Preferences for CT colonography and colonoscopy as diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer: a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is an alternative diagnostic test to colonoscopy for colorectal cancer and polyps. The aim of this study was to determine test characteristics important to patients and to examine trade-offs in attributes that patients are willing to accept in the context of the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. METHODS: A discrete choice study was used to assess preferences of patients with clinical indications suspicious of colorectal cancer who experienced both CTC and colonoscopy as part of a diagnostic accuracy study in South Australia. Results were analyzed by using a mixed logit model and presented as odds ratios (ORs) for preferring CTC over colonoscopy. RESULTS: Colonoscopy was preferred over CTC as the need for a second procedure after CTC increased (OR of preferring CTC to colonoscopy = 0.013), as the likelihood of missing cancers or polyps increased (OR of preferring CTC to colonoscopy = 0.62), and as CTC test cost increased (OR of preferring CTC to colonoscopy = 0.65-0.80). CTC would be preferred to colonoscopy if a minimal bowel preparation was available (OR = 1.7). Some patients were prepared to trade off the diagnostic and therapeutic advantage of colonoscopy for a CTC study with a less intensive bowel preparation. Preferences also varied significantly with sociodemographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Despite CTC's often being perceived as a preferred test, this may not always be the case. Informed decision making for diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer should include discussion of the benefits, downsides, and uncertainties associated with alternative tests, as patients are willing and able to make trade-offs between what they perceive as the advantages and disadvantages of these diagnostic tests.

Single-center study comparing computed tomography colonography with conventional colonoscopy.

AIM: To compare the results from computed tomography (CT) colonography with conventional colonoscopy in symptomatic patients referred for colonoscopy. METHODS: The study included 227 adult outpatients, mean age 60 years, with appropriate indications for colonoscopy. CT colonography and colonoscopy were performed on the same day in a metropolitan teaching hospital. Colonoscopists were initially blinded to the results of CT colonography but there was segmental unblinding during the procedure. The primary outcome measures were the sensitivity and specificity of CT colonography for the identification of polyps seen at colonoscopy (i.e. analysis by polyp). Secondary outcome measures included an analysis by patient, extracolonic findings at CT colonography, adverse events with both procedures and patient acceptance and preference. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (11%) were excluded from the analysis because of incomplete colonoscopy or poor bowel preparation that affected either CT colonography, colonoscopy or both procedures. Polyps and masses (usually cancers) were detected at colonoscopy and CT colonography in 35% and 42% of patients, respectively. Of nine patients with a final diagnosis of cancer, eight (89%) were identified by CT colonography as masses (5) or polyps (3). For polyps analyzed according to polyp, the overall sensitivity of CT colonography was 50% (95% CI, 39%-61%) but this increased to 71% (95% CI, 52%-85%) for polyps > or = 6 mm in size. Similarly, specificity for all polyps was 48% (95% CI, 39%-58%) increasing to 67% (95% CI, 56%-76%) for polyps > or = 6 mm. Adverse events were uncommon but included one colonic perforation at colonoscopy. Patient acceptance was high for both procedures but preference favoured CT colonography. CONCLUSION: Although CT colonography was more sensitive in this study than in some previous studies, the procedure is not yet sensitive enough for widespread application in symptomatic patients.