate of colorectal cancer or large polyps was significantly higher in patients assigned to CTC than in those assigned to BE (93 [7.3%] of 1277 vs 141 [5.6%] of 2527, relative risk 1.31, 95% CI 1.01-1.68; p=0.0390). CTC missed three of 45 colorectal cancers and BE missed 12 of 85. The rate of additional colonic investigation was higher after CTC than after BE (283 [23.5%] of 1206 CTC patients had additional investigation vs 422 [18.3%] of 2300 BE patients; p=0.0003), due mainly to a higher polyp detection rate. Serious adverse events were rare.

INTERPRETATION

CTC is a more sensitive test than BE. Our results suggest that CTC should be the preferred radiological test for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer.

FUNDING

NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme, Cancer Research UK, EPSRC Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare, and NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care.

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

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold-standard test for investigation of symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer; computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is an alternative, less invasive test. However, additional investigation after CTC is needed to confirm suspected colonic lesions, and this is an important factor in establishing the feasibility of CTC as an alternative to colonoscopy. We aimed to compare rates of additional colonic investigation after CTC or colonoscopy for detection of colorectal cancer or large (≥10 mm) polyps in symptomatic patients in clinical practice.

METHODS

This pragmatic multicentre randomised trial recruited patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer from 21 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were aged 55 years or older and regarded by their referring clinician as suitable for colonoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to colonoscopy or CTC by computer-generated random numbers, in blocks of six, stratified by trial centre and sex. We analysed the primary outcome-the rate of additional colonic investigation-by intention to treat. The trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 95152621.

FINDINGS

1610 patients were randomly assigned to receive either colonoscopy (n=1072) or CTC (n=538). 30 patients withdrew consent, leaving for analysis 1047 assigned to colonoscopy and 533 assigned to CTC. 160 (30.0%) patients in the CTC group had additional colonic investigation compared with 86 (8.2%) in the colonoscopy group (relative risk 3.65, 95% CI 2.87-4.65; p<0.0001). Almost half the referrals after CTC were for small (<10 mm) polyps or clinical uncertainty, with low predictive value for large polyps or cancer. Detection rates of colorectal cancer or large polyps in the trial cohort were 11% for both procedures. CTC missed 1 of 29 colorectal cancers and colonoscopy missed none (of 55). Serious adverse events were rare.

INTERPRETATION

Guidelines are needed to reduce the referral rate after CTC. For most patients, however, CTC provides a similarly sensitive, less invasive alternative to colonoscopy.

FUNDING

NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme, Cancer Research UK, EPSRC Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare, and NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care.

An interview study analysing patients' experiences and perceptions of non-laxative or full-laxative preparation with faecal tagging prior to CT colonography

AIM

To compare patients' experiences of either non- or full-laxative bowel preparation with additional faecal tagging and subsequent computed tomographic (CT) colonography using in-depth interviews to elicit detailed responses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who received CT colonography after non- (n = 9) or full-laxative (n = 9) preparation participated in a semi-structured telephone interview at least 2 days after the investigation. Full-laxative preparation consisted of magnesium citrate and sodium picosulphate administered at home (or polyethylene glycol, if contraindicated), followed by hospital-based faecal tagging with iohexol. Non-laxative preparation was home-based barium sulphate for faecal tagging. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed to identify recurrent themes on patients' perceptions and experiences.

RESULTS

Experiences of full-laxative preparation were usually negative and characterized by pre-test diarrhoea that caused significant interference with daily routine. Post-test flatus was common. Non-laxative preparation was well-tolerated; patients reported no or minimal changes to bowel habit and rapid return to daily routine. Patients reported worry and uncertainty about the purpose of faecal tagging. For iohexol, this also added burden from waiting before testing.

CONCLUSION

Patients' responses supported previous findings that non-laxative preparation is more acceptable than full-laxative preparation but both can be improved. Faecal tagging used in combination with laxative preparation is poorly understood, adding burden and worry. Home-based non-laxative preparation is also poorly understood and patients require better information on the purpose and mechanism in order to give fully informed consent. This may also optimize adherence to instructions. Allowing home-based self-administration of all types of preparation would prevent waiting before testing.

Evolving role of computed tomographic colonography in colon cancer screening and diagnosis

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a relatively new imaging modality for the examination of patients for colorectal polyps and cancer. It has been validated in its accuracy for the detection of colon cancer and larger polyps (more than likely premalignant). CTC, however, is not widely accepted as a primary screening modality in the United States at present by many third-party payers, including Medicare, and its exact role in screening is evolving. Moreover, there has been opposition to incorporating CTC as an accepted screening instrument, especially by gastroenterologists. Heretofore, optical colonoscopy has been the mainstay in this screening. We discuss these issues and the continuing controversies concerning CTC.

Computed tomography (CT) colonography with CT arteriography and venography for the workup of intestinal transplant candidates

Prior to intestinal transplantation, prospective candidates must undergo a series of radiologic examinations to address a variety of clinical issues. To date, little literature exists to guide physicians in this preoperative assessment. Multiple imaging studies can provide overlapping information. We have developed a simple two- or three-test protocol to streamline the workup. Sixteen adult patients presented as potential intestinal transplant candidates to Georgetown University Hospital. All but two patients underwent the full protocol of a biphasic IV contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis with rectal carbon dioxide, an upper gastrointestinal study with small bowel follow through, and fistulogram when appropriate. Three-dimensional (3-D) reconstructions of the vascular anatomy as well as the colon were also generated. A telephone survey to other transplant centers was additionally conducted to compare radiographic evaluations. Overall, 15 of the 16 scans were diagnostic. One patient required a barium enema. Mean examinations per patient was 2.4. Only one of seven other centers was performing CT colonography in prospective intestinal transplant candidates. Our protocol provided all the necessary anatomic information needed to evaluate prospective transplant candidates. CT colonography with angiography is a suitable alternative to more time-consuming radiological studies.

Patient acceptability and psychologic consequences of CT colonography compared with those of colonoscopy: results from a multicenter randomized controlled trial of symptomatic patients

PURPOSE

To use a randomized design to compare patients' short- and longer-term experiences after computed tomographic (CT) colonography or colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After ethical approval, the trial was registered. Patients gave written informed consent. Five hundred forty-seven patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer who had been randomly assigned at a ratio of 2:1 to undergo either colonoscopy (n = 362) or CT colonography (n = 185) received a validated questionnaire to assess immediate test experience (including satisfaction, worry, discomfort, adverse effects) and a 3-month questionnaire to assess psychologic outcomes (including satisfaction with result dissemination and reassurance). Data were analyzed by using Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis, and χ(2) test statistics.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy were less satisfied than those undergoing CT colonography (median score of 61 and interquartile range [IQR] of 55-67 vs median score of 64 and IQR of 58-70, respectively; P = .008) and significantly more worried (median score of 16 [IQR, 12-21] vs 15 [IQR, 9-19], P = .007); they also experienced more physical discomfort (median score of 39 [IQR, 29-51] vs 35 [IQR, 24-44]) and more adverse events (82 of 246 vs 28 of 122 reported feeling faint or dizzy, P = .039). However, at 3 months, they were more satisfied with how results were received (median score of 4 [IQR, 3-4] vs 3 [IQR, 3-3], P < .0005) and less likely to require follow-up colonic investigations (17 of 230 vs 37 of 107, P < .0005). No differences were observed between the tests regarding 3-month psychologic consequences of the diagnostic episode, except for a trend toward a difference (P = .050) in negative affect (unpleasant emotions such as distress), with patients undergoing CT colonography reporting less intense negative affect.

CONCLUSION

CT colonography has superior patient acceptability compared with colonoscopy in the short term, but colonoscopy offers some benefits to patients that become apparent after longer-term follow-up. The respective advantages of each test should be balanced when referring symptomatic patients.

Preferência do paciente no rastreamento do câncer colorretal: uma comparação entre colonografia por tomografia computadorizada e colonoscopia

OBJETIVO: Avaliar o grau de aceitação do paciente submetido a colonografia por tomografia computadorizada (CTC) em comparação com a colonoscopia, quando realizadas para rastreamento de doença colorretal. MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Cinquenta pacientes com suspeita de doença colorretal foram submetidos a CTC e colonoscopia. Questionários foram aplicados antes e após a realização da CTC e após a colonoscopia. Graduou-se o desconforto esperado e experimentado antes e após a realização da CTC e da colonoscopia, bem como a preferência do paciente por exame. RESULTADOS: Em relação à CTC, antes de iniciar o exame 18% dos pacientes afirmaram esperar pouco desconforto, 78%, desconforto moderado e 4%, muito desconforto. Após a realização do exame, 72% dos pacientes relataram pouco desconforto, 26%, desconforto moderado e apenas um (2%) dos pacientes referiu muito desconforto. Após a realização da colonoscopia, 86% dos pacientes relataram preferência pela CTC. O grau de distensão colônica e a quantidade de fluido residual não influenciaram na preferência dos pacientes. CONCLUSÃO: Os pacientes preferiram a CTC à colonoscopia, não havendo relação estatística com o grau de distensão colônica na CTC e a eficiência do preparo intestinal.