Adenoma detection by Endocuff-assisted versus standard colonoscopy in an organized screening program: the “ItaVision” randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Background The Endocuff Vision device (Arc Medical Design Ltd., Leeds, UK) has been shown to increase mucosal exposure, and consequently adenoma detection rate (ADR), during colonoscopy. This nationwide multicenter study assessed possible benefits and harms of using Endocuff Vision in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program.

Methods Patients undergoing colonoscopy after a FIT-positive test were randomized 1:1 to undergo Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy or standard colonoscopy, stratified by sex, age, and screening history. Primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were ADR stratified by endoscopists’ ADR, advanced ADR (AADR), adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), withdrawal time, and adverse events.

Results 1866 patients were enrolled across 13 centers. After exclusions, 1813 (mean age 60.1 years; male 53.8 %) were randomized (908 Endocuff Vision, 905 standard colonoscopy). ADR was significantly higher in the Endocuff Vision arm (47.8 % vs. 40.8 %; relative risk [RR] 1.17, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.06–1.30), with no differences between arms regarding size or morphology. When stratifying for endoscopists’ ADR, only low detectors (ADR < 33.3 %) showed a statistically significant ADR increase (Endocuff Vision 41.1 % [95 %CI 35.7–46.7] vs. standard colonoscopy 26.0 % [95 %CI 21.3–31.4]). AADR (24.8 % vs. 20.5 %, RR 1.21, 95 %CI 1.02–1.43) and APC (0.94 vs. 0.77; P  = 0.001) were higher in the Endocuff Vision arm. Withdrawal time and adverse events were similar between arms.

Conclusion Endocuff Vision increased ADR in a FIT-based screening program by improving examination of the whole colonic mucosa. Utility was highest among endoscopists with a low ADR.

^* Deceased

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 18. September 2020

Angenommen: 01. Februar 2021

Accepted Manuscript online:
01. Februar 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
08. April 2021

• References

• 1 Atkin WS, Valori R, Kuipers EJ. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First edition – Colonoscopic surveillance following adenoma removal. Endoscopy 2012; 44 (Suppl. 03) SE151-163
• 2 Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Watson E. et al. Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (hemoccult): an update. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 1541-1549
• 3 von Karsa L, Patnick J, Segnan N. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First edition – Executive summary. Endoscopy 2012; 44 (Suppl. 03) SE1-8
• 4 Saftoiu A, Hassan C, Areia M. et al. Role of gastrointestinal endoscopy for the screening of digestive tract cancers in Europe. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 293-304
• 5 Schreuders EH, Ruco A, Rabeneck L. et al. Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes. Gut 2015; 64: 1637-1649
• 6 Atkin W, Cross AJ, Kralj-Hans I. et al. Faecal immunochemical tests versus colonoscopy for post-polypectomy surveillance: an accuracy, acceptability and economic study. Health Technol Assess 2019; 23: 1-84
• 7 Zorzi M, Hassan C, Capodaglio G. et al. Long-term performance of colorectal cancer screening programmes based on the faecal immunochemical test. Gut 2018; 67: 2124-2130
• 8 Zorzi M, Senore C, Da Re F. et al. Quality of colonoscopy in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme with immunochemical faecal occult blood test: the EQuIPE study (Evaluating Quality Indicators of the Performance of Endoscopy). Gut 2015; 64: 1389-1396
• 9 Zorzi M, Zappa M. AIRTUM Working Group. Synthetic indicator of the impact of colorectal cancer screening programmes on incidence rates. Gut 2020; 69: 311-316
• 10 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
• 11 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298-1306
• 12 Cubiella J, Castells A, Andreu M. et al. Correlation between adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy- and fecal immunochemical testing-based colorectal cancer screening programs. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2017; 5: 255-260
• 13 Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 378-397
• 14 Inra JA, Nayor J, Rosenblatt M. et al. Comparison of colonoscopy quality measures across various practice settings and the impact of performance scorecards. Dig Dis Sci 2017; 62: 894-902
• 15 le Clercq CMC, Mooi RJ, Winkens B. et al. Temporal trends and variability of colonoscopy performance in a gastroenterology practice. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 248-255
• 16 Hernandez LV, Deas TM, Catalano MF. et al. Longitudinal assessment of colonoscopy quality indicators: a report from the Gastroenterology Practice Management Group. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 835-841
• 17 Jover R, Zapater P, Polanía E. et al. Modifiable endoscopic factors that influence the adenoma detection rate in colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 381-389
• 18 Rex D, Cutler C, Lemmel G. et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 24-28
• 19 Zhao S, Wang S, Pan P. et al. Magnitude, risk factors, and factors associated with adenoma miss rate of tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 1661-1674
• 20 Hassan C, Spadaccini M, Iannone A. et al. Performance of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy for adenoma and polyp detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 77-85
• 21 Repici A, Badalamenti M, Maselli R. et al. Efficacy of real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal neoplasia in a randomized trial. Gastroenterology 2020; 159: 512-520
• 22 Facciorusso A, Triantafyllou K, Murad MH. et al. Compared abilities of endoscopic techniques to increase colon adenoma detection rates: a network meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17: 2439-2454
• 23 Jian HX, Feng BC, Zhang Y. et al. EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy could improve adenoma detection rate: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Dig Dis 2019; 20: 578-588
• 24 Thayalasekaran S, Frazzoni L, Antonelli G. et al. Endoscopic technological innovations for neoplasia detection in organized colorectal cancer screening programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 840-847
• 25 Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF. et al. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: e1-37
• 26 Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G. et al. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 620-625
• 27 The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: S3-43
• 28 Schlemper RJ, Riddell RH, Kato Y. et al. The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Gut 2000; 47: 251-255
• 29 Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L. et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 446-454
• 30 Williet N, Tournier Q, Vernet C. et al. Effect of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy on adenoma detection rate: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 846-860
• 31 Zorzi M. The second level survey. XIII National Congress of the Italian Colorectal Screening Group; 2018 October 25–26; Lerici, Italy [in Italian]. www.giscor.it/convegni/giscor-2018/congresso/10_ZORZI.pdf
• 32 Tangri N, Kitsios GD, Su SH. et al. Accounting for center effects in multicenter trials. Epidemiology 2010; 21: 912-913
• 33 Kahan BC. Accounting for centre-effects in multicentre trials with a binary outcome – when, why, and how?. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 20
• 34 Kahan BC, Morris TP. Reporting and analysis of trials using stratified randomisation in leading medical journals: review and reanalysis. BMJ 2012; 345: e5840
• 35 Ngu WS, Bevan R, Tsiamoulos ZP. et al. Improved adenoma detection with Endocuff Vision: the ADENOMA randomised controlled trial. Gut 2019; 68: 280-288
• 36 Bhattacharyya R, Chedgy F, Kandiah K. et al. Endocuff-assisted vs. standard colonoscopy in the fecal occult blood test-based UK Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (E-cap study): a randomized trial. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 1043-1050
• 37 Greuter MJE, de Klerk CM, Meijer GA. et al. Screening for colorectal cancer with fecal immunochemical testing with and without postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopy: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2017; 167: 544-554