Advertisement

Clinical Trials in Europe

  • Daniele Regge
  • Gabriella Iussich
  • Andrea Laghi
Chapter

Abstract

To have some insight into the present and future role of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in Europe, one must keep in mind that there are significant differences between Europe and the United States in their approaches to the early diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) [1].

Keywords

Fecal Occult Blood Test Compute Tomographic Colonography Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Fecal Immunochemical Test Advanced Adenoma 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Hoff G, Dominitz JA. Contrasting US and European approaches to colorectal cancer screening: which is best? Gut. 2010;9:407–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Commission. Council recommendation on cancer screening. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/genetics/documents/com_2003_0230_en.pdf (accessed August 24, 2010).
  3. 3.
    Europe against colorectal cancer: declaration of Brussels, 9 May 2007. http://www.future-health-2007.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Brussels_Declaration.pdf (accessed August 24, 2010).
  4. 4.
    Segnan N, Senore C, Andreoni B, et al. SCORE3 Working Group–Italy. Comparing attendance and detection rate of colonoscopy with sigmoidoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer screening. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:2304–2312.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial Investigators. Single flexible sigmoidoscopy screening to prevent colorectal cancer: baseline findings of a UK multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;13;359:1291–1300.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gondal G, Grotmol T, Hofstad B, Bretthauer M, Eide TJ, Hoff G. The Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention (NORCCAP) screening study: baseline findings and implementations for clinical work-up in age groups 50–64 years. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2003;38:635–642.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weissfeld JL, Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, et al. Flexible sigmoidoscopy in the PLCO cancer screening trial: results from the baseline screening examination of a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:989–997.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sieg A, Brenner H. Cost-saving analysis of screening colonoscopy in Germany. Z Gastroenterol. 2007;45:945–951.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Segnan N, Senore C, Andreoni B, et al. SCORE Working Group–Italy. Baseline findings of the Italian multicenter randomized controlled trial of “once-only sigmoidoscopy”—SCORE. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1763–1772.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I, et al. UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Trial Investigators. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375:1624–1633.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Olde Bekkink M, McCowan C, Falk GA, Teljeur C, Van de Laar FA, Fahey T. Diagnostic accuracy systematic review of rectal bleeding in combination with other symptoms, signs and tests in relation to colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2010;102:48–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendation and rationale. Am Fam Physician. 2002;66:2287–2290.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Regge D, Galatola G, Martincich L, et al. Use of virtual endoscopy with computerized tomography in the identification of colorectal neoplasms. Prospective study with symptomatic patients. Radiol Med. 2000;99:449–455.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lefere PA, Gryspeerdt SS, Dewyspelaere J, Baekelandt M, Van Holsbeeck BG. Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial results polyp detection and patient acceptance. Radiology. 2002;224:393–403.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Carbone I, et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): blinded prospective comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal neoplasia. Endoscopy. 2002;34:441–446.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thomeer M, Carbone I, Bosmans H, et al. Stool tagging applied in thin-slice multidetector computed tomography colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2003;27:132–139.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Gelder RE, Nio CY, Florie J, et al. Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:41–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Halligan S, Altman DG, Taylor SA, et al. CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting. Radiology. 2005;237:893–904.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chaparro M, Gisbert JP, Del Campo L, Cantero J, Maté J. Accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for the detection of polyps and colorectal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Digestion. 2009;80:1–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Regge D, Laudi C, Galatola G, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for the detection of advanced neoplasia in individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer. JAMA. 2009;301:2453–2461.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Halligan S, Lilford RJ, Wardle J, et al. 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. 2007;8:32. Review.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D, et al. Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut. 2009;58:241–248.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nederlands Trial Register. Trial info. www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?tc=1829 (accessed August 24, 2010).
  24. 24.
    Johns LE, Houlston RS. A systematic review and meta-analysis of familial colorectal cancer risk. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001; 96:2992–3003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Gerdes H, et al. Risk of colorectal cancer in the families of patients with adenomatous polyps. National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:82–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Davila RE, Rajan E, Baron TH, et al. Standards of Practice Committee, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. ASGE guideline: colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:546–557.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bujanda L, Sarasqueta C, Zubiaurre L, et al. EPICOLON Group. Low adherence to colonoscopy in the screening of first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer. Gut. 2007;56:1714–1718.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cottet V, Pariente A, Nalet B, et al. ANGH Group. Colonoscopic screening of first-degree relatives of patients with large adenomas: increased risk of colorectal tumors. Gastroenterology. 2007;133:1086–1092.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56:143–159.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lieberman DA, De Garmo PL, Fleischer DE, Eisen GM, Helfand M. Patterns of endoscopy use in the United States. Gastroenterology. 2000;118:619–624.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Imperiale TF, Sox HC. Guidelines for surveillance intervals after polypectomy: coping with the evidence. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:477–479.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, et al. Randomized controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1996;348:1472–1477.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jørgensen OD, Søndergaard O. Randomized study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet. 1996;348:1467–1471.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liedenbaum MH, van Rijn AF, de Vries AH, et al. Using CT colonography as a triage technique after a positive faecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening. Gut. 2009;58:1242–1249.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nadel MR, Shapiro JA, Klabunde CN, et al. A national survey of primary care physicians’ methods for screening for fecal occult blood. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:86–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sali L, Falchini M, Bonanomi AG, et al. CT colonography after incomplete colonoscopy in subjects with positive faecal occult blood test. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:4499–4504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    AGA Clinical Practice and Economics Committee. Position of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute on computed tomographic colonography. Gastroenterology. 2006;131:1627–1628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    McFarland EG, Fletcher JG, Pickhardt P, et al. ACR Colon Cancer Committee white paper: status of CT colonography. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6:756–772.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Taylor SA, Halligan S, O’Donnell C, et al. Cardiovascular effects at multi-detector row CT colonography compared with those at conventional endoscopy of the colon. Radiology. 2003;229:782–790.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Iafrate F, Hassan C, Zullo A, et al. CTcolonography with reduced bowel preparation after incomplete colonoscopy in the elderly. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:1385–1395.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Keeling AN, Slattery MM, Leong S, et al. Limited-preparation CT colonography in frail elderly patients: a feasibility study. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:1279–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Cancer Research and Treatment Strada ProvinpcialeCandioloItaly

Personalised recommendations