Efficacy of withdrawal time monitoring in adenoma detection with or without the aid of a full-spectrum scope

Abstract

Background and study aims Withdrawal time (WT) monitoring and full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) have been suggested to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR) due to more accurate evaluation of the hidden areas of the colon. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of WT monitoring and FUSE on ADR.

Patients and methods This was a prospective observational study involving consecutive outpatients, aged 18 to 85 years, undergoing colonoscopy with unselected indications. In phase 1, endoscopists performed 660 colonoscopies either with standard forward-viewing endoscope (SFVE) (n = 330) or with FUSE (n = 330). In this phase, WTs were measured without endoscopist awareness of being monitored. In phase 2, endoscopists were informed of being monitored and performed additional 660 colonoscopies either with SFVE (n = 330) or with FUSE (n = 330).

Results WT was lower in phase 1 compared to phase 2 (SFVE: 269 ± 83 vs. 386 ± 60 sec, P < 0.001; FUSE: 289 ± 97 vs. 403 ± 65 sec, P < 0.001). Use of FUSE increased ADR both in phase 1 (33.0 % vs. 27.3 %, P = 0.127) and in phase 2 (41.8 % vs. 33.6 %, P = 0.037). When endoscopists were aware of being monitored, ADR was higher in SFVE (33.6 % vs. 27.3 %; P = 0.090) and FUSE arms (41.8 % vs. 33.0 %; P = 0.024). Improvement in detection of proximal adenomas was associated with WT monitoring [OR 1.577 (95 % C. I. 1.158 – 2.148); P = 0.004], whereas detection of distal adenomas was associated with use of FUSE [OR 1.320 (95 % C. I. 1.022 – 1.705); P = 0.037].

Conclusions Unmonitored endoscopists have suboptimal WT, which increases when they are monitored. WT monitoring and use of FUSE are two reliable and alternative strategies to increase ADR.

• References

• 1 Mandel JS, Church TR, Bond JH. et al. The effect of fecal occult-blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 1603-1607
• 2 Jorgensen OD, Kronborg O, Fenger C. A randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer using faecal occult blood testing: results after 13 years and seven biennial screening rounds. Gut 2002; 50: 29-32
• 3 le Clercq CM, Bouwens MW, Rondagh EJ. et al. Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers are preventable: a population-based study. Gut 2014; 63: 957-963
• 4 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS. et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2533-2541
• 5 Rex DK. Colonoscopic withdrawal technique is associated with adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51: 33-36
• 6 Lee RH, Tang RS, Muthusamy VR. et al. Quality of colonoscopy withdrawal technique and variability in adenoma detection rates (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 128-134
• 7 Rembacken B, Hassan C, Riemann JF. et al. Quality in screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Endoscopy 2012; 44: 957-968
• 8 Sawhney MS, Cury MS, Neeman N. et al. Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 minutes on polyp detection. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1892-1898
• 9 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
• 10 Vavricka SR, Sulz MC, Degen L. et al. Monitoring colonoscopy withdrawal time significantly improves the adenoma detection rate and the performance of endoscopists. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 256-262
• 11 Brand EC, Wallace MB. Strategies to increase adenoma detection rates. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2017; 15: 184-212
• 12 Simmons DT, Harewood GC, Baron TH. et al. Impact of endoscopist withdrawal speed on polyp yield: implications for optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006; 24: 965-971
• 13 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
• 14 Moritz V, Bretthauer M, Ruud HK. et al. Withdrawal time as a quality indicator for colonoscopy – a nationwide analysis. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 476-481
• 15 Hassan C, Senore C, Radaelli F. et al. Full-spectrum (FUSE) versus standard forward-viewing colonoscopy in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme. Gut 2017; 66: 1949-1955
• 16 Rex DK. How I approach retroflexion and prevention of right-sided colon cancer following colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 9-11
• 17 Butterly L, Robinson CM, Anderson JC. et al. Serrated and adenomatous polyp detection increases with longer withdrawal time: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 417-426
• 18 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Greenlaw RL. Effect of a time-dependent colonoscopic withdrawal protocol on adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 1091-1098