A multi-centre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the value of a single bolus intravenous alfentanil in CT colonography

Burden of waiting for surveillance CT colonography in patients with screen-detected 6-9 mm polyps

Purpose

We assessed the burden of waiting for surveillance CT colonography (CTC) performed in patients having 6–9 mm colorectal polyps on primary screening CTC. Additionally, we compared the burden of primary and surveillance CTC.

Materials and methods

In an invitational population-based CTC screening trial, 101 persons were diagnosed with <3 polyps 6–9 mm, for which surveillance CTC after 3 years was advised. Validated questionnaires regarding expected and perceived burden (5-point Likert scales) were completed before and after index and surveillance CTC, also including items on burden of waiting for surveillance CTC. McNemar’s test was used for comparison after dichotomization.

Results

Seventy-eight (77 %) of 101 invitees underwent surveillance CTC, of which 66 (85 %) completed the expected and 62 (79 %) the perceived burden questionnaire. The majority of participants (73 %) reported the experience of waiting for surveillance CTC as ‘never’ or ‘only sometimes’ burdensome. There was almost no difference in expected and perceived burden between surveillance and index CTC. Waiting for the results after the procedure was significantly more burdensome for surveillance CTC than for index CTC (23 vs. 8 %; p = 0.012).

Conclusion

Waiting for surveillance CTC after primary CTC screening caused little or no burden for surveillance participants. In general, the burden of surveillance and index CTC were comparable.

Key points

• Waiting for surveillance CTC within a CRC screening caused little burden

• The vast majority never or only sometimes thought about their polyp(s)

• In general, the burden of index and surveillance CTC were comparable

• Awaiting results was more burdensome for surveillance than for index CTC

Magnetic resonance colonography with a limited bowel preparation and automated carbon dioxide insufflation in comparison to conventional colonoscopy: patient burden and preferences

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate patient burden and preferences for MR colonography with a limited bowel preparation and automated carbon dioxide insufflation in comparison to conventional colonoscopy.

METHODS

Symptomatic patients were consecutively recruited to undergo MR colonography with automated carbon dioxide insufflation and a limited bowel preparation followed within four weeks by colonoscopy with a standard bowel cleansing preparation. Four questionnaires regarding burden (on a five-point scale) and preferences (on a seven-point scale) were addressed after MR colonography and colonoscopy and five weeks after colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients (47 men, 52 women; mean age 62.3, SD 8.7) were included. None of the patients experienced severe or extreme burden from the MR colonography bowel preparation compared to 31.5% of the patients for the colonoscopy bowel preparation. Colonoscopy was rated more burdensome (25.6% severe or extreme burden) compared to MR colonography (5.2% severe or extreme burden) (P<0.0001). When discarding the bowel preparations, the examinations were rated equally burdensome (P=0.35). The majority of patients (61.4%) preferred MR colonography compared to colonoscopy (29.5%) immediately after the examinations and five weeks later (57.0% versus 39.5%).

CONCLUSION

MR colonography with a limited bowel preparation and automated carbon dioxide insufflation demonstrated less burden compared to colonoscopy. The majority of patients preferred MR colonography over colonoscopy.