Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical Trials in Europe

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Atlas of Virtual Colonoscopy

  • 938 Accesses

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].

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hoff G, Dominitz JA. Contrasting US and European approaches to colorectal cancer screening: which is best? Gut. 2010;9:407–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sieg A, Brenner H. Cost-saving analysis of screening colonoscopy in Germany. Z Gastroenterol. 2007;45:945–951.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendation and rationale. Am Fam Physician. 2002;66:2287–2290.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nederlands Trial Register. Trial info. www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?tc=1829 (accessed August 24, 2010).

  24. Johns LE, Houlston RS. A systematic review and meta-analysis of familial colorectal cancer risk. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001; 96:2992–3003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Imperiale TF, Sox HC. Guidelines for surveillance intervals after polypectomy: coping with the evidence. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:477–479.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. AGA Clinical Practice and Economics Committee. Position of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute on computed tomographic colonography. Gastroenterology. 2006;131:1627–1628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Cancer Research and Treatment Strada Provinpciale, 142 km 3,95, 10060, Candiolo, Torino, Italy

    Daniele Regge

Authors
  1. Daniele Regge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabriella Iussich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Laghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniele Regge .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Radiology, MC 2026, University of Chicago, S. Maryland Ave. 5841, Chicago, 60637, Illinois, USA

    Abraham H. Dachman

  2. , Radiological, Oncological, and Pathologi, Sapienza , Università di Roma, Polo Pontino, Latina, Italy

    Andrea Laghi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Regge, D., Iussich, G., Laghi, A. (2011). Clinical Trials in Europe. In: Dachman, A., Laghi, A. (eds) Atlas of Virtual Colonoscopy. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5852-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5852-5_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-5851-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-5852-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation