Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CT colonography: a survey of general practitioners’ knowledge and interest

  • ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To verify the knowledge and interest of general practitioners on computed tomography colonography (CTC).

Materials and methods

In 2014, a Web-based questionnaire was proposed to all general practitioners of [Milan, Italy]. The questionnaire consisted of ten questions concerning general practitioners’ knowledge about CTC, including application of guidelines in clinical scenarios and diagnostic performance.

Results

Out of 1,053 general practitioners, 231 (22 %), 155 men and 76 women (mean age 58 years), completed the survey. We found a significant difference between the age of responders and that of non-responders (p = 0.0033). Of the 231 responders, 84 % were aware of the possibility of using CTC as a method for examining the colon–rectum. However, only 57 % were aware about low X-ray exposure delivered by CTC and about the possibility of using a reduced cleansing protocol. Only 48 % were aware that CTC accuracy in diagnosing 10-mm or larger polyps and colorectal cancers was similar to that of conventional colonoscopy, while 62 % were informed about CTC advantages in comparison with double-contrast barium enema; 59 % thought that CTC had a potential role as a screening test; 85–86 % suggested CTC in the case of refused or incomplete conventional colonoscopy; 79 % suggested immediate conventional colonoscopy in the case of at least one 10-mm polyp. About 54 % usually prescribe one CTC every 4–6 months, while 36 % never have, 3 % one CTC per month, and 7 % one every 2–3 months. Ninety-four per cent declared that they were willing to attend a course on CTC.

Conclusion

General practitioners have limited knowledge concerning CTC. Radiological societies should fill this gap offering dedicated educational initiatives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Halligan S, Marmo R, Taylor SA, Pickhardt PJ (2011) Colorectal Cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 259(2):393–405

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ et al (2007) CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 357(14):1403–1412

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY et al (2008) Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med 359(26):1207–1217

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Regge D, Laudi C, Galatola G et al (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for the detection of advanced neoplasia in individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer. J Am Med Assoc 301(23):2453–2461

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D et al (2009) Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut 58(2):241–248

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Spada C, Stoker J, Alarcon O et al (2015) Clinical indications for computed tomography colonography: European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) and european society of gastrointestinal and abdominal radiology (ESGAR) Guideline. Eur Radiol 25(2):331–345

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. McHugh M, Osei-Anto A, Klabunde CN, Galen BA (2011) Adoption of CT colonography by US hospitals. J Am Coll Radiol 8:169–174

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Lung PFC, Burling D, Kallarackel L et al (2014) Implementation of a new CT colonography service: 5 year experience. Clin Radiol 69:597–605

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fisichella VA, Hellstrom M (2010) Survey update on implementation, indications, and technical performance of computed tomography colonography in Sweden. Acta Radiol 51:4–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Steward MJ, Taylor SA, Halligan S (2014) Abdominal computed tomography, colonography and radiation exposure: what the surgeon needs to know. Colorectal Dis 16:347–352

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Brenner D, Georgsson MA (2005) Mass screening with CT colonography: should the radiation exposure be of concern? Gastroenterology 129:328–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chang MS, Shah JP, Amin S et al (2007) Physician knowledge and appropriate utilization of computed tomographic colonography in colorectal cancer screening. Abdom Imag 36(5):524–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bowling A (1997) Data collection methods in quantitative research: questionnaire, interviews and their response rates. In: Bowling A (ed) Research methods in health: investigating health and health service. Open University Press, Buckingham, pp 227–270

    Google Scholar 

  14. Asch DA, Jedrziewsky MK, Christakis NA (2007) Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 50:1129–1136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Grava-Gubin I, Scott S (2008) Effects of various methodologic strategies, surveys response rates among Canadian physicians and physicians in-training. Can Fam Physician 54:1424–1430

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cummings SM, Savitz LA, Konrad TR (2001) Reported response rates to mailed physician questionnaires. Health Serv Res 35:1347–1355

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaner EF, Haighton CA, McAvoy BR (1998) So much post, so busy with practice, so no time! A telephone survey of general practitioners’ reasons for not participating in postal questionnaire surveys. Br J Gen Pract 48:1067–1069

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Stocks N, Gunnell D (2000) What are the characteristics of GPs who routinely do not return postal questionnaire: a cross sectional study. J Epidemiol Commun Health 54:940–941

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hummers-Pradier E, Scheidt-Nave C, Martin H et al (2008) Simply no time ? Barriers to GPs participation in primary health care research. Fam Pract 25:105–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bonevski B, Magin P, Horton G, Foster M, Girgis A (2011) Response rates in GP surveys. Aust Fam Phys 40(6):427–430

    Google Scholar 

  21. Murphy J, Eyerman J, Kennet J (2004) Nonresponse among persons age 50 and older in the national survey on drug use and health. In: Cohen SB and Lepkowsky JM (eds) Proceedings of the eighth conference oh health survey research methods

  22. Halligan S, Wooldrage K, Dadswell E, Kralj-Hans I, von Wagner C et al (2013) Computed tomographic colonography versus barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 381(9873):1185–1193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Behrens C, Stevenson G, Eddy R et al (2010) The benefits of CT Colonography in reducing a long colonoscopy waiting list. Can Assoc Radiol J 61(1):33–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Neri E, Faggioni L, Cerri F et al (2010) CT colonography versus double contrast barium enema for screening of colorectal cancer: comparison of radiation burden. Abdom Imaging 35(5):596–601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Von Wagner C, Smith S, Halligan S et al (2011) Patient acceptability of CT colonography compared with double contrast barium enema: results from a multicenter randomized controlled trial of symptomatic patients. Eur Radiol 21(10):2046–2055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yee J, Kim DH, Rosen MP et al (2014) ACR appropriateness criteria colorectal cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol 11:543–551

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Andrea Verzoni, Biomedical Engineering of our Hospital, for his valuable contribution in conducting the survey.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unità Operativa di Radiologia Diagnostica e Interventistica, Azienda Ospedaliera San Paolo, Via di Rudinì 8, 20142, Milan, Italy

    Nicola Flor & Gianpaolo Cornalba

  2. Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via di Rudinì 8, 20142, Milan, Italy

    Nicola Flor & Gianpaolo Cornalba

  3. Dipartimento di Scienze Radiologiche, Oncologia e Anatomia Patologica, Università La Sapienza, Rome, Italy

    Andrea Laghi

  4. Unità Imaging diagnostico, Ospedale ICOT, Latina, Italy

    Andrea Laghi

  5. Scuola di Specializzazione in Radiodiagnostica, Facoltà di Medicina e Chirurgia, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Milan, Italy

    Mauro Peri

  6. Unità di Radiologia, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy

    Francesco Sardanelli

  7. Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche della Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Piazza E. Malan, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Italy

    Francesco Sardanelli

Authors
  1. Nicola Flor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Laghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mauro Peri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gianpaolo Cornalba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Francesco Sardanelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicola Flor.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Flor, N., Laghi, A., Peri, M. et al. CT colonography: a survey of general practitioners’ knowledge and interest. Radiol med 121, 1–5 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-015-0569-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-015-0569-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation