Time requirements and health effects of participation in colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy or computed tomography colonography in a randomized controlled trial

Background and study aims: Time limitations and unwanted health effects may act as barriers to participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The aim of the study was to measure the time requirements and health effects of colonoscopy and computed tomography colonography (CTC) screening.

Patients and methods: This was a prospective diary study in a consecutive sample within a randomized controlled CRC screening trial, comparing primary colonoscopy and CTC screening for average-risk individuals aged 50 – 74 years. The diary ended when all screening-related complaints had passed.

Results: The diary was returned by 75 % (241/322) of colonoscopy and 75 % (127/170) of CTC screenees. The median interval between leaving home and returning from the examination was longer for colonoscopy (4 hours and 18 minutes [4:18], interquartile range [IQR] 3:30 – 5:00) than for CTC (2:30 hours, IQR 2:06 – 3:00; P < 0.001). Similarly, the time to return to routine activities was longer after colonoscopy (3:54 hours, IQR 1:48 – 15:00) than after CTC (1:36 hours, IQR 0:54 – 4:42). The duration of screening-related symptoms after the examination was shorter for colonoscopy (11:00 hours, IQR 2:54 – 20:00) than for CTC (22:00 hours; IQR 5:30 – 47:00; P < 0.001). Abdominal complaints were reported more frequently after CTC. Anxiety, pain, and quality of life worsened during the screening process, with no differences between the two examinations.

Conclusions: Compared with colonoscopy, CTC screening required less time and allowed screenees to return to their daily activities more quickly. In contrast, CTC was associated with a twofold longer duration of screening-related symptoms. Feelings of anxiety, pain, and quality of life scores were similar during colonoscopy and CTC screening. These results should be incorporated into cost-effectiveness analyses of CRC screening techniques.

• References

• 1 Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM et al. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011; 61: 69-90
• 2 Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I et al. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010; 375: 1624-1633
• 3 Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet 1996; 348: 1472-1477
• 4 Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J et al. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet 1996; 348: 1467-1471
• 5 Mandel JS, Church TR, Ederer F et al. Colorectal cancer mortality: effectiveness of biennial screening for fecal occult blood. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91: 434-437
• 6 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN. The National Polyp Study Workgroup et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
• 7 Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Halligan S et al. Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection – systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 2011; 259: 393-405
• 8 de Wijkerslooth TR, de Haan MC, Stoop EM et al. Burden of colonoscopy compared to non-cathartic CT-colonography in a colorectal cancer screening programme: randomised controlled trial. Gut 2012; 61: 1552-1559
• 9 Ko CW, Riffle S, Shapiro JA et al. Incidence of minor complications and time lost from normal activities after screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 648-656
• 10 Nicholson FB, Korman MG. Acceptance of flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy for screening and surveillance in colorectal cancer prevention. J Med Screen 2005; 12: 89-95
• 11 Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58: 130-60
• 12 Liedenbaum MH, de Vries AH, Gouw CI et al. CT colonography with minimal bowel preparation: evaluation of tagging quality, patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy in two iodine-based preparation schemes. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 367-376
• 13 Rockey DC. Computed tomographic colonography: current perspectives and future directions. Gastroenterology 2009; 137: 7-14
• 14 Senore C, Armaroli P, Silvani M et al. Comparing different strategies for colorectal cancer screening in Italy: predictors of patients’ participation. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 188-198
• 15 Quick BW, Hester CM, Young KL et al. Self-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening in a racially diverse, low-income study population. J Community Health 2012; In press. DOI: 10.1007/s10900-012-9612-6.
• 16 Feeley TH, Cooper J, Foels T et al. Efficacy expectations for colorectal cancer screening in primary care: identifying barriers and facilitators for patients and clinicians. Health Commun 2009; 24: 304-315
• 17 Denberg TD, Melhado TV, Coombes JM et al. Predictors of nonadherence to screening colonoscopy. J Gen Intern Med 2005; 20: 989-995
• 18 Jonas DE, Russell LB, Sandler RS et al. Patient time requirements for screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 2401-2410
• 19 Jonas DE, Russell LB, Sandler RS et al. Value of patient time invested in the colonoscopy screening process: time requirements for colonoscopy study. Med Decis Making 2008; 28: 56-65
• 20 Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE et al. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 1996; 276: 1172-1177
• 21 Rutten FFH, Rodenburg-van Dieten HEM, Herings RMC et al. Richtlijnen voor farmaco-economisch onderzoek, geactualiseerde versie. Diemen: College voor zorgverzekeringen; 2006
• 22 Knudsen AB, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Rutter CM et al. Cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic colonography screening for colorectal cancer in the medicare population. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 1238-1252
• 23 Stoop EM, de Haan MC, de Wijkerslooth TR et al. Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: 55-64
• 24 de Wijkerslooth TR, de Haan MC, Stoop EM et al. Study protocol: population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy or CT colonography: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Gastroenterol 2010; 10: 47
• 25 van der Bij AK, de Weerd WS, Cikot RJ et al. Validation of the Dutch short form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: considerations for usage in screening outcomes. Community Genet 2003; 6: 84-87
• 26 Marteau TM, Bekker H. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol 1992; 31: 301-306
• 27 Millar K, Jelicic M, Bonke B et al. Assessment of preoperative anxiety: comparison of measures in patients awaiting surgery for breast cancer. Br J Anaesth 1995; 74: 180-183
• 28 Hanley JA, Negassa A, Edwardes MD et al. Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: an orientation. Am J Epidemiol 2003; 157: 364-375
• 29 Heitman SJ, Au F, Manns BJ et al. Nonmedical costs of colorectal cancer screening with the fecal occult blood test and colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 912-917 e1
• 30 Heitman SJ, Au F, Manns BJ et al. Nonmedical costs of colorectal cancer screening using CT colonography. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7: 943-948
• 31 Cash BD, Rockey DC, Brill JV. AGA standards for gastroenterologists for performing and interpreting diagnostic computed tomography colonography: 2011 update. Gastroenterology 2011; 141: 2240-66