TY - JOUR
T1 - Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR) : a multicentre randomised trial
AU - Atkin, Wendy
AU - Dadswell, Edward
AU - Wooldrage, Kate
AU - Kralj-Hans, Ines
AU - von Wagner, Christian
AU - Edwards, Rob
AU - Yao, Guiqing
AU - Kay, Clive
AU - Burling, David
AU - Faiz, Omar
AU - Teare, Julian
AU - Lilford, Richard J
AU - Morton, Dion
AU - Wardle, Jane
AU - Halligan, Steve
AU - SIGGAR Investigators
PY - 2013/4/6
Y1 - 2013/4/6
N2 - BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the gold-standard test for investigation of symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer; computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is an alternative, less invasive test. However, additional investigation after CTC is needed to confirm suspected colonic lesions, and this is an important factor in establishing the feasibility of CTC as an alternative to colonoscopy. We aimed to compare rates of additional colonic investigation after CTC or colonoscopy for detection of colorectal cancer or large (≥10 mm) polyps in symptomatic patients in clinical practice. METHODS: This pragmatic multicentre randomised trial recruited patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer from 21 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were aged 55 years or older and regarded by their referring clinician as suitable for colonoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to colonoscopy or CTC by computer-generated random numbers, in blocks of six, stratified by trial centre and sex. We analysed the primary outcome-the rate of additional colonic investigation-by intention to treat. The trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 95152621. FINDINGS: 1610 patients were randomly assigned to receive either colonoscopy (n=1072) or CTC (n=538). 30 patients withdrew consent, leaving for analysis 1047 assigned to colonoscopy and 533 assigned to CTC. 160 (30·0%) patients in the CTC group had additional colonic investigation compared with 86 (8·2%) in the colonoscopy group (relative risk 3·65, 95% CI 2·87-4·65; p
AB - BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the gold-standard test for investigation of symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer; computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is an alternative, less invasive test. However, additional investigation after CTC is needed to confirm suspected colonic lesions, and this is an important factor in establishing the feasibility of CTC as an alternative to colonoscopy. We aimed to compare rates of additional colonic investigation after CTC or colonoscopy for detection of colorectal cancer or large (≥10 mm) polyps in symptomatic patients in clinical practice. METHODS: This pragmatic multicentre randomised trial recruited patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer from 21 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were aged 55 years or older and regarded by their referring clinician as suitable for colonoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to colonoscopy or CTC by computer-generated random numbers, in blocks of six, stratified by trial centre and sex. We analysed the primary outcome-the rate of additional colonic investigation-by intention to treat. The trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 95152621. FINDINGS: 1610 patients were randomly assigned to receive either colonoscopy (n=1072) or CTC (n=538). 30 patients withdrew consent, leaving for analysis 1047 assigned to colonoscopy and 533 assigned to CTC. 160 (30·0%) patients in the CTC group had additional colonic investigation compared with 86 (8·2%) in the colonoscopy group (relative risk 3·65, 95% CI 2·87-4·65; p
U2 - 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62186-2
DO - 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62186-2
M3 - Article
C2 - 23414650
SN - 0140-6736
VL - 381
SP - 1194
EP - 1202
JO - The Lancet
JF - The Lancet
IS - 9873
ER -
