Download PDF
Endoscopy 2017; 49(05): 468-475
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-124415
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Lower adenoma miss rate with FUSE vs. conventional colonoscopy with proximal retroflexion: a randomized back-to-back trial

Ioannis S. Papanikolaou
1   Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine – Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University, Attikon University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
,
Periklis Apostolopoulos
2   Department of Gastroenterology, 417 Army Veterans Hospital, Athens, Greece
,
Georgios Tziatzios
1   Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine – Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University, Attikon University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
,
Erasmia Vlachou
2   Department of Gastroenterology, 417 Army Veterans Hospital, Athens, Greece
,
Athanasios D. Sioulas
1   Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine – Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University, Attikon University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
,
Dimitrios Polymeros
1   Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine – Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University, Attikon University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
,
Andreas Karameris
3   Laboratory of Pathology, 417 Army Veterans Hospital, Athens, Greece
,
Ioannis Panayiotides
4   Second Department of Pathology, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University, Attikon University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
,
Georgios Alexandrakis
2   Department of Gastroenterology, 417 Army Veterans Hospital, Athens, Greece
,
George D. Dimitriadis
1   Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine – Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University, Attikon University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
,
Konstantinos Triantafyllou
1   Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine – Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University, Attikon University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 21 June 2016

accepted after revision 05 December 2016

Publication Date:
20 January 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

See also:

Video Comment on Ioannis S. Papanikolaou et al.Endoscopy 2017; 49(05): v16-v16
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-105548

Abstract

Background and study aims Full-spectrum colonoscopy (FSC) promises to increase adenoma detection by providing a wider field of view. The aim of this study was to compare adenoma miss rates of FSC with those of conventional colonoscopy complemented by right-colon re-examination using scope retroflexion (CC/R).

Patients and methods At two tertiary endoscopy facilities, patients who were scheduled for colonoscopy for the assessment of symptoms or for colorectal cancer screening/surveillance were randomized (1:1) to undergo same-day, back-to-back colonoscopies (FSC or CC/R first), performed by one of five endoscopists who had documented adenoma detection rates > 35 %. Per-protocol data were analyzed.

Results We randomized 220 patients. There were five FSC technical failures (three air pump and two left screen); therefore, 107 and 108 cases were analyzed in the FSC and CC/R index procedure arms, respectively. Withdrawal times were similar for FSC and CC/R (7.7 minutes vs. 7.6 minutes). Overall, we detected 3 cancers and 153 adenomas (FSC = 92; CC/R = 61); 81 were detected in the proximal colon, 3 of which were detected by retroflexed examination. By per-lesion analysis, FSC showed a significantly lower adenoma miss rate compared with CC/R overall (10.9 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 3.8 to 18.1] vs. 33.7 % [95 %CI 23.4 to 44.1]) and in the proximal colon (13.9 % [95 %CI 2.6 to 25.2] vs. 42.2 % [95 %CI 27.8 to 56.7]). The advanced adenoma miss rate was lower with FSC overall (4.3 % [95 %CI – 4.0 to 12.7] vs. 25.9 % [95 %CI 9.4 to 42.5]). There were no adverse events.

Conclusions FSC outperformed conventional colonoscopy with right-colon scope retroflexion in the detection of missed adenomas, both overall and in the proximal colon, even when performed by experienced endoscopists.

Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02117674).

 

  • References

  • 1 Zauber AG. Winawer SJ. O’Brien MJ. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 van Rijn JC. Reitsma JB. Stoker J. et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 343-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rex DK. Cutler CS. Lemmel GT. et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 24-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rex DK. How I approach retroflexion and prevention of right-sided colon cancer following colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 9-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gralnek IM. Segol O. Suissa A. et al. A prospective cohort study evaluating a novel colonoscopy platform featuring full-spectrum endoscopy. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 697-702
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gralnek IM. Siersema PD. Halpern Z. et al. Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy versus full-spectrum endoscopy: an international, multicentre, randomised, tandem colonoscopy trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 353-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hassan C. Gralnek IM. Cost-effectiveness of “full spectrum endoscopy” colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Dig Liver Dis 2015; 47: 390-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Winawer SJ. Zauber AG. The advanced adenoma as the primary target of screening. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2002; 12: 1-9 , v
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lieberman DA. Rex DK. Winawer SJ. et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 844-857
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hassan C. Quintero E. Dumonceau JM. et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 842-851
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Dik VK. Moons LM. Siersema PD. Endoscopic innovations to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 2200-2211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kaminski MF. Hassan C. Bisschops R. et al. Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 435-449
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Omata F. Ohde S. Deshpande GA. et al. Image-enhanced, chromo, and cap-assisted colonoscopy for improving adenoma/neoplasia detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014; 49: 222-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Subramanian V. Mannath J. Hawkey CJ. et al. High definition colonoscopy vs. standard video endoscopy for the detection of colonic polyps: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 499-505
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Triantafyllou K. Tziatzios G. Sioulas AD. et al. Diagnostic yield of scope retroflexion in the right colon: a prospective cohort study. Dig Liver Dis 2016; 48: 176-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Dawwas MF. Full-spectrum colonoscopy for adenoma detection. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: e244-245
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ransohoff DF. What is the effect of more sensitive diagnostic technology?. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 256-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hassan C. Senore C. Radaelli F. et al. Full-spectrum (FUSE) versus standard forward-viewing colonoscopy in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme. Gut 2016; DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-311906.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 van den Broek FJ. Kuiper T. Dekker E. et al. Study designs to compare new colonoscopic techniques: clinical considerations, data analysis, and sample size calculations. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 922-927
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Halpern Z. Gross SA. Gralnek IM. et al. Comparison of adenoma detection and miss rates between a novel balloon colonoscope and standard colonoscopy: a randomized tandem study. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 238-244
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Dik VK. Gralnek IM. Segol O. et al. Multicenter, randomized, tandem evaluation of EndoRings colonoscopy – results of the CLEVER study. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 1151-1158
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Rex DK. Adler SN. Aisenberg J. et al. Accuracy of capsule colonoscopy in detecting colorectal polyps in a screening population. Gastroenterology 2015; 148: 948-957 e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar