Comparison of adenoma detection rate between three-dimensional and standard colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Background

Improvement in adenoma detection rates (ADRs) effectively reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer. In a simulation study, three-dimensional (3D) colonoscopy provided more anatomical details than standard two-dimensional (2D) colonoscopy and improved ADR. We compared ADRs between 2D and 3D colonoscopy.

Methods

In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, participants aged ≥40 years undergoing colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or symptoms between February 2022 and June 2023 were randomized 1:1 into 2D or 3D groups. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes included detection rates for flat adenomas, right-sided adenomas, proximal adenomas, advanced adenomas, and sessile serrated lesions (SSLs).

Results

Of 348 participants recruited, data from 158 (2D group) and 160 (3D group) were analyzed. Mucosa inspection time was comparable between the 3D (9.8 [SD 2.6] minutes) and 2D (9.4 [SD 3.1] minutes) groups (P = 0.21). Compared with the 2D group, the 3D group had a significantly higher ADR (53.1% vs. 38.6%; difference 14.5% [95%CI 3.7 to 25.4]; P = 0.009), and higher detection rates for flat adenomas (35.0% vs. 21.5%; difference 13.5% [95%CI 3.7 to 23.3]; P = 0.008), right-sided adenomas (26.3% vs. 15.2%; difference 11.1% [95%CI 2.2 to 19.9]; P = 0.02), proximal adenomas (38.1% vs. 23.4%; difference 14.7% [95%CI 4.7 to 24.7]; P = 0.005), and adenomas sized 5–9 mm (45.0% vs. 31.0%; difference 14.0% [95%CI 3.4 to 24.5]; P = 0.01). There was no difference in detection rates for SSLs or advanced adenomas.

Conclusion

3D colonoscopy improved adenoma detection without significantly increasing the mucosa inspection time.

Publication History

Received: 17 August 2024

Accepted after revision: 29 November 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
07 January 2025

Article published online:
28 February 2025

• References

• 1 Keum N, Giovannucci E. Global burden of colorectal cancer: emerging trends, risk factors and prevention strategies. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 16: 713-732
• 2 Nguyen LH, Goel A, Chung DC. Pathways of colorectal carcinogenesis. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 291-302
• 3 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
• 4 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
• 5 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
• 6 Chang WY, Chiu HM. Can image-enhanced endoscopy improve adenoma detection rate?. Dig Endosc 2022; 34: 284-296
• 7 Antonelli G, Correale L, Repici A. et al. Dye-based chromoendoscopy for the detection of colorectal neoplasia: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 96: 411-422
• 8 Kim SY, Park HJ, Kim HS. et al. Cap-assisted chromoendoscopy using a mounted cap versus standard colonoscopy for adenoma detection. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: 465-472
• 9 Karsenti D, Tharsis G, Perrot B. et al. Adenoma detection by Endocuff-assisted versus standard colonoscopy in routine practice: a cluster-randomised crossover trial. Gut 2020; 69: 2159-2164
• 10 Rutter MD, Beintaris I, Valori R. et al. World Endoscopy Organization consensus statements on post-colonoscopy and post-imaging colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2018; 155: 909-925
• 11 Morris EJ, Rutter MD, Finan PJ. et al. Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates vary considerably depending on the method used to calculate them: a retrospective observational population-based study of PCCRC in the English National Health Service. Gut 2015; 64: 1248-1256
• 12 le Clercq CM, Bouwens MW, Rondagh EJ. et al. Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers are preventable: a population-based study. Gut 2014; 63: 957-963
• 13 Anderson R, Burr NE, Valori R. Causes of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers based on World Endoscopy Organization system of analysis. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 1287-1299.e2
• 14 Lee J, Park SW, Kim YS. et al. Risk factors of missed colorectal lesions after colonoscopy. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96: e7468
• 15 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.e11
• 16 Higuchi K, Kaise M, Noda H. et al. Three-dimensional visualization improves the endoscopic diagnosis of superficial gastric neoplasia. BMC Gastroenterol 2021; 21: 242
• 17 Durr NJ, González G, Parot V. 3D imaging techniques for improved colonoscopy. Expert Rev Med Devices 2014; 11: 105-107
• 18 Sakata S, Grove PM, Stevenson AR. et al. The impact of three-dimensional imaging on polyp detection during colonoscopy: a proof of concept study. Gut 2016; 65: 730-731
• 19 Moynihan A, Boland P, Cahill RA. Twenty first century technological toolbox innovation for transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS). Surg Technol Int 2024; 44: 91-98
• 20 Afonso M, Soares R, Ramos R. et al. Three-dimensional (3D) endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty: single center case series. Endoscopy 2022; 54 (Suppl. 01) S283
• 21 Chang LC, Wu MS, Tu CH. et al. Metabolic syndrome and smoking may justify earlier colorectal cancer screening in men. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 961-969
• 22 Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH. et al. A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 346-352
• 23 Nagtegaal ID, Odze RD, Klimstra D. et al. The 2019 WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology 2020; 76: 182-188
• 24 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
• 25 Cheung KS, Chen L, Seto WK. et al. Epidemiology, characteristics, and survival of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in Asia: a population-based study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 34: 1545-1553
• 26 Pedersen L, Valori R, Bernstein I. et al. Risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in Denmark: time trends and comparison with Sweden and the English National Health Service. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 733-741
• 27 Xiang L, Zhan Q, Zhao XH. et al. Risk factors associated with missed colorectal flat adenoma: a multicenter retrospective tandem colonoscopy study. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 10927-10937
• 28 Soetikno RM, Kaltenbach T, Rouse RV. et al. Prevalence of nonpolypoid (flat and depressed) colorectal neoplasms in asymptomatic and symptomatic adults. JAMA 2008; 299: 1027-1035
• 29 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
• 30 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
• 31 Zhao S, Yang X, Wang S. et al. Impact of 9-minute withdrawal time on the adenoma detection rate: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 20: e168-e181
• 32 Sun X, Zhang Q, Wu S. et al. Effect of 3-dimensional imaging device on polyp and adenoma detection during colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2023; 118: 1812-1820
• 33 Hibbard PB, van Dam LCJ, Scarfe P. The implications of interpupillary distance variability for virtual reality. 2020 International Conference on 3D Immersion (IC3D); December 15, 2020; Brussels, Belgium; 1-7.