Currently Viewing:
Newsroom
Currently Reading
Can Virtual Colonoscopies Be a Reality for Population Screening?
December 31, 2015 – Surabhi Dangi-Garimella, PhD
What We're Reading: Small Innovations Make a Big Difference
December 31, 2015 – AJMC Staff
End-of-Life Discussions With Blood Cancer Patients Occur "Too Late"
December 30, 2015 – Priyam Vora
Physicians Discover Palbociclib Effective in Cancers Beyond Those of the Breast
December 30, 2015 – Surabhi Dangi-Garimella, PhD
Most-Read Articles From AJMC's Conference Coverage in 2015
December 30, 2015 – Surabhi Dangi-Garimella, PhD
Using Technology to Bring Palliative Care to the Patient's Doorstep
December 29, 2015 – Surabhi Dangi-Garimella, PhD
Improving Cancer Trial Participation via Web-Based Interventions
December 28, 2015 – Surabhi Dangi-Garimella, PhD
What We're Reading: Medicaid Enrollees Demand Hepatitis C Treatment
December 28, 2015 – AJMC Staff
Cancer's Toll Beyond the Disease: Medical Costs and Productivity
December 28, 2015 – Surabhi Dangi-Garimella, PhD

Can Virtual Colonoscopies Be a Reality for Population Screening?

Surabhi Dangi-Garimella, PhD
A study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found that ease of preparation prior to the screening test is an important determinant of colonoscopy uptake.
Research scientists in Italy, in an attempt to identify the most optimal method for colon cancer screening, compared different screening methods for colorectal cancer. The study found that ease of preparation prior to the screening test is an important determinant of screening uptake.

For the study, more than 16,000 subjects between 54 and 65 years of age were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 different screening methods:
  • reduced cathartic preparation CT colonography (r-CTC)
  • full cathartic preparation CT colonography (f-CTC)
  • fecal immunochemical test (FIT)
  • optical colonoscopy (OC)
Patients who tested positive to FIT or CTC were referred to OC work-up. The primary outcomes measured were participation rate (PR) and detection rate (DR) for cancer or advanced melanoma.

The study found that PR were 50.4% for first-round FIT, 28.1% for r-CTC, 25.2% for f-CTC, and 14.8% for OC, with statistically significant differences between the groups. For advanced neoplasia, DRs were 1.7% for first-round FIT, 5.5% for r-CTC, 4.9% for f-CTC, and 7.2% for OC, with statistically significant differences between CTC and FIT groups, but not between r-CTC and f-CTC groups.

Based on these results, the authors concluded that reduced preparation requirements might be the key to increased participation observed with CTC, and that could make the method an ideal tool for population screening for colorectal cancer (CRC).

Commenting on the study in an accompanying editorial in the same issue, Ernst J. Kuipers, MD, PhD, and Manon C. W. Spaander, MD, PhD, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, write that while no single screening method has been proven to be better than the other, follow-up to the screening is essential, which makes the current study important in combatting CRC. Ease of preparation for the CTC screening test might be the answer to improving acceptance by the population, they write.

 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2020 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
x
Welcome the the new and improved AJMC.com, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up