|
1
|
Chandan S, Mohan BP, Khan SR, Bhogal N, Ramai D, Bilal M, Aziz M, Shah AR, Mashiana HS, Jha LK, Bhat I, Singh S, Adler DG. Adenoma and polyp detection rates during insertion versus withdrawal phase of colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93:68-76.e2. [PMID: 32540312 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/14/2020] [Accepted: 06/02/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Colonoscopy is the preferred modality for colorectal cancer screening because it has both diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. Current consensus states that colonoscopy should be performed with initial rapid passage of the instrument to the cecum, followed by thorough evaluation for and removal of all polyps during a deliberate slow withdrawal. Reports have suggested that polyps that are seen but not removed during insertion are sometimes quite difficult to find during withdrawal. METHODS We performed a comprehensive literature search of several major databases (from inception to March 2020) to identify randomized controlled trials comparing inspection and polypectomy during the insertion phase as opposed to the traditional practice of inspection and polypectomy performed entirely during the withdrawal phase. We examined differences in terms of adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyps detected per patient (PDPP), cecal intubation time (CIT), withdrawal time, and total procedure time. RESULTS Seven randomized controlled trials, including 3834 patients, were included in our final analysis. The insertion/withdrawal cohort had 1951 patients and the withdrawal-only cohort 1883 patients. Pooled odds of adenoma detection in the insertion/withdrawal cohort was .99 (P = .8). ADR was 47.2% in the insertion/withdrawal cohort and 48.6% in the withdrawal-only cohort. Although total procedure and withdrawal times were shorter in the insertion/withdrawal cohort, PDPP in both cohorts were not statistically significant (1.4 vs 1.5, P = .7). CONCLUSIONS Additional inspection and polypectomy during the insertion and withdrawal phases of colonoscopy offer no additional benefit in terms of ADR or PDPP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Saurabh Chandan
- Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
| | - Babu P Mohan
- Internal Medicine, University of Arizona, Banner University Medical Center, Tucson, Arizona, USA
| | - Shahab R Khan
- Gastroenterology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Neil Bhogal
- Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
| | - Daryl Ramai
- Internal Medicine, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA
| | - Mohammad Bilal
- Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Muhammad Aziz
- Internal Medicine, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA
| | - Aun R Shah
- Internal Medicine, Metro Health, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Harmeet S Mashiana
- Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
| | - Lokesh K Jha
- Gastroenterology, Parkview Health, Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
| | - Ishfaq Bhat
- Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
| | - Shailender Singh
- Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
| | - Douglas G Adler
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Mahmood S, Aguila EJ, ur Rahman A, Shuja A, Bollipo S. How to Approach Small Polyps in Colon: Tips and Tricks. TECHNIQUES AND INNOVATIONS IN GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY 2021; 23:328-335. [DOI: 10.1016/j.tige.2021.06.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2025]
|
|
3
|
Gweon TG, Lee SW, Ji JS, Lee JR, Kim JS, Kim BW, Choi H. Comparison of adenoma detection by colonoscopy between polypectomy performed during both insertion and withdrawal versus during withdrawal only: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Surg Endosc 2020; 34:5461-5468. [PMID: 31953727 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-07342-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2019] [Accepted: 12/24/2019] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM In standard colonoscopy, the colonoscope is inserted into the cecum, and inspection of the colonic mucosa and polypectomy are performed during withdrawal. The colon configuration can differ between the insertion and withdrawal phases, and some polyps found in the insertion phase can be missed during withdrawal. A few single-center studies investigated whether detection of polyps during the insertion phase affects the adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, the effectiveness of this strategy is unknown because of conflicting results. We aimed to determine whether polypectomy together with careful inspection during insertion increases the ADR compared with standard colonoscopy. METHODS A randomized, controlled, multicenter trial was conducted at three university hospitals. Patients aged 50 to 80 years were randomly assigned to the study group or control group. For patients in the study group, polypectomy was performed together with careful inspection during both colonoscope insertion and withdrawal. In the control group, polyps were inspected and removed only during colonoscope withdrawal. The primary endpoint was the ADR, which was defined as the percentage of patients with ≥ 1 adenoma. RESULTS A total of 1142 patients were enrolled (study group, n = 571; control group, n = 571). The ADR was similar in the 2 groups (study group, 44.1%; control group, 43.1%; P = 0.72). In the control group, 12 polyps that had been detected during colonoscope insertion were not found during withdrawal (polyp miss rate: 2.1%, 12/571). CONCLUSION Polypectomy and careful inspection during both colonoscope insertion and withdrawal did not improve the overall ADR compared with standard colonoscopy (NCT01925833).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tae-Geun Gweon
- Department of Internal Medicine, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Seung-Woo Lee
- Department of Internal Medicine, Daejeon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jeong-Seon Ji
- Department of Internal Medicine, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 56 Dongsu-ro, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, 21431, Republic of Korea.
| | - Jeong Rok Lee
- Department of Internal Medicine, Konkuk University Chungju Hospital, Chungju, Korea
| | - Joon Sung Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Byung-Wook Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Hwang Choi
- Department of Internal Medicine, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Dai Q, Tu S, Chen S, Zheng B, Wan Z, Chen B. Polypectomy During Both Insertion and Withdrawal Phase Versus During Withdrawal Phase Only: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2020; 31:621-626. [PMID: 32833585 DOI: 10.1089/lap.2020.0538] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to compare polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal phase versus during withdrawal phase only. Method: We performed literature searching in PubMed and Ovid for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal phase versus during withdrawal phase only on April 3, 2020. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Results: Five RCTs published between 2012 and 2020 with a total of 2694 individuals were included in this meta-analysis. No significant difference was observed between the two groups for ADR (P = .99, odds ratio = 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.19, I2 = 0%), or average number of adenomas per individuals (P = .53, weighted mean difference [WMD] = 0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.17, I2 = 30%). Besides, polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal group showed significantly longer time for insertion phase (P = .01, WMD = 2.16, 95% CI 0.47-3.84, I2 = 95%), and shorter time for withdrawal phase (P = .010, WMD = -2.32, 95% CI -4.09 to -0.56, I2 = 94%), although the total procedure time was not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion: No obvious advantages were observed for polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal phase. We are looking forward to the long-term outcomes of these studies. More studies are warranted in the future for further exploration, especially the detection rate of small lesions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qiaoqiong Dai
- The Surgical Department of Coloproctology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Hangzhou, China
| | - Shiliang Tu
- The Surgical Department of Coloproctology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Hangzhou, China
| | - Sheng Chen
- The Surgical Department of Coloproctology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Hangzhou, China
| | - Boan Zheng
- The Surgical Department of Coloproctology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Hangzhou, China
| | - Ziang Wan
- The Surgical Department of Coloproctology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Hangzhou, China
| | - Bingchen Chen
- The Surgical Department of Coloproctology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Hangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Wei Y, Shen G, Yang Y, Jin Z, Hu W, Zhu Y. Inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal or only during withdrawal of colonoscopy?: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99:e20775. [PMID: 32629658 PMCID: PMC7337486 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000020775] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2020] [Accepted: 05/21/2020] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Current evidence supporting additional inspection and polypectomy during insertion of colonoscopy is limited. We plan to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the yield of inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal versus the traditional practice of inspection and polypectomy during withdrawal only. METHODS AND ANALYSIS Randomised controlled trials evaluating inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal versus inspection and polypectomy during withdrawal only will be searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar, from database inception to 31 May 2020. Data on study design, participant characteristics, and outcomes will be extracted. Primary outcomes to be assessed are adenoma detection rate. Secondary outcomes include polyp detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, the mean number of adenomas per patient, polyp miss rate, the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy, procedure duration, cecal intubation rate, procedure difficulty, patient discomfort, sedation dose, and adverse events. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan V.5.3 statistical software. Data will be combined with random effect model. The results will be presented as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, and weighted/standard mean difference for continuous data. Publication bias will be visualized using funnel plots. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This study will not use primary data, and therefore formal ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and committee conferences. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER INPLASY202050051.
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Teramoto A, Aoyama N, Ebisutani C, Matsumoto T, Machida H, Yoshida S, Uchima N, Utsumi T, Tochio T, Hirata D, Iwatate M, Hattori S, Fujita M, Sano W, Sano Y. Clinical importance of cold polypectomy during the insertion phase in the left side of the colon and rectum: a multicenter randomized controlled trial (PRESECT study). Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91:917-924. [PMID: 31877310 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.12.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2019] [Accepted: 12/06/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Colorectal polyps are often detected during the insertion phase of colonoscopy but are commonly removed during the withdrawal phase. We aimed to investigate the clinical advantages of instant removal of colorectal polyps during the insertion phase to determine the appropriate strategy for polyps detected on insertion. METHODS This prospective, multicenter, randomized trial targeted patients with at least 1 left-sided polyp <10 mm in size detected unintentionally on endoscope insertion from April 2018 to March 2019. Patients were allocated to the following 2 groups: study group, consisting of patients who had polyp removal instantly on insertion, and control group, comprising patients who had the endoscope inserted to the cecum first and polyps removed subsequently on withdrawal. Carbon dioxide gas insufflation and cold polypectomy were applied to minimize the influences of polypectomy on endoscope insertion. Twenty advanced endoscopists from 7 community-based institutions participated in this trial. RESULTS Of 1451 patients enrolled, 220 patients were eligible for full assessment. Mean total procedure time was significantly shorter in the study group (18.9 vs 22.3 minutes, P < .001). Mean pure cecal intubation time and number of polyps per patient were similar between the 2 groups. In the control group, among 107 polyps found during insertion, 48 (45.8%) required reinspection and 7 (6.5%) were completely missed, with an average reinspection time of approximately 3 minutes. CONCLUSIONS Polypectomy during the insertion phase in the colon and rectum significantly shortens the total procedure time and eliminates all missed polyps without experiencing any disadvantages.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Nobuo Aoyama
- Department of Gastroenterology, Aoyama Clinic, Kobe, Japan
| | - Chikara Ebisutani
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hyogo Prefectural Kakogawa Medical Center, Kakogawa, Japan
| | | | - Hirohisa Machida
- Department of Internal Medicine, Machida Gastrointestinal Hospital, Osaka, Japan
| | - Shiei Yoshida
- Department of Gastroenterology, National Hospital Organization Kobe Medical Center, Kobe, Japan
| | - Nobufumi Uchima
- Gastrointestinal Center, Urasoe General Hospital, Urasoe, Japan
| | - Takahiro Utsumi
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Tomomasa Tochio
- Gastrointestinal Center, Sano Hospital, Kobe, Japan; Department of Gastroenterology, Suzuka Central General Hospital, Suzuka, Japan
| | | | | | | | - Mikio Fujita
- Gastrointestinal Center, Sano Hospital, Kobe, Japan
| | - Wataru Sano
- Gastrointestinal Center, Sano Hospital, Kobe, Japan
| | - Yasushi Sano
- Gastrointestinal Center, Sano Hospital, Kobe, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Cheng CL, Kuo YL, Liu NJ, Tang JH, Fan JW, Lin CH, Tsui YN, Lee BP, Hung HL. Comparison of polyp detection during both insertion and withdrawal versus only withdrawal of colonoscopy: A prospective randomized trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 34:1377-1383. [PMID: 30675926 DOI: 10.1111/jgh.14613] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2018] [Revised: 12/31/2018] [Accepted: 01/19/2019] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Polyps seen and not removed during colonoscope insertion are sometimes unable to be found during withdrawal. We aimed to evaluate whether additional inspection and polypectomy during insertion increases adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared with inspection and polypectomy entirely during withdrawal. METHODS A total of 421 patients aged ≥ 45 years and undergoing colonoscopy were prospectively randomized to receive inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal (study group) or inspection and polypectomy entirely during withdrawal (control group). The primary outcome was the ADR. Secondary outcomes included other adenoma-related parameters and procedure-related measures. RESULTS Baseline demographics, procedure indications, preparation quality, total procedure time, sedative doses, colonoscopy difficulty, and patient discomfort were similar between the groups. The insertion time was significantly longer in the study group (11.1 ± 4.8 vs 6.2 ± 4.7 min, P < 0.0001). The withdrawal time was significantly longer in the control group (29.2 ± 9.8 vs 23.1 ± 7.9 min, P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the ADR (63.5% [study group] vs 68.1% [control group]), the mean adenoma per procedure (1.6 ± 2.0 vs 1.9 ± 2.4), or the mean adenoma per positive procedure (2.5 ± 2.0 vs 2.7 ± 2.5) between groups. The proximal colon ADR was significantly higher in the control group compared with the study group (56.2% vs 46.0%, P = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS Additional inspection and polypectomy during colonoscope insertion did not improve ADR compared with inspection and polypectomy entirely during withdrawal. These results do not support an additional role for routine inspection during insertion (clinical trial registration number: NCT03444090).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chi-Liang Cheng
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Evergreen General Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Yen-Lin Kuo
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Evergreen General Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Nai-Jen Liu
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Jui-Hsiang Tang
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Jiun-Wei Fan
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Cheng-Hui Lin
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Yi-Ning Tsui
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Evergreen General Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Bai-Ping Lee
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Evergreen General Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Hsiang-Ling Hung
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Evergreen General Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| |
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Hsieh YH, Leung FW. Increase your adenoma detection rate without using fancy adjunct tools. Tzu Chi Med J 2018; 30:127-134. [PMID: 30069119 PMCID: PMC6047331 DOI: 10.4103/tcmj.tcmj_86_18] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2018] [Revised: 02/24/2018] [Accepted: 03/28/2018] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
The correlation between a low adenoma detection rate (ADR) and interval cancers (ICs) has made ADR one of the most important quality indicators for colonoscopy. Data from nation-wide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs showed that there is room for improvement in ADR in order to reduce ICs in Taiwan. Measures with and without adjunct tools have been shown to have the potential to increase ADR, with the latter being more convenient to apply without additional cost. Optimal withdrawal techniques coupled with sufficient withdrawal time, training endoscopists with emphasis on recognition of subtle characteristics of flat lesions, dynamic position changes during the withdrawal phase, removing small polyps found during insertion, and retroflexion in the right colon have all been associated with increased ADR. In particular, water exchange (WE), which is characterized using water in lieu of air and suction removal of infused water during insertion, appears to meet the needs of colonoscopy patients in Taiwan. Analyses of both primary and secondary outcome variables of recently published studies have consistently shown that WE yields higher ADR than traditional air insufflation, even in propofol-sedated patients. Colonoscopists participating in the nationwide CRC screening program in Taiwan should consider applying one or more of the above measures to improve ADR and hopefully reduce ICs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu-Hsi Hsieh
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Chiayi, Taiwan
- School of Medicine, Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan
| | - Felix W. Leung
- Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, North Hill, CA, USA
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is defined as the number of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma, expressed as the ratio of the total number of colonoscopies performed. Recently, an application of a conversion factor to estimate the ADR from the polyp detection rate (PDR) was described. AIM In this meta-analysis, we examined the correlation between ADR and PDR in the published studies and assessed the relative ratio of these ratios for a better and more accurate estimation. METHODS English Medical literature searches were performed for 'PDR' AND 'ADR'. A meta-analysis was carried out for papers that fulfilled the inclusion criteria using comprehensive meta-analysis software. RESULTS Twenty-five studies and 42 sets of data, including 31 623 patients, from nine countries published till 31 August 2017, were found. Funnel plot did not indicate a significant publication bias. relative ratio for ADR calculated from PDR was 0.688, 95% confidence intervals: 0.680-0.695, P value of less than 0.0001 in the meta-analysis fixed model. Heterogeneity (the proportion of inconsistency in individual studies) between studies was significant, with Q=492.753, d.f. (Q) 41, P<0.0001, and I 91.679. CONCLUSION We found the ratio of 0.688 can be used to calculate ADR from PDR for the individual endoscopist or for a group of endoscopists before receiving the formal results from the pathology department.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yaron Niv
- Department of Gastroenterology, Rabin Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
|
10
|
Mir FA, Boumitri C, Ashraf I, Matteson-Kome ML, Nguyen DL, Puli SR, Bechtold ML. Cap-assisted colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy: is the cap beneficial? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Gastroenterol 2017; 30:640-648. [PMID: 29118558 PMCID: PMC5670283 DOI: 10.20524/aog.2017.0180] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2017] [Accepted: 06/21/2017] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: In an effort to improve visualization during colonoscopy, a transparent plastic cap or hood may be placed on the end of the colonoscope. Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) has been studied and is thought to improve polyp detection. Numerous studies have been conducted comparing pertinent clinical outcomes between CAC and standard colonoscopy (SC) with inconsistent results. Methods: Numerous databases were searched in November 2016. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adult subjects that compared CAC to SC were included. Outcomes of total colonoscopy time, time to cecum, cecal intubation rate, terminal ileum intubation rate, polyp detection rate (PDR), and adenoma detection rate (ADR) were analyzed in terms of odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with fixed effect and random effects models. Results: Five hundred eighty-nine articles and abstracts were discovered. Of these, 23 RCTs (n=12,947) were included in the analysis. CAC showed statistically significant superiority in total colonoscopy time (MD -1.51 min; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.67 to -0.34; P<0.01) and time to cecum (MD -0.82 min; 95%CI -1.20 to -0.44; P<0.01) compared to SC. CAC also showed better PDR (OR 1.17; 95%CI 1.06-1.29; P<0.01) but not ADR (OR 1.11; 95%CI 0.95-1.30; P=0.20). In contrast, on sensitivity analysis, ADR was better with CAC. Terminal ileum intubation and cecal intubation rates demonstrated no significant difference between the two groups (P=0.11 and P=0.73, respectively). Conclusions: The use of a transparent cap during colonoscopy improves PDR while reducing procedure times. ADR may improve in cap-assisted colonoscopy but further studies are required to confirm this.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fazia A Mir
- Department of Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia (Fazia A. Mir, Christine Boumitri, Imran Ashraf, Michelle L. Matteson-Kome, Matthew L. Bechtold), USA
| | - Christine Boumitri
- Department of Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia (Fazia A. Mir, Christine Boumitri, Imran Ashraf, Michelle L. Matteson-Kome, Matthew L. Bechtold), USA
| | - Imran Ashraf
- Department of Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia (Fazia A. Mir, Christine Boumitri, Imran Ashraf, Michelle L. Matteson-Kome, Matthew L. Bechtold), USA
| | - Michelle L Matteson-Kome
- Department of Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia (Fazia A. Mir, Christine Boumitri, Imran Ashraf, Michelle L. Matteson-Kome, Matthew L. Bechtold), USA
| | - Douglas L Nguyen
- Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine (Douglas L. Nguyen), USA
| | - Srinivas R Puli
- Department of Medicine, University of Illinois, Peoria (Srinivas R. Puli), USA
| | - Matthew L Bechtold
- Department of Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia (Fazia A. Mir, Christine Boumitri, Imran Ashraf, Michelle L. Matteson-Kome, Matthew L. Bechtold), USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
11
|
Abstract
OPINION STATEMENT The adenoma detection rate (ADR), i.e., the proportion of average risk patients with at least one adenoma detected during screening colonoscopy, is inversely associated with the development of interval colorectal cancer. Increasing the ADR is therefore an important proxy for increase in quality and efficacy of (screening) colonoscopy. Several potentially modifiable factors, such as, procedural and technological factors, and quality improvement programs, and their effect on the ADR will be reviewed. Procedural factors, such as, bowel preparation, withdrawal time, and position changes of the patient are associated with the ADR. While the relation of others, such as inspection during insertion, use of antispasmodic agents, and