Preferences for different diagnostic modalities to follow up abnormal colorectal cancer screening results: a hypothetical vignette study.

OBJECTIVES: In England, a significant proportion of people who take part in the national bowel cancer screening programme (BCSP) and have a positive faecal occult blood test (FOBt) result, do not attend follow-up colonoscopy (CC). The aim of this study was to investigate differences in intended participation in a follow-up investigation by diagnostic modality offered including CC, CT colonography (CTC) or capsule endoscopy (CE). SETTING: We performed a randomised online experiment with individuals who had previously completed an FOBt as part of the English BCSP. METHODS: Participants (n=953) were randomly allocated to receive one of three online vignettes asking participants to imagine they had received an abnormal FOBt result, and that they had been invited for a follow-up test. The follow-up test offered was either: CC (n=346), CTC (n=302) or CE (n=305). Participants were then asked how likely they were to have their allocated test or if they refused, either of the other tests. Respondents were also asked to cite possible emotional and practical barriers to follow up testing. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate intentions. RESULTS: Intention to have the test was higher in the CTC group (96.7%) compared with the CC group (91.8%; OR 2.64; 95% CI 1.22 to 5.73). CTC was considered less 'off-putting' (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.94) and less uncomfortable compared with CC (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77). For those who did not intend to have the test they were offered, CE (39.7%) or no investigation (34.5%) was preferable to CC (8.6%) or CTC (17.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Alternative tests have the potential to increase attendance at diagnostic follow-up appointments.

Patient tolerance and acceptance of different colonic imaging modalities: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Less invasive alternatives to optical colonoscopy (OC) may improve patient compliance with investigation, but study of patient preference is limited. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to determine patient tolerance and acceptability of OC, computed tomography colonography (CTC) and colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and also to determine the choice of investigation made by fully informed members of the lay public. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients assigned a Gloucester Comfort Score (GCS, 1-5; as did endoscopists), an overall test experience score (visual analogue scale, 0-10) and completed a 'Friends and Family Test' following OC, CTC or CCE. In the second part of the study, members of the public were given information detailing the nature, tolerance, acceptability, risks and outcomes and invited to choose which test they would prefer in the event that one was needed. RESULTS: Assessed by endoscopist and patient, respectively, 24.2 and 49.3% (P<0.005) of symptomatic and 27.3 and 22.1% (P=0.4) of Bowel Cancer Screening Programme patients suffered moderate to severe discomfort (GCS: 4-5) [GCS (mean±SEM): 3.32±0.085, 1.96±0.083 and 1.30±0.088 (P<0.001); overall experience: 5.43, 2.35 and 3.80 (P<0.001)]. In all, 93.6, 96.1 and 85.7% of OC, CTC and CCE patients, respectively, were willing to undergo the same test under the same circumstances. The lay public (n=100) chose a noninvasive test (CTC or CCE) in 55% of the cases to investigate symptoms and chose a Bowel Cancer Screening Programme test in 29% of the cases (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Patient tolerance and experience favours CTC and CCE over OC and informed about all aspects of each procedure; a noninvasive option is commonly chosen by the lay public.

Flexible Sigmoidoscopy and CT Colonography Screening: Patients' Experience with and Factors for Undergoing Screening-Insight from the Proteus Colon Trial.

Purpose To compare the acceptability of computed tomographic (CT) colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening and the factors predicting CT colonographic screening participation, targeting participants in a randomized screening trial. Materials and Methods Eligible individuals aged 58 years (n = 1984) living in Turin, Italy, were randomly assigned to be invited to screening for colorectal cancer with FS or CT colonography. After individuals who had died or moved away (n = 28) were excluded, 264 of 976 (27.0%) underwent screening with FS and 298 of 980 (30.4%) underwent CT colonography. All attendees and a sample of CT colonography nonattendees (n = 299) were contacted for a telephone interview 3-6 months after invitation for screening, and screening experience and factors affecting participation were investigated. Odds ratios (ORs) were computed by means of multivariable logistic regression. Results For the telephone interviews, 239 of 264 (90.6%) FS attendees, 237 of 298 (79.5%) CT colonography attendees, and 182 of 299 (60.9%) CT colonography nonattendees responded. The percentage of attendees who would recommend the test to friends or relatives was 99.1% among FS and 93.3% among CT colonography attendees. Discomfort associated with bowel preparation was higher among CT colonography than FS attendees (OR, 2.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.47, 5.24). CT colonography nonattendees were less likely to be men (OR, 0.36; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.71), retired (OR, 0.31; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.75), to report regular physical activity (OR, 0.37; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.70), or to have read the information leaflet (OR, 0.18; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.41). They were more likely to mention screening-related anxiety (mild: OR, 6.30; 95% CI: 2.48, 15.97; moderate or severe: OR, 3.63; 95% CI: 1.87, 7.04), erroneous beliefs about screening (OR, 32.15; 95% CI: 6.26, 165.19), or having undergone a recent fecal occult blood test (OR, 13.69; 95% CI: 3.66, 51.29). Conclusion CT colonography and FS screening are well accepted, but further reducing the discomfort from bowel preparation may increase CT colonography screening acceptability. Negative attitudes, erroneous beliefs about screening, and organizational barriers are limiting screening uptake; all these factors are modifiable and therefore potentially susceptible to interventions. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

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.

CT colonography: accuracy, acceptance, safety and position in organised population screening.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer and second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe. The introduction of CRC screening programmes using stool tests and flexible sigmoidoscopy, have been shown to reduce CRC-related mortality substantially. In several European countries, population-based CRC screening programmes are ongoing or being rolled out. Stool tests like faecal occult blood testing are non-invasive and simple to perform, but are primarily designed to detect early invasive cancer. More invasive tests like colonoscopy and CT colonography (CTC) aim at accurately detecting both CRC and cancer precursors, thus providing for cancer prevention. This review focuses on the accuracy, acceptance and safety of CTC as a CRC screening technique and on the current position of CTC in organised population screening. Based on the detection characteristics and acceptability of CTC screening, it might be a viable screening test. The potential disadvantage of radiation exposure is probably overemphasised, especially with newer technology. At this time-point, it is not entirely clear whether the detection of extracolonic findings at CTC is of net benefit and is cost effective, but with responsible handling, this may be the case. Future efforts will seek to further improve the technique, refine appropriate diagnostic algorithms and study cost-effectiveness.

Patients' & healthcare professionals' values regarding true- & false-positive diagnosis when colorectal cancer screening by CT colonography: discrete choice experiment.

PURPOSE: To establish the relative weighting given by patients and healthcare professionals to gains in diagnostic sensitivity versus loss of specificity when using CT colonography (CTC) for colorectal cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following ethical approval and informed consent, 75 patients and 50 healthcare professionals undertook a discrete choice experiment in which they chose between "standard" CTC and "enhanced" CTC that raised diagnostic sensitivity 10% for either cancer or polyps in exchange for varying levels of specificity. We established the relative increase in false-positive diagnoses participants traded for an increase in true-positive diagnoses. RESULTS: Data from 122 participants were analysed. There were 30 (25%) non-traders for the cancer scenario and 20 (16%) for the polyp scenario. For cancer, the 10% gain in sensitivity was traded up to a median 45% (IQR 25 to >85) drop in specificity, equating to 2250 (IQR 1250 to >4250) additional false-positives per additional true-positive cancer, at 0.2% prevalence. For polyps, the figure was 15% (IQR 7.5 to 55), equating to 6 (IQR 3 to 22) additional false-positives per additional true-positive polyp, at 25% prevalence. Tipping points were significantly higher for patients than professionals for both cancer (85 vs 25, p<0.001) and polyps (55 vs 15, p<0.001). Patients were willing to pay significantly more for increased sensitivity for cancer (p = 0.021). CONCLUSION: When screening for colorectal cancer, patients and professionals believe gains in true-positive diagnoses are worth much more than the negative consequences of a corresponding rise in false-positives. Evaluation of screening tests should account for this.

Preferences for colorectal cancer screening techniques and intention to attend: a multi-criteria decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the expected health benefits of colorectal cancer screening programs, participation rates remain low in countries that have implemented such a screening program. The perceived benefits and risks of the colorectal cancer screening technique are likely to influence the decision to attend the screening program. Besides the diagnostic accuracy and the risks of the screening technique, which can affect the health of the participants, additional factors, such as the burden of the test, may impact the individuals' decisions to participate. To maximise the participation rate of a screening program for a new colorectal cancer program in the Netherlands, it is important to know the preferences of the screening population for alternative screening techniques. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the impact of preferences for particular attributes of the screening tests on the intention to attend a colorectal cancer screening program. METHODS: We used a web-based questionnaire to elicit the preferences of the target population for a selection of colon-screening techniques. The target population consisted of Dutch men and women aged 55-75 years. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP), a technique for multi-criteria analysis, was used to estimate the colorectal cancer screening preferences. Respondents weighted the relevance of five criteria, i.e. the attributes of the screening techniques: sensitivity, specificity, safety, inconvenience, and frequency of the test. With regard to these criteria, preferences were estimated between four alternative screening techniques, namely, immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT), colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and computerized tomographic (CT) colonography. A five-point ordinal scale was used to estimate the respondents' intention to attend the screening. We conducted a correlation analysis on the preferences for the screening techniques and the intention to attend. RESULTS: We included 167 respondents who were consistent in their judgments of the relevance of the criteria and their preferences for the screening techniques. The most preferred screening method for the national screening program was CT colonography. Sensitivity (weight = 0.26) and safety (weight = 0.26) were the strongest determinants of the overall preferences for the screening techniques. However, the screening test with the highest intention to attend was iFOBT. Inconvenience (correlation [r] = 0.69), safety (r = 0.58), and the frequency of the test (r = 0.58) were most strongly related to intention to attend. CONCLUSIONS: The multi-criteria decision analysis revealed the attributes of the screening techniques that are most important so as to increase intention to participate in a screening program. Even though the respondents may recognize the high importance of diagnostic effectiveness in the long term, their short-term decision to attend the screening tests may be less driven by this consideration. Our analysis suggests that inconvenience, safety, and frequency of the test are the strongest technique-related determinants of the respondents' intention to participate in colorectal screening programs.

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.

Patients' perception of colonoscopy: patients with inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome experience the largest burden.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is a frequently performed procedure worldwide with a negative perception, leading to reluctance to undergo the procedure. Perceptions could differ depending on the specific indication for the colonoscopy. AIMS: To compare patient satisfaction with the colonoscopy procedure between five different patient groups: inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), familial predisposition for cancer, adenoma/carcinoma surveillance, symptoms suggestive of cancer, and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). METHODS: A prospective questionnaire study was carried out in two regional hospitals and two tertiary teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. A total of 797 consecutive patients scheduled for colonoscopy between October 2009 and June 2010, 146 (18%) IBD, 153 (19%) adenoma or carcinoma surveillance, 104 (13%) familial predisposition, 280 (35%) symptoms suggestive of cancer, and 114 (14%) IBS-like symptoms, were included. Two questionnaires were administered: one on the day of the procedure and another 6 weeks after the procedure. The main outcome measurements were embarrassment, pain, burden, most burdensome aspect, and overall level of satisfaction. RESULTS: Patients with IBD and IBS reported significantly more embarrassment and burden from the bowel preparation phase (P=0.040 and 0.018, respectively) and more pain during the colonoscopy procedure (P=0.018). This difference in pain was also observed when adjusting for volume of sedation administered, familiarity with the endoscopist, duration of the colonoscopy, or whether or not an intervention was performed. All patient groups were less satisfied with the procedure at 6 weeks than directly after the colonoscopy; they recalled more embarrassment and burden, but less pain. CONCLUSION: Patient groups, defined by indication for colonoscopy, experience the colonoscopy procedure differently.

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.

Analysis of barriers to and patients' preferences for CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening in a nonadherent urban population.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate patients' barriers against colorectal cancer screening tests and to assess patients' preferences and cost influences for CT colonography (CTC) in a nonadherent urban subpopulation. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients who had been offered colorectal cancer screening but were nonadherent were asked to participate in this questionnaire study. Patients' demographic information was obtained, and patients' reasons for not being screened were explored. Subjects were given an information sheet that described a CTC procedure and then were asked about their willingness to undergo CTC and about other relevant factors, such as fees. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-five patients were invited to participate; 53 declined and 54 did not respond, which left 68 subjects to be included in the analysis. After being informed about CTC screening, most (83%) subjects stated that they would be willing to undergo a CTC study. However, 70% stated that they would not be willing to pay out-of-pocket fees if insurance did not cover the study, and even among the 30% who were willing to pay the fees, the average amount they were willing to pay (mean, $244; median, $150) was well below currently charged rates. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that most nonadherent patients would be willing to undergo CTC as long as out-of-pocket fees are reasonable.

A comparison of patient acceptance and preferences between CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Colorectal cancer, one of the most common cancers in developed countries, is curable when diagnosed at an early stage. However, for better screening, both a test that patients will tolerate and diagnostic accuracy are required. We compared patient experiences and preferences between computed tomographic (CT) colonography and conventional colonoscopy (CC) under conscious sedation. METHODS: Patients referred to the gastrointestinal clinic for CC were enrolled to also undergo CT colonography prior to CC. After each procedure, patients completed a questionnaire in which variables, such as abdominal pain, abdominal discomfort, and loss of dignity, were assessed using a 7-point Likert scale, with the highest score representing the worst experience. To verify response stability, a telephone questionnaire followed within 24 h after each procedure. Patients were then asked about their preference for CT colonography or CC. RESULTS: Data were collected from 51 patients who fulfilled all requirements, including CT colonography, CC, the two questionnaires after each procedure, and a follow-up questionnaire. Severity of abdominal pain, abdominal discomfort, and a loss of dignity were reported to be higher in CT colonography than in CC (p<0.01). In addition, the preference for CC was significantly higher than that for CT colonography (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Although CT colonography is a safe and noninvasive screening test for colorectal cancer, further study is required to increase patient acceptance.

Patient satisfaction with colonoscopy: a literature review and pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend that colonoscopic colorectal cancer screening be undertaken every 10 years after the age of 50 years. However, because the procedure does not meet criteria that promote screening uptake, patient satisfaction with colonoscopy may encourage repeat screening. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature and conduct a pilot study of patient satisfaction with the colonoscopy experience. METHODS: All cohort studies from January 1997 to August 2008 in the MEDLINE database that measured either patient satisfaction with colonoscopy, patient willingness to return for colonoscopy under the same conditions or patient preference for colonoscopy compared with other large bowel procedures were identified. The search was supplemented by journal citation lists in the retrieved articles. RESULTS: Of the 29 studies identified, 15 met the inclusion criteria. Consistently, the vast majority of patients (approximately 95%) were very satisfied with their colonoscopy experience. Patient satisfaction was similar for screening and nonscreening colonoscopy. Patient willingness to return for the procedure ranged from 73% to 100%. Of the five studies that examined modality preference, three studies reported the majority of patients preferred colonography to colonoscopy and two studies reported the reverse. Our pilot study findings mirrored those of other studies that were conducted in the United States. The major limitation of the included studies was that patients who were most dissatisfied may have gone elsewhere to have their colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were very satisfied with colonoscopy. The majority were willing to return for repeat testing under the same conditions, and colonoscopy was not preferred over other modalities. However, studies were limited by methodological shortcomings.

Patient experiences of colonoscopy, barium enema and CT colonography: a qualitative study.

Previous studies of patient experience with bowel screening tests, in particular CT colonography (CTC), have superimposed global rating scales and not explored individual experience in detail. To redress this, we performed qualitative interviews in order to characterize patient expectations and experiences in depth. Following ethical permission, 16 patients undergoing CTC, 18 undergoing colonoscopy and 15 undergoing barium enema agreed to a semi-structured interview by a health psychologist. Interviews were recorded, responses transcribed and themes extracted with the aim of assimilating individual experiences to facilitate subsequent development and interpretation of quantitative surveys of overall satisfaction with each diagnostic test. Transcript analysis identified three principal themes: physical sensations, social interactions and information provision. Physical sensations differed for each test but were surprisingly well tolerated overall. Social interactions with staff were perceived as very important in colouring the whole experience, particularly in controlling the feelings of embarrassment, which was critical for all procedures. Information provision was also an important determinant of experience. Verbal feedback was most common during colonoscopy and invariably reassuring. However, patients undergoing CTC received little visual or verbal feedback and were often confused regarding the test outcome. Barium enema had no specific advantage over other tests. Qualitative interviews provided important perspectives on patient experience. Our data demonstrated that models describing the quality of medical encounters are applicable to single diagnostic episodes. Staff interactions and information provision were particularly important. We found advantages specific to both CTC and colonoscopy but none for barium enema. CTC could benefit greatly from improved information provision following examination.

Diagnostic accuracy and tolerability of contrast enhanced CT colonoscopy in symptomatic patients with increased risk for colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the accuracy and tolerability of intravenous contrast enhanced spiral computed tomography colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC) for the detection of colorectal neoplasia in symptomatic patients for colorectal neoplasia. METHODS: A prospective study was performed in 48 patients with symptomatic patients with increased risk for colorectal cancer. Spiral CTC was performed in supine and prone positions after colonic cleansing. The axial, 2D MPR and virtual endoluminal views were analyzed. Results of spiral CTC were compared with OC which was done within 15 days. The psychometric tolerance test was asked to be performed for both CTC and colonoscopy after the procedure. RESULTS: Ten lesions in 9 of 48 patients were found in CTC and confirmed with OC. Two masses and eight polyps, consisted of 1 tubulovillous, 1 tubular, 2 villous adenoma, 4 adenomatous polyp, 4 adenocarcinoma, were identified. Lesion prevalence was 21%. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values were found 100%, 87%, 89%, 67% and 100%, respectively. Psychometric tolerance test showed that CTC significantly more comfortable comparing with OC (p=0.00). CTC was the preferred method in 37% while OC was preferred in 6% of patients. In both techniques, the most unpleasant part was bowel cleansing. CONCLUSION: Contrast enhanced CTC is a highly accurate method in detecting colorectal lesions. Since the technique was found to be more comfortable and less time consuming compare to OE, it may be preferable in management of symptomatic patients with increased risk for colorectal cancer.

Assessing attitudes toward laxative preparation in colorectal cancer screening and effects on future testing: potential receptivity to computed tomographic colonography.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether removal of the laxative preparation would improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates. RESPONDENTS AND METHODS: Data are from a mixed-mode mail and telephone survey of 1636 noninstitutionalized Minnesota residents who were 18 years or older that was conducted from July 15 through October 25, 2005. The overall response rate was 49%. Analysis focused on the 759 respondents who were 50 years or older. RESULTS: One third (32%) of the respondents identified the laxative preparation as the most troublesome part of CRC screening. Overall, the self-reported likelihood and anticipated timing of examination increase when the laxative preparation is removed. Both univariate and multivariate analysis showed that the odds of being "much more likely" to undergo screening in the future with a test that does not include a laxative preparation are greatest among those who have been tested previously, regard the laxative preparation as a big problem, or both. CONCLUSION: In this prospective survey, laxative preparation appeared to be a major disincentive to CRC screening. Emerging data suggest that performance of laxative-free computed tomographic colonography may represent an attractive option that removes this relatively common disincentive to CRC screening participation.

Resources and costs associated with incidental extracolonic findings from CT colonogaphy: a study in a symptomatic population.

CT colonography (CTC) is increasingly used to detect colonic polyps and cancers, but its impact in practice is also influenced by frequent detection of extracolonic lesions. We have previously documented the frequency and nature of such lesions. The current study was performed to assess the clinical resources and costs associated with the investigation and treatment of extracolonic lesions. We reviewed the reports of 225 consecutive CTC examinations carried out on patients with symptoms of bowel cancer. 116 of the 225 were reported to have one or more extracolonic findings. All 116 patients with an abnormality were followed up for 12-24 months. 24 patients underwent further actions (outpatient attendance, investigations, or surgical procedures) as a result of previously undiagnosed lesions unrelated to bowel cancer. The costs of these further actions were derived from the NHS Reference Costs manual 2004. The total cost for further investigations and interventions was 34,329 pounds sterling and the mean cost over the sample of 225 patients was 153 pounds sterling--more than the cost of the CTC itself. The costs were mainly generated by surgical procedures. Resources consumed as a result of extracolonic findings approximately doubled the costs of diagnostic CTC. These costs, along with inconvenience, anxiety, morbidity and occasionally even mortality suffered by patients, must be offset by the good done to some of those with sub-clinical but potentially lethal diseases.