Patient acceptability of CT colonography compared with double contrast barium enema: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial of symptomatic patients
- 756 Downloads
To determine patient acceptability of barium enema (BE) or CT colonography (CTC).
After ethical approval, 921 consenting patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer who had been randomly assigned and completed either BE (N = 606) or CTC (N = 315) received a questionnaire to assess experience of the clinical episode including bowel preparation, procedure and complications. Satisfaction, worry and physical discomfort were assessed using an adapted version of a validated acceptability scale. Non-parametric methods assessed differences between the randomised tests and the effect of patient characteristics.
Patients undergoing BE were significantly less satisfied (median 61, interquartile range [IQR] 54–67 vs. median 64, IQR 56–69; p = 0.003) and experienced more physical discomfort (median 40, IQR 29–52 vs. median 35.5, IQR 25–47; p < 0.001) than those undergoing CTC. Post-test, BE patients were significantly more likely to experience ‘abdominal pain/cramps’ (68% vs. 57%; p = 0.007), ‘soreness’ (57% vs. 37%; p < 0.001), ‘nausea/vomiting’ (16% vs. 8%; p = 0.009), ‘soiling’ (31% vs. 23%; p = 0.034) and ‘wind’ (92% vs. 84%; p = 0.001) and in the case of ‘wind’ to also rate it as severe (27% vs. 15%; p < 0.001).
CTC is associated with significant improvements in patient experience. These data support the case for CTC to replace BE.
KeywordsCT Colonography Virtual colonoscopy Barium enema Colon Cancer Patient preference
This trial was funded by the UK Department of Health through the Health Technology Assessment programme of the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR grant HTA 02/02/01). This work was undertaken at UCL/UCLH and Imperial College London, each of whom received a proportion of funding from the NIHR Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre funding scheme. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UK Department of Health. We wish to thank the SIGGAR investigators and independent data monitoring and trial steering committees for their time and help (see web-Appendix 1).
SH is remunerated for R/D advice by Medicsight PLC, a company that develops CAD software for CTC.
- 2.Cancer Research UK (2006) Cancer stats report - large bowel cancer - UK, Cancer Research UKGoogle Scholar
- 17.Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, Offord KP, Harris AM, Wilson LA et al (2003) Colorectal cancer screening with CT Colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. Radiology 227:378–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Halligan S, Lilford RJ, Wardle J, Mortin D, Rogers P, Wooldrage K, Edwards R, Kanani R, Shah U, Atkin W (2007) Design of a multicentre randomized trial to evaluate CT colonography versus colonoscopy or barium enema for diagnosis of colonic cancer in older symptomatic patients: The SIGGAR study. Trials 8:32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.MRC guidelines for good clinical practice. Medical Research Council. http://tiny.cc/birg4. Published March, 1998. Accessed September 13, 2010
- 22.Noble M, McLennan D, Wilkinson K, Whitworth A, Barnes H, Dibben C (2008) The English indices of deprivation 2007. Department for Communities and Local Government, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 23.Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2007) Using multivariate statistics, 5th edn. Allyn and Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar