Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

MR colonography vs. optical colonoscopy: comparison of patients’ acceptance in a screening population

  • Gastrointestinal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare optical colonoscopy to fecal-tagging-based MR colonography in a screening population in terms of comfort and acceptance ratings as well as for future preferences as colorectal cancer screening examinations. Two hundred eighty-four asymptomatic patients (mean age 59 years) underwent MRC and OC within 4 weeks. While MRC was based on a fecal tagging technique, OC was performed after bowel cleansing. For OC, sedatives and analgesics were used. Patients evaluated both modalities and certain aspects of the examination according to a 10-point-scale with higher scores denoting a worse experience. Furthermore, preferences for future examinations were evaluated. No significant difference was noted for the overall acceptance of OC (mean value 3.0) and MRC (mean value 3.4). For MRC, the placement of the rectal tube was rated as the most unpleasant part, whereas bowel purgation was regarded most inconvenient for OC. Patients aged 55 years and older perceived most aspects less unpleasant than younger patients. Of the patients, 46% preferred MRC for future screening examinations (OC: 44%). OC and MRC have comparable general acceptance levels in a screening population. Especially for patients declining endoscopy as a screening method MRC may evolve as an attractive alternative.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E et al (2005) Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 55:10–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. van Dam J, Cotton P, Johnson CD et al (2004) AGA future trends report: CT colonography. Gastroenterology 127:970

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D et al (2003) Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 124:544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dominitz JA, Eisen GM, Baron TH et al (2003) Complications of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 57:441–445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Melton LJ (2002) A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 97:3186–3194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pappalardo G, Polettini E, Frattaroli FM et al (2000) Magnetic resonance colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colonic endoluminal lesions. Gastroenterology 119:300

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sosna J, Morrin MM, Kruskal JB, Lavin PT, Rosen MP, Raptopoulos V (2003) CT colonography of colorectal polyps: a metaanalysis. Am J Roentgenol 181:1593–1598

    Google Scholar 

  8. Halligan S, Altman DG, Taylor SA et al (2005) CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting. Radiology 237:893–904

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lauenstein TC (2006) MR colonography: current status. Eur Radiol 16:1519–1526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ajaj W, Lauenstein TC, Schneemann H et al (2005) Magnetic resonance colonography without bowel cleansing using oral and rectal stool softeners (fecal cracking)- a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 15:2079–2087

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD (2004) Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 232:735–738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Debatin JF, Luboldt W, Bauerfeind P (1999) Virtual colonoscopy in 1999: computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging? Endoscopy 31:174–179

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Martin DR, Semelka RC (2006) Health effects of ionising radiation from diagnostic CT. Lancet 367:1712–1714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. NAS (2005) Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII: National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu (accessed October 2006)

  15. Ajaj W, Pelster G, Treichel U et al (2003) Dark lumen magnetic resonance colonography: comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal pathology. Gut 52:1738–1743

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hartmann D, Bassler B, Schilling D et al (2005) Colorectal polyps: detection with dark-lumen MR colonography versus conventional colonoscopy. Radiology 238:143–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Akerkar GA, Yee J, Hung R, McQuaid K (2001) Patient experience and preferences toward colon cancer screening: a comparison of virtual colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 54:310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS et al (2003) Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. Radiology 227:378–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Juchems MS, Ehmann J, Brambs HJ, Aschoff AJ (2005) A retrospective evaluation of patient acceptance of computed tomography colonography (“virtual colonoscopy”) in comparison with conventional colonoscopy in an average risk screening population. Acta Radiol 46:664–670

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP (2003) Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 98:578–585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Svensson MH, Svensson E, Lasson A, Hellstrom M (2002) Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease. Radiology 222:337–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Thomeer M, Bielen D, Vanbeckevoort D et al (2002) Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue? Eur Radiol V12:1410–1415

    Google Scholar 

  23. van Gelder RE, Birnie E, Florie J et al (2004) CT colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology 233:328–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kuehle C, Goehde SC, Nuefer M, Barkhausen J, Lauenstein TC (2005) MR colonography without bowel cleansing: diagnostic accuracy and patient acceptance. RSNA, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  25. http://www.glucagenhypokit.com/Hypokit_Pi.pdf

  26. Wardle J, Sutton S, Williamson S et al (2000) Psychosocial influences on older adults’ interest in participating in bowel cancer screening. Prev Med 31:323

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. (2001) Trends in screening for colorectal cancer-United States, 1997 and 1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 50:162–166

  28. Mant D, Fuller A, Northover J et al (1992) Patient compliance with colorectal cancer screening in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 42:18–20

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Saunders BP, Bassett P, Vance M, Bartram CI (2003) Acceptance by patients of multidetector CT colonography compared with barium enema examinations, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. Am J Roentgenol 181:913–921

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ajaj W, Lauenstein TC, Pelster G, Goehde SC, Debatin JF, Ruehm SG (2004) MR colonography: how does air compare to water for colonic distention? J Magn Reson Imaging 19:216–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Goehde SC, Descher E, Boekstegers A et al (2005) Dark lumen MR colonography based on fecal tagging for detection of colorectal masses: accuracy and patient acceptance. Abdom Imaging 30:576–583

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Goh V et al (2003) Optimizing colonic distention for multi-detector row CT colonography: effect of hyoscine butylbromide and rectal balloon catheter. Radiology 229:99–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Arnesen RB, Adamsen S, Svendsen LB, Raaschou HO, von Benzon E, Hansen OH (2005) Missed lesions and false-positive findings on computed-tomographic colonography: a controlled prospective analysis. Endoscopy 37:937–944

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Mulhall BP, Veerappan GR, Jackson JL (2005) Meta-analysis: computed tomographic colonography. Ann Intern Med 142:635–650

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by grant 70-3006 of the German Cancer Aid Society.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45122, Essen, Germany

    Sonja Kinner, Christiane A. Kuehle, Susanne C. Ladd, Michael Nuefer, Joerg Barkhausen & Thomas C. Lauenstein

  2. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany

    Jost Langhorst, Thomas Zoepf & Guido Gerken

  3. Department of Internal Medicine, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany

    Jost Langhorst

  4. Department of Radiology, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Thomas C. Lauenstein

Authors
  1. Sonja Kinner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christiane A. Kuehle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jost Langhorst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Susanne C. Ladd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Nuefer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Thomas Zoepf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Joerg Barkhausen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Guido Gerken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Thomas C. Lauenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sonja Kinner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kinner, S., Kuehle, C.A., Langhorst, J. et al. MR colonography vs. optical colonoscopy: comparison of patients’ acceptance in a screening population. Eur Radiol 17, 2286–2293 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0643-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0643-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation