Reporting of Participant Demographics in Clinical Trials Published in General Radiology Journals

OBJECTIVES

The reporting of research participant demographics provides insights into study generalizability. Our study aimed to determine the frequency at which participant age, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) are reported and used for subgroup analyses in radiology randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and their secondary analyses; as well as the study characteristics associated with, and the classification systems used for demographics reporting.

METHODS

RCTs and their secondary analyses published in 8 leading radiology journals between 2013 and 2021 were included. Associations between study characteristics and demographic reporting were tested with the chi-square goodness of fit test for categorical variables, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test for impact factor, and logistic regression for publication year.

RESULTS

Among 432 included articles, 89.4% (386) reported age, 90.3% (390) sex/gender, 5.6% (24) race/ethnicity, and 3.0% (13) SES. Among articles that reported these demographics and were not specific to a subgroup, results were analyzed by age in 14.2% (55/386), sex/gender in 19.4% (66/340), race/ethnicity in 13.6% (3/22), and SES in 46.2% (6/13). Journal, impact factor, and last author continent were predictors of race/ethnicity and SES reporting. Funding was associated with race/ethnicity reporting. No study reported sex and gender separately, or documented transgender, nonbinary gender spectrum or intersex participants. A single category for race/ethnicity was used in 37.5% (9/24) of studies, consisting of either "White" or "Caucasian."

CONCLUSION

The reporting of participant demographics in radiology trials is variable and not always representative of the population diversity. Editorial guidelines on the reporting and analysis of participant demographics could help standardize practices.

Comparison of Diatrizoate and Iohexol for Patient Acceptance and Fecal-Tagging Performance in Noncathartic CT Colonography

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare diatrizoate and iohexol regarding patient acceptance and fecal-tagging performance in noncathartic computed tomography colonography.

METHODS

This study enrolled 284 volunteers with fecal tagging by either diatrizoate or iohexol at an iodine concentration of 13.33 mg/mL and an iodine load of 24 g. Patient acceptance was rated on a 4-point scale of gastrointestinal discomfort. Two gastrointestinal radiologists jointly analyzed image quality, fecal-tagging density and homogeneity, and residual contrast agent in the small intestine. The results were compared by the generalized estimating equation method.

RESULTS

Patient acceptance was comparable between the 2 groups (3.95 ± 0.22 vs 3.96 ± 0.20, P = 0.777). The diatrizoate group had less residual fluid and stool than the iohexol group ( P = 0.019, P = 0.004, respectively). There was no significant difference in colorectal distention, residual fluid, and stool tagging quality between the 2 groups (all P 's > 0.05). The mean 2-dimensional image quality score was 4.59 ± 0.68 with diatrizoate and 3.60 ± 1.14 with iohexol ( P < 0.001). The attenuation of tagged feces was 581 ± 66 HU with diatrizoate and 1038 ± 117 HU with iohexol ( P < 0.001). Residual contrast agent in the small intestine was assessed at 55.3% and 62.3% for the diatrizoate group and iohexol group, respectively ( P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with iohexol, diatrizoate had better image quality, proper fecal-tagging density, and more homogeneous tagging along with comparable excellent patient acceptance, and might be more suitable for fecal tagging in noncathartic computed tomography colonography.

A Magnetic Bio-Inspired Soft Carrier as a Temperature-Controlled Gastrointestinal Drug Delivery System

Currently, gastrointestinal bleeding in the colon wall and the small bowel is diagnosed and treated with endoscopes. However, the locations of this condition are often problematic to treat using traditional flexible and tethered tools. New studies commonly consider untethered devices for solving this problem. However, there still exists a gap in the extant literature, and more research is needed to diagnose and deliver drugs in the lower gastrointestinal tract using soft robotic carriers. This paper discusses the development of an untethered, magnetically-responsive bio-inspired soft carrier. A molding process is utilized to produce prototypes from Diisopropylidene-1,6-diphenyl-1,6-hexanediol-based Polymer with Ethylene Glycol Dimethacrylate (DiAPLEX) MP-3510 - a shape memory polymer with a low transition temperature to enable the fabrication of these carriers. The soft carrier design is validated through simulation results of deformation caused by magnetic elements embedded in the carrier in response to an external field. The thermal responsiveness of the fabricated prototype carriers is assessed ex vivo and in a phantom. The results indicate a feasible design capable of administering drugs to a target inside a phantom of a large intestine. The soft carrier introduces a method for the controlled release of drugs by utilizing the rubbery modulus of the polymer and increasing the recovery force through magnetic actuation.

Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second largest cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Current CRC screening in various countries involves stool-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and/or colonoscopy, yet public uptake remains sub-optimal. This review assessed the literature regarding acceptability of alternative CRC screening modalities compared to standard care in average-risk adults.

METHOD

Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science were conducted up to February 3rd, 2022. The alternative interventions examined were computed tomography colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colon capsule endoscopy and blood-based biomarkers. Outcomes for acceptability were uptake, discomfort associated with bowel preparation, discomfort associated with screening procedure, screening preferences and willingness to repeat screening method. A narrative data synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Differences between intervention and comparison modalities in uptake did not reach statistical significance in most of the included studies. The findings do suggest FIT as being more acceptable as a screening modality than flexible sigmoidoscopy. There were no consistent significant differences in bowel preparation discomfort, screening procedure discomfort, screening preference and willingness to repeat screening between the standard care and alternative modalities.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence comparing standard colonoscopy and stool-based CRC screening with novel modalities does not demonstrate any clear difference in acceptability. Due to the small number of studies available and included in each screening comparison and lack of observed differences, further research is needed to explore factors influencing acceptability of alternative CRC modalities that might result in improvement in population uptake within different contexts.

Water immersion sigmoidoscopy versus standard insufflation for colorectal cancer screening: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although the efficacy of water-assisted colonoscopy is well established, the role of water immersion sigmoidoscopy (WIS) remains unclear. We compared WIS with carbon dioxide insufflation sigmoidoscopy (CO₂S) on patient outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted an analysis of prospectively collected data from a single-center quality improvement program about patients undergoing unsedated screening sigmoidoscopy (WIS and CO₂S) between May 2019 and January 2020. Outcomes studied included the following: Rates of severe pain <17% (score of ≥7 on a numeric rating scale of 0-10, and on a Likert scale), willingness to repeat the procedure without sedation, adequate bowel cleanliness >75% (proportion of Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score: 2-3) and adenoma detection rate (ADR).

RESULTS

In total, 234 patients (111 WIS; 123 CO₂S) were included. All patients were aged 58 years and 58.9% were female; baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. There were no significant differences in rates of severe pain (WIS: 16.5%, CO₂S: 13.8%; P = 0.586), willingness to repeat the unsedated procedure (WIS: 82.3%, CO₂S: 84.5%; P = 0.713), adequate bowel cleanliness (WIS: 78.4%, CO₂S: 78%, P = 0.999) or ADR (WIS: 25.2%, CO₂S: 16.3%; P = 0.106) between groups. However, average procedure times were longer with WIS (9.06 min) compared to CO₂S (6.45 min; P < 0.001). Overall, 29.6% of women reported that they would repeat sigmoidoscopy only if sedated.

CONCLUSIONS

WIS does not ameliorate tolerance to and quality of sigmoidoscopy screening measured by several scores. When offered a choice, the women's willingness to repeat WIS or CO₂S without sedation was poor and raises concern on the opportunity of screening sigmoidoscopy without sedation in these subjects.

Two sides of every coin: individuals' experiences of undergoing colorectal cancer screening by faecal immunochemical test and colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Acceptability of the recommended screening procedure represents a crucial determinant of the impact of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes. This study aims to explore how individuals in CRC screening experience the screening procedure.

METHODS

Study participants (n = 44), aged 60-62 years, screened by faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and/or colonoscopy, were recruited from the Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO) study. Data were collected through six focus group discussions and 20 individual telephone interviews and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis resulted in 30 subcategories together forming four categories describing individuals' experiences of the CRC screening procedure: From no worries to bothering emotions; Varying logistical concerns; Being well treated, but inconsistently informed and involved and Expectations not matching reality. Some subcategories only applied to either FIT or colonoscopy screening, while others applied to both screening procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Undergoing CRC screening by FIT or colonoscopy is an individual experience. Strategies to improve patient experiences may include using one-sample FITs and optimizing bowel preparation and scheduling of colonoscopies according to individual preferences. Ensuring that needs for emotional support are acknowledged, together with clear and adequate information delivered at right time are further important aspects to consider.