second inspection in the proximal colon, with the ADR is not completely clear. Many new colonoscopy technologies have been evaluated over recent years and are still under evaluation, but no unequivocal positive effect on the ADR has been observed in randomized trials that have mostly been performed by experienced endoscopists with high baseline ADRs. Several quality improvement programs have been evaluated and seem to have a positive effect on endoscopists' ADR. Increase in ADR is important for the protective benefit of colonoscopy. There are now extensive methods to measure, benchmark, and improve ADR but increased awareness of these is critical. We have provided an overview of potential factors that can be used to increase personal ADRs in every day practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eelco C Brand
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA.,Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Michael B Wallace
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
12
|
Aranda-Hernández J, Hwang J, Kandel G. Seeing better - Evidence based recommendations on optimizing colonoscopy adenoma detection rate. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22:1767-1778. [PMID: 26855536 PMCID: PMC4724608 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i5.1767] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2015] [Revised: 08/17/2015] [Accepted: 12/01/2015] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is one of the three most frequent causes of cancer deaths in men and women in Europe and North America. Diagnosis and resection of adenomas has convincingly demonstrated its utility in diminishing colorectal cancer incidence. Therefore, colonoscopy is now the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening. But it is also known that colonoscopy effectiveness varies among endoscopists. Among different quality indicators, the most used is the adenoma detection rate (ADR) which is the percentage of average-risk patients for colorectal cancer who are found to have at least one adenoma or adenocarcinoma during a screening colonoscopy. There is compelling evidence supporting an inverse correlation between ADR and interval colorectal cancer (cancer found after a screening colonoscopy). Many factors such as quality of precolonoscopy preparation, additional observers, manoeuvres with the endoscope (second view, retroflexion, water inflation rather than air), time spent during withdrawal, changes in patient position, fold-flattener devices, new imaging or endoscopic modalities and use of intravenous or through the scope sprayed drugs, have been studied and developed with the aim of increasing the ADR. This reviews discusses these factors, and the current evidence, to “see better” in the colon and optimize ADR.
Collapse
|
|
13
|
|
|
14
|
Bond A, Sarkar S. New technologies and techniques to improve adenoma detection in colonoscopy. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 7:969-980. [PMID: 26265990 PMCID: PMC4530330 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i10.969] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2015] [Revised: 06/17/2015] [Accepted: 07/08/2015] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key component of colonoscopy quality assessment, with a direct link between itself and future mortality from colorectal cancer. There are a number of potential factors, both modifiable and non-modifiable that can impact upon ADR. As methods, understanding and technologies advance, so should our ability to improve ADRs, and thus, reduce colorectal cancer mortality. This article will review new technologies and techniques that improve ADR, both in terms of the endoscopes themselves and adjuncts to current systems. In particular it focuses on effective techniques and behaviours, developments in image enhancement, advancement in endoscope design and developments in accessories that may improve ADR. It also highlights the key role that continued medical education plays in improving the quality of colonoscopy and thus ADR. The review aims to present a balanced summary of the evidence currently available and does not propose to serve as a guideline.
Collapse
|
|
15
|
Abstract
Performing high-quality colonoscopy is one of the important goals of gastroenterology practices and requires achieving a high level of bowel cleansing, performing good and safe polypectomy, and detecting all polyps present in the colon. This article summarizes currently available techniques and technologies to maximize mucosal visualization. Several maneuvers can be applied during insertion and withdrawal of the colonoscope to optimize mucosal visualization and decrease the number of missed polyps. Newly developed technologies support the endoscopist in the detection of polyps. Each technique is reviewed, with emphasis on the impact on colorectal polyp detection.
Collapse
|