» Articles » PMID: 17522866

MR Colonography Vs. Optical Colonoscopy: Comparison of Patients' Acceptance in a Screening Population

Overview
Journal Eur Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 2007 May 25
PMID 17522866
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare optical colonoscopy to fecal-tagging-based MR colonography in a screening population in terms of comfort and acceptance ratings as well as for future preferences as colorectal cancer screening examinations. Two hundred eighty-four asymptomatic patients (mean age 59 years) underwent MRC and OC within 4 weeks. While MRC was based on a fecal tagging technique, OC was performed after bowel cleansing. For OC, sedatives and analgesics were used. Patients evaluated both modalities and certain aspects of the examination according to a 10-point-scale with higher scores denoting a worse experience. Furthermore, preferences for future examinations were evaluated. No significant difference was noted for the overall acceptance of OC (mean value 3.0) and MRC (mean value 3.4). For MRC, the placement of the rectal tube was rated as the most unpleasant part, whereas bowel purgation was regarded most inconvenient for OC. Patients aged 55 years and older perceived most aspects less unpleasant than younger patients. Of the patients, 46% preferred MRC for future screening examinations (OC: 44%). OC and MRC have comparable general acceptance levels in a screening population. Especially for patients declining endoscopy as a screening method MRC may evolve as an attractive alternative.

Citing Articles

Satisfaction and experience with colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review of validated patient reported outcome measures.

Selva A, Selva C, Alvarez-Perez Y, Tora N, Lopez P, Terraza-Nunez R BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021; 21(1):230.

PMID: 34706652 PMC: 8549248. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-021-01430-7.


The potential of imaging techniques as a screening tool for colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Greuter M, Berkhof J, Fijneman R, Demirel E, Lew J, Meijer G Br J Radiol. 2016; 89(1063):20150910.

PMID: 27194458 PMC: 5257302. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20150910.


Preference for colonoscopy versus computerized tomographic colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Lin O, Kozarek R, Gluck M, Jiranek G, Koch J, Kowdley K J Gen Intern Med. 2012; 27(10):1349-60.

PMID: 22700393 PMC: 3445696. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-012-2115-4.


Patient experiences of MR colonography and colonoscopy: a qualitative study.

Hafeez R, Wagner C, Smith S, Boulos P, Halligan S, Bloom S Br J Radiol. 2011; 85(1014):765-9.

PMID: 22010031 PMC: 3474127. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/36231529.


Dark-lumen MR colonography with fecal tagging: a comparison of water enema and air methods of colonic distension for detecting colonic neoplasms.

Rodriguez Gomez S, Pages Llinas M, Castells Garangou A, De Juan Garcia C, Bordas Alsina J, Rimola Gibert J Eur Radiol. 2008; 18(7):1396-405.

PMID: 18320195 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-0900-6.


References
1.
Sosna J, Morrin M, Kruskal J, Lavin P, Rosen M, Raptopoulos V . CT colonography of colorectal polyps: a metaanalysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 181(6):1593-8. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.181.6.1811593. View

2.
Dominitz J, Eisen G, Baron T, Goldstein J, Hirota W, Jacobson B . Complications of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 57(4):441-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)80005-6. View

3.
Martin D, Semelka R . Health effects of ionising radiation from diagnostic CT. Lancet. 2006; 367(9524):1712-4. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68748-5. View

4.
Harewood G, Wiersema M, Melton 3rd L . A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002; 97(12):3186-94. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.07129.x. View

5.
Thomeer M, Bielen D, Vanbeckevoort D, Dymarkowski S, Gevers A, Rutgeerts P . Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue?. Eur Radiol. 2002; 12(6):1410-5. DOI: 10.1007/s003300101082. View