Factors influencing the miss rate of polyps in a back-to-back colonoscopy study

Background and study aims: In patients undergoing colonoscopy, 22 % – 28 % of polyps and 20 % – 24 % of adenomas are missed. It is unclear which factors contribute to polyp miss rates, but colorectal cancer detected within 3 years after colonoscopy may originate from missed lesions. The aim of the current study was to determine patient- and polyp-related factors that influence the miss rates of polyps and adenomas during colonoscopy.

Patients and methods: Data from 406 patients were obtained from a multicenter, randomized back-to-back colonoscopy study investigating the Third Eye Retroscope (TER) in improving polyp detection rate by visualizing hidden areas such as folds and curves. Patients were randomized to undergo standard colonoscopy followed by colonoscopy with TER, or vice versa. Miss rates were calculated for all polyps and adenomas. All lesions were categorized for size and location within the colon/rectum. Odds ratios (ORs) were computed using adjusted logistic regression models to identify factors independently associated with missed lesions.

Results: The miss rate was 25 % (150 /611) for all polyps and 26 % (90 /350) for adenomas. Miss rates were significantly lower (21 % vs. 29 %) in patients randomized to TER as the first procedure (P < 0.03). Taking all groups together, > 2 polyps compared with ≤ 2 polyps detected during the first colonoscopy increased the risk of missing additional polyps (adjusted OR = 2.83; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.22 – 6.70). Adenomas in the left colon compared with adenomas in the right colon were also more frequently missed (adjusted OR = 1.65; 95 %CI 1.06 – 2.58).

Conclusions: A quarter of polyps were missed during colonoscopy. Physicians should be aware that the risk of missing a polyp is related to patient factors (presence of > 2 polyps) and polyp factors (left colon location).

^* for the TERRACE Study Group

• References

• 1 Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J et al. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2005; 55: 74-108
• 2 Citarda F, Tomaselli G, Capocaccia R et al. Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence. Gut 2001; 48: 812-815
• 3 Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH et al. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380.. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 162-168
• 4 Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 24-28
• 5 Triadafilopoulos G, Li J. A pilot study to assess the safety and efficacy of the Third Eye retrograde auxiliary imaging system during colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 478-482
• 6 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG. Colonoscopic polypectomy and the incidence of colorectal cancer. Gut 2001; 48: 753-754
• 7 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup.. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
• 8 Winawer SJ, Stewart ET, Zauber AG et al. A comparison of colonoscopy and double-contrast barium enema for surveillance after polypectomy. National Polyp Study Work Group. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1766-1772
• 9 Pohl H, Robertson DJ. Colorectal cancers detected after colonoscopy frequently result from missed lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 858-864
• 10 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
• 11 Heresbach D, Barrioz T, Lapalus MG et al. Miss rate for colorectal neoplastic polyps: a prospective multicenter study of back-to-back video colonoscopies. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 284-290
• 12 Leufkens AM, Demarco DC, Rastogi A et al. Effect of a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: the TERRACE study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 480-489
• 13 Gupta T, Mandot A, Desai D et al. Comparison of two schedules (previous evening versus same morning) of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 706-709
• 14 Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 482-486
• 15 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
• 16 Bensen S, Mott LA, Dain B et al. The colonoscopic miss rate and true one-year recurrence of colorectal neoplastic polyps. Polyp Prevention Study Group.. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94: 194-199
• 17 Gschwantler M, Kriwanek S, Langner E et al. High-grade dysplasia and invasive carcinoma in colorectal adenomas: a multivariate analysis of the impact of adenoma and patient characteristics. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002; 14: 183-188
• 18 Park DH, Kim HS, Kim WH et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics and malignant potential of colorectal flat neoplasia compared with that of polypoid neoplasia. Dis Colon Rectum 2008; 51: 43-49
• 19 Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA et al. The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer. Gastroenterology 2010; 139: 1128-1137
• 20 Bianco MA, Cipolletta L, Rotondano G et al. Prevalence of nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasia: an Italian multicenter observational study. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 279-285
• 21 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
• 22 Chan MY, Cohen H, Spiegel BM. Fewer polyps detected by colonoscopy as the day progresses at a Veteran’s Administration teaching hospital. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 1217-1223
• 23 Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 76-79
• 24 Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 378-384