Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2019; 07(08): E987-E993
DOI: 10.1055/a-0953-1909
Original article
Owner and Copyright © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2019

CF290 for pancolonic chromoendoscopy improved sessile serrated polyp detection and procedure time: a propensity score-matching study

Osamu Toyoshima
1   Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo-Setagaya 157-0066, Japan
,
Shuntaro Yoshida
1   Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo-Setagaya 157-0066, Japan
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo-Bunkyo, Japan
,
Toshihiro Nishizawa
1   Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo-Setagaya 157-0066, Japan
3   Gastroenterology, Tokyo Medical Center, Tokyo-Meguro, Japan
,
Tadahiro Yamakawa
1   Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo-Setagaya 157-0066, Japan
,
Kosuke Sakitani
1   Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo-Setagaya 157-0066, Japan
4   Gastroenterology, Sakitani Endoscopy Clinic, Chiba-Tsudanuma, Japan
,
Keisuke Hata
1   Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo-Setagaya 157-0066, Japan
5   Department of Surgical Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo-Bunkyo, Japan
,
Yoshiyuki Takahashi
1   Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo-Setagaya 157-0066, Japan
,
Mitsuhiro Fujishiro
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo-Bunkyo, Japan
,
Hidenobu Watanabe
6   Pathology and Cytology Laboratory Japan, Tokyo-Suginami, Japan
,
Kazuhiko Koike
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo-Bunkyo, Japan
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 22 November 2018

accepted after revision 09 April 2019

Publication Date:
24 July 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims The benefits of the new-generation CF290 (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) for pancolonic chromoendoscopy (PCC) for colorectal polyp detection and its procedure time remain questionable. We compared the CF290 with the previous CF260 for PCC.

Methods We performed a propensity score-matching study using baseline characteristics such as age, sex, indications, endoscopist, and bowel preparation. We compared the detection of adenomas and sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) and procedure times of two expert endoscopists who performed PCC using the CF290 series (high-quality system with flushing pump) and the CF260 series (high-definition system).

Results We matched 374 patients who underwent PCC using the CF290 and 187 patients who underwent PCC using the CF260. The adenoma detection rate of the 290 series was higher than that of the 260 series, but not significantly. The SSP detection rate for the 290 series was higher than that for the 260 series (P = 0.01). Insertion time required for the 290 series was shorter than that required for the 260 series (P < 0.0001). Withdrawal time of the 290 series was shorter than that of the 260 series (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion Advanced technology can provide accuracy and help save time, and therefore, should be applied whenever possible.

 

  • 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 Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P. et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1095-1105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Pohl J, Schneider A, Vogell H. et al. Pancolonic chromoendoscopy with indigo carmine versus standard colonoscopy for detection of neoplastic lesions: a randomised two-centre trial. Gut 2011; 60: 485-490
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kahi CJ, Anderson JC, Waxman I. et al. High-definition chromocolonoscopy vs. high-definition white light colonoscopy for average-risk colorectal cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1301-1307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Leung WK, Lo OS, Liu KS. et al. Detection of colorectal adenoma by narrow band imaging (HQ190) vs. high-definition white light colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 855-863
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lee SH, Park YK, Lee DJ. et al. Colonoscopy procedural skills and training for new beginners. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 16984-16995
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Fuccio L, Frazzoni L, Hassan C. et al. Water exchange colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 589-597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 East JE, Suzuki N, Arebi N. et al. Position changes improve visibility during colonoscope withdrawal: a randomized, blinded, crossover trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 263-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ou G, Kim E, Lakzadeh P. et al. A randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of prescribed patient position changes during colonoscope withdrawal on adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 277-283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Endoscopic Classification Review Group. Update on the Paris classification of superficial neoplastic lesions in the digestive tract. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 570-578
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hewett DG, Kaltenbach T, Sano Y. et al. Validation of a simple classification system for endoscopic diagnosis of small colorectal polyps using narrow-band imaging. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 599-607.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ell C, Fischbach W, Bronisch HJ. et al. Randomized trial of low-volume PEG solution versus standard PEG + electrolytes for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 883-893
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH. et al. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System. 4th. edition Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Lee TJ, Rees CJ, Blanks RG. et al. Colonoscopic factors associated with adenoma detection in a national colorectal cancer screening program. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 203-211
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gerard DP, Foster DB, Raiser MW. et al. Validation of a new bowel preparation scale for measuring colon cleansing for colonoscopy: the Chicago bowel preparation scale. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2013; 4: e43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Toyoshima O, Hata K, Yoshida S. et al. New-generation chromoendoscopy may increase confidence in the DISCARD2 study. Gut 2018; 67: 1742-1743
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Weiss JE. et al. Providing data for serrated polyp detection rate benchmarks: an analysis of the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 1188-1194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 DʼAgostino Jr RB. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998; 17: 2265-2281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Normand ST, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E. et al. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 387-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat 2011; 10: 150-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bangalore S, Guo Y, Samadashvili Z. et al. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 1213-1222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Rex DK, Ahnen DJ, Baron JA. et al. Serrated lesions of the colorectum: review and recommendations from an expert panel. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 1315-1330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Sjolander A. Propensity scores and M-structures. Stat Med 2009; 28: 1416-1420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Schuster T, Lowe WK, Platt RW. Propensity score model overfitting led to inflated variance of estimated odds ratios. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 80: 97-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Huybrechts KF, Ripollone JE, Rothman KJ. et al. Implications of the propensity score matching paradox in pharmacoepidemiology. Am J Epidemiol 2018; 187: 1951-1961
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar