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

Acceptance and Preference of Computed Tomographic Colonography and Colonoscopy: Results of a Nationwide Multicenter Comparative Questionnaire Survey in Japan

Objectives

To investigate patient acceptance and preference for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) over colonoscopy.

Methods

Participants were recruited from a nationwide multicenter trial in Japan to assess the accuracy of CTC detection. They were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy after CTC with common bowel preparation on the same day. Some were administered sedative drugs during colonoscopy, depending on the referring clinician and participant's preferences. The participants were requested to complete a questionnaire to evaluate the acceptability of bowel preparation, examinations, and preference for future examinations.

Results

Of the 1,257 enrolled participants, 1,180 (mean age: 60.6 years; women: 43.3%) completed the questionnaire. Sedative drugs were not administered in 687 participants (unsedated colonoscopy group) and were administered intravenously during colonoscopy in 493 participants (sedated colonoscopy group). Before propensity score matching, the mean participants' age, percentages of asymptomatic participants, insufflation of gas during colonoscopy, and number of participants with a history of abdominal/pelvic operation significantly differed between the groups. After propensity score matching, 912 participants from each group were included in the analysis. In the unsedated colonoscopy group, CTC was answered as significantly easier than colonoscopy (p<0.001). Conversely, CTC was significantly more difficult than colonoscopy in the sedated colonoscopy group (p<0.001). In the unsedated colonoscopy group, 48% preferred CTC and 22% preferred colonoscopy for future examinations, whereas in the sedated colonoscopy group, 26% preferred CTC and 38% preferred colonoscopy (p<0.001).

Conclusions

CTC has superior participant acceptability compared with unsedated colonoscopy. However, our study did not observe the advantages of CTC acceptance over sedative colonoscopy.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Practice Guidelines for Computed Tomography Colonography

Colon cancer is the third most common malignancy in Canada. Computed tomography colonography (CTC) provides a creditable and validated option for colon screening and assessment of known pathology in patients for whom conventional colonoscopy is contraindicated or where patients self-select to use imaging as their primary modality for initial colonic assessment. This updated guideline aims to provide a toolkit for both experienced imagers (and technologists) and for those considering launching this examination in their practice. There is guidance for reporting, optimal exam preparation, tips for problem solving to attain high quality examinations in challenging scenarios as well as suggestions for ongoing maintenance of competence. We also provide insight into the role of artificial intelligence and the utility of CTC in tumour staging of colorectal cancer. The appendices provide more detailed guidance into bowel preparation and reporting templates as well as useful information on polyp stratification and management strategies. Reading this guideline should equip the reader with the knowledge base to perform colonography but also provide an unbiased overview of its role in colon screening compared with other screening options.

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.

Preference and Experience of Colonic Examination for Participants Presenting to Hospitals with a Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test Result

PURPOSE

Patients who test positive on the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) are referred for colonoscopy for further diagnostic evaluation. Colonoscopy is not a perfect method and may be a challenge for some FIT-positive patients. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is an alternative method that is less invasive and allows examination of the whole colon. The study objective was to evaluate the preference of FIT-positive patients for either colonoscopy or CTC for CRC examination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Individuals older than 40 years with a positive FIT test at eight Japanese hospitals between December 2012 and July 2015 were invited to participate. Participants were given detailed information regarding colonoscopy and CTC before deciding on either examination. They completed questionnaires before the procedure regarding their preference and after the procedure regarding their experience.

RESULTS

The pre- and post-questionnaires of 846 and 834 participants, respectively, were analyzed. Participants preferred colonoscopy over CTC (colonoscopy, 72%; CTC, 28%). The possibility of obtaining biopsy samples and removing colorectal polyps during the procedure was the main reason for colonoscopy selection. Patients selected CTC to reduce discomfort but reported that CTC bowel preparation was more burdensome than colonoscopy bowel preparation. The overall experience of the examination did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy is the standard examination for FIT-positive patients. However, when given a choice, almost one-third of participants chose CTC because they thought it would be a more "comfortable" examination. Clinicians should therefore be aware of patients' potential preference for noninvasive colorectal examinations.

Post-operative colorectal cancer surveillance: preference for optical colonoscopy over computerized tomographic colonography

PURPOSE

Post-operative surveillance strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC) include periodic optical colonoscopy (OC) and abdominal-pelvic CT scan. Adherence with these recommendations is limited. For CRC screening, CT colonography (CTC) identifies larger adenomas and cancers nearly as well as OC. Most screening studies demonstrate that patients prefer CTC. However, CTC has never been compared to OC in the post-operative surveillance setting.

METHODS

We hypothesized that CTC might represent an attractive substitute for the standard OC/CT scan combination. Here, 223 patients underwent CTC followed by same day OC 1 year after curative CRC resection.

RESULTS

Of the 144/223 (64.6%) participants with a preference, 65.9% (95/144) preferred OC. This preference was more pronounced in women and in patients with polyps detected. No additional patient level factors significantly altered this primary result.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to CRC screening, this first study in CRC post-operative surveillance patients demonstrates a preference for OC. Assuming patient preference is an important determinant, introduction of CTC as a method to increase patient adherence with CRC surveillance is unlikely to be effective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials.gov registration number: NCT02143115.

[Colorectal cancer: role of imaging in screening]

CLINICAL PROBLEM

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Most colorectal cancers derive from benign precursor lesions, so-called adenomatous polyps, over a long period of time. Colorectal cancer screening is based on the detection of precancerous polyps and early stage CRC in asymptomatic individuals to reduce CRC incidence and mortality. The protective effect of screening programs can be improved by increasing the screening rates.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Apart from the established examinations, CT colonography (CTC) has been proposed as an optional test for colorectal cancer screening. The detection rates of CTC for large polyps and cancer are similar to the ones of colonoscopy and superior to stool-based tests. CTC is therefore the radiological test of choice for the detection of colorectal neoplasia. It has replaced double contrast barium enema for almost all indications. As a minimally invasive procedure, CTC has a high safety profile and good patient acceptance. The evaluation of extracolonic organs in addition to the colon can increase examination efficacy. The option to choose CTC as a CRC screening test has the potential to increase the overall screening rates.

Prevalence of polyps ≥6 mm on follow-up CT colonography in a cohort with no significant colon polyps at baseline

AIM

Assess the prevalence of neoplasia ≥6 mm at repeat CT colonoscopy (CTC) in individuals with no significant lesions at baseline.

METHODS

Individuals aged ≥18 years, with/without CRC risk factors, with no polyps ≥6 mm on baseline CTC (negative baseline) who underwent repeat CTC in a large HMO from 2001 to 2011 were retrospectively identified. Studies were reviewed by board-certified radiologists with experience interpreting CTC. Demographic details, CRC risk factors, and the number, size, and location of incident lesions were noted. Findings were classified using the C-RADS scale. Lesion prevalence at CTC-2 was determined, and study interval and risk characteristics of patients with- and without findings were compared.

RESULTS

Our study included 636 individuals (369 men [58.0%]; mean age 59.9 years) with negative baseline CTC who underwent repeat CTC after a mean 4.6 year interval (SD 1.6 years). At baseline, 469/636 (73.7%) were at average risk for CRC; 418 remained at average risk for CTC-2 with 51 (8.0%) developing new risk factors in the interval between studies. At CTC-2, 47 participants (7.4%) presented 52 significant neoplasia: 35 polyps 6-9 mm, 14 polyps ≥10 mm, and 3 masses in 3/636 participants (0.47%). 2/3 masses, 6/14 polyps ≥10 mm (42.9%), and 12/25 polyps 6-9 mm (48.0%) were in individuals with risk factors for CRC. Histopathology was available for 12/52 lesions (23.1%): 8 tubular adenomas, 2 villous adenomas, 1 hamartomatous polyp, 1 case of normal tissue.

CONCLUSION

A mean 4.6 years after negative-baseline CTC, neoplasia ≥6 mm were seen in 7.4% of participants, including masses in 0.47%, supporting recommendations for a 5-year study interval.

Patient Knowledge Regarding Colorectal Cancer Risk, Opinion of Screening, and Preferences for a Screening Test

AIMS

To assess patient knowledge about colorectal cancer incidence and prognosis as well as willingness to undergo screening with various tests (eg, optical colonoscopy, stool-based tests, computed tomographic colonography (CTC)).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey was administered to consecutive patients of a general academic-based internal medicine clinic.

RESULTS

Survey response rate was 86.3%. A majority of respondents (55%) reported being aware of general information about colorectal cancer, and 99% indicated a belief that colorectal cancer screening was a good idea. A majority of respondents (73%) were willing to undergo optical colonoscopy, and some were willing to undergo stool-based tests (48%), or CT colonography CTC (40%). A majority reported being more willing to undergo a colorectal cancer screening test if the test did not involve radiation (86%), did not involve insertion of a tube or device into the rectum (78%), did not involve a pre-proceduralpreprocedural bowel cleansing regimen (73%), or did not involve sedation (60%).

CONCLUSION

Improved patient education about the negligible radiation risk associated with CTC or development of a non-invasive imaging test that did not involve a preprocedural bowel cleansing regimen may increase rates of colorectal cancer screening.

Colorectal Cancer Screening-Who, How, and When?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide. It is amenable to screening as it occurs in premalignant, latent, early, and curable stages. PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and national and international CRC screening guidelines were searched for CRC screening methods, populations, and timing. CRC screening can use direct or indirect tests, delivered opportunistically or via organized programs. Most CRCs are diagnosed after 60 years of age; most screening programs apply to individuals 50-75 years of age. Screening may reduce disease-specific mortality by detecting CRC in earlier stages, and CRC incidence by detecting premalignant polyps, which can subsequently be removed. In randomized controlled trials (RCTs) guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBt) was found to reduce CRC mortality by 13%-33%. Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) has no RCT data comparing it to no screening, but is superior to gFOBt. Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) trials demonstrated an 18% reduction in CRC incidence and a 28% reduction in CRC mortality. Currently, RCT evidence for colonoscopy screening is scarce. Although not yet corroborated by RCTs, it is likely that colonoscopy is the best screening modality for an individual. From a population perspective, organized programs are superior to opportunistic screening. However, no nation can offer organized population-wide colonoscopy screening. Thus, organized programs using cheaper modalities, such as FS/FIT, can be tailored to budget and capacity.

Detection of potentially relevant extracolonic and colorectal findings at CT colonography in a low-risk symptomatic patient population

PURPOSE

CT colonography (CTC) is a widely accepted examination tool for detection of colorectal lesions but evidence of the proportions of relevant extracolonic findings (ECF) in a large symptomatic but still relatively low-risk cohort is lacking, as well as their relationship to symptoms, age, and sex.

METHODS

All patients (n = 3208) with colorectal symptoms, imaged between January 2007 and September 2016 with first-time CTC, were retrospectively selected. The majority (96.7%) was examined with low-dose unenhanced protocol. The most relevant ECF and colorectal lesions (≥6 mm) were prospectively assessed according to C-RADS classifications. Follow-up was elaborated based on the electronic record review. Chi-square test was utilized for evaluating the associations between relevant findings and symptoms, age, and sex.

RESULTS

A total of 270 (8.4%) patients were classified as C-RADS E3, 63 (2.0%) patients as C-RADS E4, and 437 (13.6%) patients were assessed with colorectal lesions (C-RADS C2-4). At follow-up, two thirds of ECF turned out to be a malignancy or relevant disease that required further medical attention. The proportion of ECF was not related to specific colorectal symptoms. Patients aged ≥65 years and men had significantly higher proportions of ECF than younger patients (C-RADS E3 p = 0.005; C-RADS E4 p < 0.001) and women (C-RADS E3 p = 0.013; C-RADS E4 p = 0.009), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Proportions of relevant ECF and colorectal findings are relatively low in symptomatic low-risk patients. By use of CTC as a singular examination, especially in elderly patients, most colonoscopies can be avoided with the benefit of diagnosing relevant ECF without introducing substantial over-diagnosis.

Recent diagnostic procedures for colorectal cancer screening: Are they cost-effective?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide and the fourth most common cause of death. Reduction in mortality rates in some countries worldwide are most likely ascribed to CRC screening and/or improved treatments. We reviewed the most relevant articles which discuss the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening procedures, in particular, the recent ones through the last eight years. The effectiveness of screening estimated by discounted life years gained (LYGs) compared to no screening, differed considerably between the studies. Despite these differences, all studies consistently emphasized that screening for CRC was cost-effective compared with no screening for each of the recognized screening strategies. Newer technologies for colorectal cancer screening, including computed tomographic colonography (CTC), faecal DNA test, and Pillcam Colon are less invasive and accurate, however, they are not cost-effective, as their cost was higher than all other established screening strategies. When compliance and adherence to such new techniques are increased more than the established strategies they would be more cost-effective particularly CTC.

Colorectal cancer, screening and primary care: A mini literature review

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common health problem, representing the third most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide and causing a significant burden in terms of morbidity and mortality, with annual deaths estimated at 700000. The western way of life, that is being rapidly adopted in many regions of the world, is a well discussed risk factor for CRC and could be targeted in terms of primary prevention. Furthermore, the relatively slow development of this cancer permits drastic reduction of incidence and mortality through secondary prevention. These facts underlie primary care physicians (PCPs) being assigned a key role in health strategies that enhance prevention and prompt diagnosis. Herein, we review the main topics of CRC in the current literature, in order to better understand its pathogenesis, risk and protective factors, as well as screening techniques. Furthermore, we discuss preventive and screening policies to combat CRC and the crucial role served by PCPs in their successful implementation. Relevant articles were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE and through manual searches of reference lists.

Insurance Coverage for CT Colonography Screening: Impact on Overall Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates

RSNA, 2017.

Using patient values and preferences to inform the importance of health outcomes in practice guideline development following the GRADE approach

Background

There are diverse opinions and confusion about defining and including patient values and preferences (i.e. the importance people place on the health outcomes) in the guideline development processes. This article aims to provide an overview of a process for systematically incorporating values and preferences in guideline development.

Methods

In 2013 and 2014, we followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to adopt, adapt and develop 226 recommendations in 22 guidelines for the Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. To collect context-specific values and preferences for each recommendation, we performed systematic reviews, asked clinical experts to provide feedback according to their clinical experience, and consulted patient representatives.

Results

We found several types of studies addressing the importance of outcomes, including those reporting utilities, non-utility measures of health states based on structured questionnaires or scales, and qualitative studies. Guideline panels used the relative importance of outcomes based on values and preferences to weigh the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative intervention options. However, we found few studies addressing local values and preferences.

Conclusions

Currently there are different but no firmly established processes for integrating patient values and preferences in healthcare decision-making of practice guideline development. With GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks, we provide an empirical strategy to find and incorporate values and preferences in guidelines by performing systematic reviews and eliciting information from guideline panel members and patient representatives. However, more research and practical guidance are needed on how to search for relevant studies and grey literature, assess the certainty of this evidence, and best summarize and present the findings.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12955-017-0621-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparison of patients' tolerance between computed tomography enterography and double-balloon enteroscopy

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography enterography (CTE) and double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) are widely used in diagnosis of small bowel diseases. Both of these examinations bring discomfort to patients. The aim of this study was to compare patients' tolerance and preference between CTE and DBE.

METHODS

From August 1, 2014 to December 31, 2016, patients with suspected or known small bowel diseases who underwent both CTE and DBE were prospectively enrolled in our study. They were asked to fill out a questionnaire evaluating discomfort of the procedure after each examination.

RESULTS

One hundred and seven patients completed our study. Abdominal distension, painfulness, tenesmus, general discomfort, prolonged duration, difficulty in completing the test, and discomfort after the examination were significantly lower with CTE than with DBE (P<0.001, respectively). Mannitol intake (47.7%), bowel preparation (31.9%), and radiation exposure (15.0%) were regarded as the three most intolerable burdens in CTE. Painfulness (38.3%), bowel preparation (26.2%), and invasiveness (16.8%) were considered as the three most unacceptable parts of DBE. More patients (61.7%) preferred to repeat CTE rather than DBE (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compared to DBE, CTE was a more tolerable and less burdensome examination and enjoyed higher preference by most patients.

CT colonography for population screening of colorectal cancer: hints from European trials

CT colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive radiological investigation of the colon. Robust evidence indicates that CTC is safe, well tolerated and highly accurate for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and large polyps, which are the targets of screening. Randomized controlled trials were carried out in Europe to evaluate CTC as the primary test for population screening of CRC in comparison with faecal immunochemical test (FIT), sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Main outcomes were participation rate and detection rate. Participation rate for screening CTC was in the range of 25-34%, whereas the detection rate of CTC for CRC and advanced adenoma was in the range of 5.1-6.1%. Participation for CTC screening was lower than that for FIT, similar to that for sigmoidoscopy and higher than that for colonoscopy. The detection rate of CTC was higher than that of one FIT round, similar to that of sigmoidoscopy and lower than that of colonoscopy. However, owing to the higher participation rate in CTC screening with respect to colonoscopy screening, the detection rates per invitee of CTC and colonoscopy would be comparable. These results justify consideration of CTC in organized screening programmes for CRC. However, assessment of other factors such as polyp size threshold for colonoscopy referral, management of extracolonic findings and, most importantly, the forthcoming results of cost-effectiveness analyses are crucial to define the role of CTC in primary screening.

Patient experience of CT colonography and colonoscopy after fecal occult blood test in a national screening programme

OBJECTIVE

To investigate patient experience of CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy in a national screening programme.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patient experience postal questionnaires. We included screenees from a fecal occult blood test (FOBt) based screening programme, where CTC was performed when colonoscopy was incomplete or deemed unsuitable. We analyzed questionnaire responses concerning communication of test risks, test-related discomfort and post-test pain, as well as complications. CTC and colonoscopy responses were compared using multilevel logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 67,114 subjects identified, 52,805 (79 %) responded. Understanding of test risks was lower for CTC (1712/1970 = 86.9 %) than colonoscopy (48783/50975 = 95.7 %, p < 0.0001). Overall, a slightly greater proportion of screenees found CTC unexpectedly uncomfortable (506/1970 = 25.7 %) than colonoscopy (10,705/50,975 = 21.0 %, p < 0.0001). CTC was tolerated well as a completion procedure for failed colonoscopy (unexpected discomfort; CTC = 26.3 %: colonoscopy = 57.0 %, p < 0.001). Post-procedural pain was equally common (CTC: 288/1970,14.6 %, colonoscopy: 7544/50,975,14.8 %; p = 0.55). Adverse event rates were similar in both groups (CTC: 20/2947 = 1.2 %; colonoscopy: 683/64,312 = 1.1 %), but generally less serious with CTC.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though CTC was reserved for individuals either unsuitable for or unable to complete colonoscopy, we found only small differences in test-related discomfort. CTC was well tolerated as a completion procedure and was extremely safe. CTC can be delivered across a national screening programme with high patient satisfaction.

KEY POINTS

• High patient satisfaction at CTC is deliverable across a national screening programme. • Patients who cannot tolerate screening colonoscopy are likely to find CTC acceptable. • CTC is extremely safe; complications are rare and almost never serious. • Patients may require more detailed information regarding the expected discomfort of CTC.

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

OBJECTIVE

Imaging may be promising for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, since it has test characteristics comparable with colonoscopy but is less invasive. We aimed to assess the potential of CT colonography (CTC) and MR colonography (MRC) in terms of (cost-effectiveness) using the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal CAncer model.

METHODS

We compared several CTC and MRC strategies with 5- or 10-yearly screening intervals with no screening, 10-yearly colonoscopy screening and biennial faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening. We assumed trial-based participation rates in the base-case analyses and varied the rates in sensitivity analyses. Incremental lifetime costs and health effects were estimated from a healthcare perspective.

RESULTS

The health gain of CTC and MRC was similar and ranged from 0.031 to 0.048 life-year gained compared with no screening, for 2-5 screening rounds. Lifetime costs per person for MRC strategies were €60-110 higher than those for CTC strategies with an equal number of screening rounds. All imaging-based strategies were cost-effective compared with no screening. FIT screening was the dominant screening strategy, leading to most LYG and highest cost-savings. Compared with three rounds of colonoscopy screening, CTC with five rounds was found to be cost-effective in an incremental analysis of imaging strategies. Assumptions on screening participation have a major influence on the ordering of strategies in terms of costs and effects.

CONCLUSION

CTC and MRC have potential for CRC screening, compared with no screening and compared with three rounds of 10-yearly colonoscopy screening. When taking FIT screening as the reference, imaging is not cost-effective. Participation is an important driver of effectiveness and cost estimates.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This is the first study to assess the cost-effectiveness of MRC screening for CRC.

Patient Preferences Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening: Test Features and Cost Willing to Pay Out of Pocket

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate whether test features would make an individual more or less likely to undergo colorectal cancer screening and how much an individual would be willing to pay out of pocket for a screening test. The methods include an administration of a survey to consecutive adult patients of a general medicine clinic. The survey consisted of Likert-scale questions assessing the patients' likelihood of choosing a screening test based on various test characteristics. Additional questions measured the patients' age, race, gender, and maximum out-of-pocket cost they would be willing to pay. Chi-square tests were used to assess the associations between the likelihood questions and the various demographic characteristics. In results, survey response rate was 88.8% (213 of 240). Respondents were 48.4% female (103 of 213), 51.6% male (110 of 213), 82.6% White (176 of 213), 11.3% African-American (24 of 213), and 6.1% other (13 of 213). Risk of internal injury and light exposure to radiation were the least desirable test features. Light sedation was the only test feature that most respondents (54.8%) indicated would make them likely or very likely to undergo a colorectal cancer screening test. The vast majority of respondents (86.8%) were willing to pay less than $200 out of pocket for a colorectal cancer screening test. There was no statistically significant difference in the responses of males and females, or in the responses of individuals of different races or different ages regarding test features, or the amount individuals were willing to pay for a screening test. To conclude, survey results suggest that patient education emphasizing the low complication rate of computed tomographic colonography (CTC), the minimal risks associated with the low-level radiation exposure resulting from CTC, and the benefits of a sedation-free test (eg, no risk of sedation-related complication and no need for a driver) may increase patient acceptance of CTC. Additionally, an out-of-pocket cost of <$200 would be preferable from the patient perspective.

Patient willingness for repeat screening and preference for CT colonography and optical colonoscopy in ACRIN 6664: the National CT Colonography trial

BACKGROUND

Current American Cancer Society recommendations for colon cancer screening include optical colonoscopy every 10 years or computed tomography colonography (CTC) every 5 years. Bowel preparation (BP) is currently required for both screening modalities.

PURPOSE

To compare ACRIN 6664: the National CT Colonography Trial (NCTCT) participant experiences with CTC and optical colonoscopy (OC), procedure preference, and willingness to return for each procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants from fifteen NCTCT sites, who underwent CTC followed by OC under sedation, were invited to complete questionnaires 2 weeks postexam, asking about procedure preference, physical discomfort, and embarrassment experienced and whether that discomfort and embarrassment was better or worse than expected during BP, CTC, and OC, as well as willingness to return for repeat CTC and OC at different time intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 2,310 of 2,600 patients (89%) returned their questionnaires. Of patients reporting a preference, 1,058 (46.6%) preferred CTC, 569 (25.0%) preferred OC, and 626 (27.6%) reported no preference. Participant-reported discomfort worse than expected differed significantly between CTC (32.9%) and OC (5.0%) (P<0.001). About 79.3% were willing to be screened again with CTC in 5 years, and 96.6% with OC in 10 years. Discomfort and embarrassment worse than expected with OC were associated with increased intention to adhere with CTC in the future. Conversely, embarrassment experienced during CTC and discomfort worse than expected on CTC were associated with increased intention to adhere with OC in the future.

CONCLUSION

While a larger proportion of participants indicated that they preferred CTC to OC, willingness to undergo repeat CTC compared to OC was limited by unanticipated exam discomfort and embarrassment and CTC's shorter screening interval.

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.

Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments

BACKGROUND

It is well established that screening is effective in reducing the incidence and mortality associated with colorectal cancer (CRC). National screening programs have been implemented in many countries; however, uptake remains an issue. Understanding patient preferences may assist in shaping screening programs and tailoring information about screening tests.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to undertake a systematic review of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) of CRC screening.

METHODS

A systematic review of DCEs of CRC screening was undertaken in an average-risk general population. The methodological qualities of the studies were assessed using a standard checklist outlining best practice for conjoint studies.

RESULTS

Nine studies met the selection criteria. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the data and methods. However, in eight studies, attributes describing accuracy and/or clinical effectiveness were reported to be statistically significant. We also found that individuals were willing to trade-off other attributes such as an increased risk of complications to gain greater clinical benefits. Screening was also preferred to non-screening by the majority of respondents, regardless of the test used.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding and incorporating individuals' preferences in decision making is increasingly considered essential in the health field. Data from DCEs can provide valuable insights into the trade-offs individuals are willing to undertake in respect to CRC screening. Such insights can be used by decision makers to identify screening tests that could maximize informed uptake. It is likely that, with better reporting and evolving methodology, the contribution that DCEs can make to such debates will increase.

Non- or full-laxative CT colonography vs. endoscopic tests for colorectal cancer screening: a randomised survey comparing public perceptions and intentions to undergo testing

Objectives

Compare public perceptions and intentions to undergo colorectal cancer screening tests following detailed information regarding CT colonography (CTC; after non-laxative preparation or full-laxative preparation), optical colonoscopy (OC) or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS).

Methods

A total of 3,100 invitees approaching screening age (45-54 years) were randomly allocated to receive detailed information on a single test and asked to return a questionnaire. Outcomes included perceptions of preparation and test tolerability, health benefits, sensitivity and specificity, and intention to undergo the test.

Results

Six hundred three invitees responded with valid questionnaire data. Non-laxative preparation was rated more positively than enema or full-laxative preparations [effect size (r) = 0.13 to 0.54; p < 0.0005 to 0.036]; both forms of CTC and FS were rated more positively than OC in terms of test experience (r = 0.26 to 0.28; all p-values < 0.0005). Perceptions of health benefits, sensitivity and specificity (p = 0.250 to 0.901), and intention to undergo the test (p = 0.213) did not differ between tests (n = 144-155 for each test).

Conclusions

Despite non-laxative CTC being rated more favourably, this study did not find evidence that offering it would lead to substantially higher uptake than full-laxative CTC or other methods. However, this study was limited by a lower than anticipated response rate.

Key Points

• Improving uptake of colorectal cancer screening tests could improve health benefits

• Potential invitees rate CTC and flexible sigmoidoscopy more positively than colonoscopy

• Non-laxative bowel preparation is rated better than enema or full-laxative preparations

• These positive perceptions alone may not be sufficient to improve uptake

• Health benefits and accuracy are rated similarly for preventative screening tests

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00330-014-3187-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Quantifying public preferences for different bowel preparation options prior to screening CT colonography: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

CT colonography (CTC) may be an acceptable test for colorectal cancer screening but bowel preparation can be a barrier to uptake. This study tested the hypothesis that prospective screening invitees would prefer full-laxative preparation with higher sensitivity and specificity for polyps, despite greater burden, over less burdensome reduced-laxative or non-laxative alternatives with lower sensitivity and specificity.

DESIGN

Discrete choice experiment.

SETTING

Online, web-based survey.

PARTICIPANTS

2819 adults (45-54 years) from the UK responded to an online invitation to take part in a cancer screening study. Quota sampling ensured that the sample reflected key demographics of the target population and had no relevant bowel disease or medical qualifications. The analysis comprised 607 participants.

INTERVENTIONS

After receiving information about screening and CTC, participants completed 3-4 choice scenarios. Scenarios showed two hypothetical forms of CTC with different permutations of three attributes: preparation, sensitivity and specificity for polyps.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants considered the trade-offs in each scenario and stated their preferred test (or chose neither).

RESULTS

Preparation and sensitivity for polyps were both significant predictors of preferences (coefficients: -3.834 to -6.346 for preparation, 0.207-0.257 for sensitivity; p<0.0005). These attributes predicted preferences to a similar extent. Realistic specificity values were non-significant (-0.002 to 0.025; p=0.953). Contrary to our hypothesis, probabilities of selecting tests were similar for realistic forms of full-laxative, reduced-laxative and non-laxative preparations (0.362-0.421). However, they were substantially higher for hypothetical improved forms of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparations with better sensitivity for polyps (0.584-0.837).

CONCLUSIONS

Uptake of CTC following non-laxative or reduced-laxative preparations is unlikely to be greater than following full-laxative preparation as perceived gains from reduced burden may be diminished by reduced sensitivity. However, both attributes are important so a more sensitive form of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparation might improve uptake substantially.

Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

As more studies report on patient preferences, techniques are needed to identify, assess and, eventually, synthesize results from a diverse set of methodologies. Data on patient preferences are valuable to decision makers in a variety of ways. Preferences for outcomes can be used to inform decision and cost-effectiveness models, while preferences for treatments can inform patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) and patient-centered care.

OBJECTIVES

This project sought to identify and assess the literature reporting on the treatment preferences of adult patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition to cataloging the preference elicitation methods used, we developed and assessed a novel quality assessment checklist for preference-based studies.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and EconLit databases were searched to identify studies examining patient preferences for medications for type 2 diabetes studies published since inception of each database.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

The review protocol specified inclusion of studies reporting diabetes-treatment preferences among adults with type 2 diabetes, using a range of preference measurement methods. Studies were excluded if participants were not patients with type 2 diabetes and if treatments were not pharmacological therapies targeting glycemic control, or if no primary preference information was collected. Two investigators independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and articles sequentially to select studies for data abstraction based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Data on study country, year, number of respondents, preference elicitation method, number of attributes, subgroup analyses, and funding source were abstracted into standardized tables. A novel checklist (PREFS) was used to assess the data quality and validity across different types of preference studies by assessing the following: purpose of the study; respondent sampling; explanation of preference assessment methods; findings reported for total sample; and significance testing. Each item was scored, and an aggregate score was then calculated (ranging from 0 to 5).

RESULTS

Of the 2,100 unique citations, 61 met the inclusion criteria. The studies used conjoint analysis (n = 10), time trade-off (n = 6), standard gamble (n = 2), contingent valuation (n = 1), other stated preference methods (n = 39), and revealed preferences (n = 5). Sample sizes ranged from 27 to 14,033, with an average of 562 respondents, and two-thirds included a subgroup analysis. Most studies were conducted in one country, predominantly the USA (n = 27), UK (n = 14), Canada (n = 10), and Germany (n = 7), while 14 were conducted in multiple (2-18) countries across two or more countries. There was an increase in the annual rate of studies published over time from the time of the first publication in 1985 (p = < 0.01). Most (n = 52) studies were funded by pharmaceutical or device companies, with government, academic, association, and hospital sources also funding studies. One study met all five of the PREFS criteria and 12 met four; yet four studies met none of the criteria. The average was 27.

LIMITATIONS

Currently, preferences reviews are limited by the mixed quality in the reporting of studies, the publication bias inherent in the literature, a lack of guidelines to conduct various methods, and the difficulty of synthesizing results from different studies. Our study is also limited by its focus on English language articles.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

This study provides the first systematic evaluation of the methods used in the broad existing body of research into patient preferences for type 2 diabetes medications and can serve as a primary source of information for decision makers. Future work is necessary to assess the utility of the results of reviews of preference information and to develop best-practice guidelines for the reporting of, and methods of conducting, preference studies and systematic reviews of such studies.

REGISTRATION

This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42012002285).

An international review of the main cost-effectiveness drivers of virtual colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening: is the tide changing due to adherence?

OBJECTIVES

The majority of recent cost-effectiveness reviews concluded that computerised tomographic colonography (CTC) is not a cost-effective colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategy yet. The objective of this review is to examine cost-effectiveness of CTC versus optical colonoscopy (COL) for CRC screening and identify the main drivers influencing cost-effectiveness due to the emergence of new research.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted for cost-effectiveness studies comparing CTC and COL as a screening tool and providing outcomes in life-years saved, published between January 2006 and November 2012.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in the review. There was considerable heterogeneity in modelling complexity and methodology. Different model assumptions and inputs had large effects on resulting cost-effectiveness of CTC and COL. CTC was found to be dominant or cost-effective in three studies, assuming the most favourable scenario. COL was found to be not cost effective in one study.

CONCLUSIONS

CTC has the potential to be a cost-effective CRC screening strategy when compared to COL. The most important assumptions that influenced the cost-effectiveness of CTC and COL were related to CTC threshold-based reporting of polyps, CTC cost, CTC sensitivity for large polyps, natural history of adenoma transition to cancer, AAA parameters and importantly, adherence. There is a strong need for a differential consideration of patient adherence and compliance to CTC and COL. Recent research shows that laxative-free CTC screening has the potential to become a good alternative screening method for CRC as it can improve patient uptake of screening.

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.