Low-volume reduced bowel preparation regimen for CT colonography: a randomized noninferiority trial

PURPOSE

To determine whether the quality of a low-volume reduced bowel preparation (LV-RBP) for CT Colonography (CTC) is noninferior to full-volume reduced bowel preparation (FV-RBP) regimen.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, consecutive participants referred for CTC were randomly assigned to receive LV-RBP (52.5 g of PMF104 in 500 mL of water) or FV-RBP (105 g of PMF104 in 1000 mL of water). Images were independently reviewed by five blinded readers who rated the quality of bowel preparation from 0 (best score) to 3 (worst score). The primary outcome was the noninferiority of LV-RBP to FV-RBP in the proportion of colonic segments scored 0 for cleansing quality, with noninferiority margin of 10%. Volume of residual fluids, colonic distension, lesions and polyps detection rates and patient tolerability were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

From March 2019 to January 2020, 110 participants (mean age 65 years ± 14 [standard deviation]; 74 women) were allocated to LV-RBP (n = 55) or FV-RBP (n = 55) arms. There were 92% segment scored 0 in colon cleansing quality in LV-RBP and 94% in FV-RBP for prone scans, and 94% vs 92% for supine scans. Risk difference was - 2.1 (95% CI -5.9 to 1.7) and 1.5 (95% CI -2.4 to 5.4) for prone and supine positions, respectively. Residual fluids and colonic distension were also noninferior in LV-RBP. LV-RBP was associated with a lower number of evacuations during preparation (7 ± 5 vs 10 ± 6, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The LV-RBP for CTC demonstrated noninferior quality of colon cleansing with improved gastrointestinal tolerability compared to FV-RBP regimen.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effectiveness, test accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2015, to December 4, 2019; surveillance through March 26, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting cancers or adenomas, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

The review included 33 studies (n = 10 776 276) on the effectiveness of screening, 59 (n = 3 491 045) on the test performance of screening tests, and 131 (n = 26 987 366) on the harms of screening. In randomized clinical trials (4 trials, n = 458 002), intention to screen with 1- or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy vs no screening was associated with a decrease in CRC-specific mortality (incidence rate ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.68-0.80]). Annual or biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) vs no screening (5 trials, n = 419 966) was associated with a reduction of CRC-specific mortality after 2 to 9 rounds of screening (relative risk at 19.5 years, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84-0.98]; relative risk at 30 years, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.93]). In observational studies, receipt of screening colonoscopy (2 studies, n = 436 927) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (1 study, n = 5.4 million) vs no screening was associated with lower risk of CRC incidence or mortality. Nine studies (n = 6497) evaluated the test accuracy of screening computed tomography (CT) colonography, 4 of which also reported the test accuracy of colonoscopy; pooled sensitivity to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger was similar between CT colonography with bowel prep (0.86) and colonoscopy (0.89). In pooled values, commonly evaluated FITs (14 studies, n = 45 403) (sensitivity, 0.74; specificity, 0.94) and stool DNA with FIT (4 studies, n = 12 424) (sensitivity, 0.93; specificity, 0.85) performed better than high-sensitivity gFOBT (2 studies, n = 3503) (sensitivity, 0.50-0.75; specificity, 0.96-0.98) to detect cancers. Serious harms of screening colonoscopy included perforations (3.1/10 000 procedures) and major bleeding (14.6/10 000 procedures). CT colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation. It is unclear if detection of extracolonic findings on CT colonography is a net benefit or harm.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There are several options to screen for colorectal cancer, each with a different level of evidence demonstrating its ability to reduce cancer mortality, its ability to detect cancer or precursor lesions, and its risk of harms.

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020

1: ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation.Very low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasibleWeak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting.Very low quality evidence. 7: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance.Very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE.Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6 - 9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Colon cancer screening with CT colonography: logistics, cost-effectiveness, efficiency and progress

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality can be significantly reduced by population screening. Several different screening methods are currently in use, and this review focuses specifically on the imaging technique computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The challenges and logistics of CTC screening, as well as the importance of test accuracy, uptake, quality assurance and cost-effectiveness will be discussed. With comparable advanced adenoma detection rates to colonoscopy (the most commonly used whole-colon investigation), CTC is a less-invasive alternative, requiring less laxative, and with the potential benefit that it permits assessment of extra colonic structures. Three large-scale European trials have contributed valuable evidence supporting the use of CTC in population screening, and highlight the importance of selecting appropriate clinical management pathways based on initial CTC findings. Future research into CTC-screening will likely focus on radiologist training and CTC quality assurance, with identification of evidence-based key performance indicators that are associated with clinically-relevant outcomes such as the incidence of post-test interval cancers (CRC occurring after a presumed negative CTC). In comparison to other CRC screening techniques, CTC offers a safe and accurate option that is particularly useful when colonoscopy is contraindicated. Forthcoming cost-effectiveness analyses which evaluate referral thresholds, the impact of extra-colonic findings and real-world uptake will provide useful information regarding the feasibility of future CTC population screening.