title: MR colonography vs. optical colonoscopy: comparison of patients' acceptance in a screening population.
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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45122 Essen, Germany. Sonja.Kinner@uni-due.de
authors.forename: Sonja
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Kinner
authors.forename: Christiane A
authors.initials: CA
authors.lastname: Kuehle
authors.forename: Jost
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Langhorst
authors.forename: Susanne C
authors.initials: SC
authors.lastname: Ladd
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Nuefer
authors.forename: Thomas
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Zoepf
authors.forename: Joerg
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Barkhausen
authors.forename: Guido
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Gerken
authors.forename: Thomas C
authors.initials: TC
authors.lastname: Lauenstein
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001466:Barium Sulfate; D003113:Colonoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D015179:Colorectal Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis*; D003287:Contrast Media; D003974:Diatrizoate Meglumine; D005260:Female; D006571:Heterocyclic Compounds; D006801:Humans; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000379:methods; D008875:Middle Aged; D009942:Organometallic Compounds; D010342:Patient Acceptance of Health Care; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires
chemical_list: D003287:Contrast Media; D006571:Heterocyclic Compounds; D009942:Organometallic Compounds; D001466:Barium Sulfate; D003974:Diatrizoate Meglumine; C050823:gadolinium 1,4,7,10-tetraazacyclododecane-N,N',N'',N'''-tetraacetate