From the Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Cittá della Salute e della Scienza Centro per l'Epidemiologia e la Prevenzione Oncologica in Piemonte, Piemonte, Turin, Italy (C.S., M.S., N.S.); im3D Medical Imaging Laboratory, via Lessolo 5, Turin 10153, Italy (L.C., L.M.); Candiolo Cancer Institute-Fondazione del Piemonte per l'Oncologia, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Candiolo, Italy (D.R.); Endoscopy Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy (C.H.); Clinica Sant'Anna, Lugano-Sorengo, Switzerland (G.I.); and Screening Unit, Azienda Sanitaria Locale, Novara, Italy (A.A.).
Radiology. 2018 Mar;286(3):873-883. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170228. Epub 2017 Oct 17.
Purpose To compare the acceptability of computed tomographic (CT) colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening and the factors predicting CT colonographic screening participation, targeting participants in a randomized screening trial. Materials and Methods Eligible individuals aged 58 years (n = 1984) living in Turin, Italy, were randomly assigned to be invited to screening for colorectal cancer with FS or CT colonography. After individuals who had died or moved away (n = 28) were excluded, 264 of 976 (27.0%) underwent screening with FS and 298 of 980 (30.4%) underwent CT colonography. All attendees and a sample of CT colonography nonattendees (n = 299) were contacted for a telephone interview 3-6 months after invitation for screening, and screening experience and factors affecting participation were investigated. Odds ratios (ORs) were computed by means of multivariable logistic regression. Results For the telephone interviews, 239 of 264 (90.6%) FS attendees, 237 of 298 (79.5%) CT colonography attendees, and 182 of 299 (60.9%) CT colonography nonattendees responded. The percentage of attendees who would recommend the test to friends or relatives was 99.1% among FS and 93.3% among CT colonography attendees. Discomfort associated with bowel preparation was higher among CT colonography than FS attendees (OR, 2.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.47, 5.24). CT colonography nonattendees were less likely to be men (OR, 0.36; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.71), retired (OR, 0.31; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.75), to report regular physical activity (OR, 0.37; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.70), or to have read the information leaflet (OR, 0.18; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.41). They were more likely to mention screening-related anxiety (mild: OR, 6.30; 95% CI: 2.48, 15.97; moderate or severe: OR, 3.63; 95% CI: 1.87, 7.04), erroneous beliefs about screening (OR, 32.15; 95% CI: 6.26, 165.19), or having undergone a recent fecal occult blood test (OR, 13.69; 95% CI: 3.66, 51.29). Conclusion CT colonography and FS screening are well accepted, but further reducing the discomfort from bowel preparation may increase CT colonography screening acceptability. Negative attitudes, erroneous beliefs about screening, and organizational barriers are limiting screening uptake; all these factors are modifiable and therefore potentially susceptible to interventions. RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
比较计算机断层结肠成像(CT 结肠成像)和乙状结肠镜检查(FS)筛查的可接受性,并预测 CT 结肠成像筛查参与的因素,目标人群为一项随机筛查试验的参与者。
符合条件的年龄在 58 岁(n = 1984)的意大利都灵居民被随机分配邀请参加结直肠癌 FS 或 CT 结肠成像筛查。排除已死亡或搬离的个体(n = 28)后,976 名中的 264 名(27.0%)接受 FS 筛查,980 名中的 298 名(30.4%)接受 CT 结肠成像筛查。所有参加者和 CT 结肠成像非参加者的样本(n = 299)在邀请筛查后 3-6 个月进行电话访谈,调查筛查经历和影响参与的因素。通过多变量逻辑回归计算比值比(ORs)。
在电话访谈中,264 名 FS 参加者中的 239 名(90.6%)、298 名 CT 结肠成像参加者中的 237 名(79.5%)和 299 名 CT 结肠成像非参加者中的 182 名(60.9%)做出了回应。FS 和 CT 结肠成像参加者中分别有 99.1%和 93.3%的人表示会向朋友或亲戚推荐该检测。与 FS 参加者相比,CT 结肠成像参加者的肠道准备相关不适(OR,2.77;95%置信区间[CI]:1.47,5.24)更高。CT 结肠成像非参加者更不可能是男性(OR,0.36;95% CI:0.18,0.71)、退休(OR,0.31;95% CI:0.13,0.75)、报告有规律的体育活动(OR,0.37;95% CI:0.20,0.70)或阅读过信息传单(OR,0.18;95% CI:0.08,0.41)。他们更有可能提到与筛查相关的焦虑(轻度:OR,6.30;95% CI:2.48,15.97;中度或重度:OR,3.63;95% CI:1.87,7.04)、对筛查的错误信念(OR,32.15;95% CI:6.26,165.19)或近期接受过粪便潜血试验(OR,13.69;95% CI:3.66,51.29)。
CT 结肠成像和 FS 筛查均被广泛接受,但进一步减轻肠道准备的不适可能会提高 CT 结肠成像筛查的可接受性。负面态度、对筛查的错误信念和组织障碍限制了筛查的参与;所有这些因素都是可改变的,因此可能容易受到干预。RSNA,2017 在线补充材料可在本文中获得。