Download PDF
Endoscopy 2018; 50(09): 878-885
DOI: 10.1055/a-0607-2636
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Effects of two instrument-generation changes on adenoma detection rate during screening colonoscopy: results from a prospective randomized comparative study

Katharina Zimmermann-Fraedrich
1   Department of Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
,
Stefan Groth
1   Department of Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
,
Susanne Sehner
2   Department of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
,
Stefan Schubert
3   Private Practice Gastroenterology Offices, Berlin, Germany
,
Jens Aschenbeck
3   Private Practice Gastroenterology Offices, Berlin, Germany
,
Michael Mayr
3   Private Practice Gastroenterology Offices, Berlin, Germany
,
Alireza Aminalai
3   Private Practice Gastroenterology Offices, Berlin, Germany
,
Andreas Schröder
3   Private Practice Gastroenterology Offices, Berlin, Germany
,
Jens-Peter Bruhn
4   Private Practice Gastroenterology Offices, Hamburg, Germany
,
Michael Bläker
4   Private Practice Gastroenterology Offices, Hamburg, Germany
,
Thomas Rösch
1   Department of Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
,
Guido Schachschal
1   Department of Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
› Author AffiliationsTRIAL REGISTRATION: Multicenter prospective randomized trial NCT03137277 at clinicaltrials.gov
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 07 September 2017

accepted after revision 23 March 2018

Publication Date:
23 July 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Previous studies have shown that multiple colonoscope features have to be changed before an improvement in adenoma detection rate (ADR) becomes obvious, such as with changing from one instrument generation to the next but one. We wanted to evaluate whether such an effect can also be observed in a private-practice screening setting.

Methods In a randomized study, we compared the latest generation colonoscopes from one company (Olympus Exera III, 190) with the next to last one (Olympus 165), including only patients presenting for screening colonoscopy. The primary outcome was ADR achieved with 190 colonoscopes (190-C) in comparison with 165 colonoscopes (165-C).

Results 1221 patients (46.1 % men; mean age 62.2 years, standard deviation 6.6) were included (599 screened with the Olympus Exera III, 190). The ADR difference in favor of the 190-C instrument (32 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 26 % to 39 %] vs. 28 % [95 %CI 22 % to 34 %] in the 165-C group) failed to reach statistical significance (P = 0.10); only the rate of small (< 5 mm) adenomas was significantly increased at 22.5 % (95 %CI 19 % to 26 %) vs. 15.6 % (95 %CI 13 % to 18 %; P = 0.002). Furthermore, significantly more adenomas were found in the 190-C group, with an adenoma rate (all adenomas/all patients) of 0.57 (95 %CI 0.53 to 0.61) vs. 0.47 (95 %CI 0.43 to 0.51; P < 0.001).

Conclusions This randomized comparative trial in a private-practice screening setting only partially confirmed the results of prior studies that, with multiple imaging improvements achieved over two instrument generations, an increase in overall adenoma number becomes measurable.

 

  • References

  • 1 Brenner H, Kloor M, Pox CP. Colorectal cancer. Lancet 2014; 383: 1490-1502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA. et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2016; 315: 2576-2594
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Robertson DJ, Kaminski MF, Bretthauer M. Effectiveness, training and quality assurance of colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer. Gut 2015; 64: 982-990
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. NEJM 2010; 362: 1795-1803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. NEJM 2014; 370: 1298-1306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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
  • 7 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
  • 8 Gralnek IM, Siersema PD, Halpern Z. et al. Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy versus full-spectrum endoscopy: an international, multicentre, randomised, tandem colonoscopy trial. Lancet Oncology 2014; 15: 353-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 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
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Bronzwaer MES, Dekker E, Weingart V. et al. Feasibility, safety, and diagnostic yield of the Extra Wide Angle View (EWAVE) colonoscope for the detection of colorectal lesions. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 63-68
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Adler A, Aminalai A, Aschenbeck J. et al. Latest generation, wide-angle, high-definition colonoscopes increase adenoma detection rate. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 155-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Adler A, Wegscheider K, Lieberman D. et al. Factors determining the quality of screening colonoscopy: a prospective study on adenoma detection rates, from 12,134 examinations (Berlin colonoscopy project 3, BECOP-3). Gut 2013; 62: 236-241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Pioche M, Denis A, Allescher HD. et al. Impact of 2 generational improvements of colonoscopes on adenoma miss rates: results of a prospective randomized multicenter tandem study. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.01.025.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Aminalai A, Rosch T, Aschenbeck J. et al. Live image processing does not increase adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: a randomized comparison between FICE and conventional imaging (Berlin Colonoscopy Project 5, BECOP-5). Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2383-2388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Adler A, Aschenbeck J, Yenerim T. et al. Narrow-band versus white-light high definition television endoscopic imaging for screening colonoscopy: a prospective randomized trial. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 410-416 .e411; quiz 715
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Schachschal G, Mayr M, Treszl A. et al. Endoscopic versus histological characterisation of polyps during screening colonoscopy. Gut 2014; 63: 458-465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Denzer U, Beilenhoff U, Eickhoff A. et al. [S2k guideline: quality requirements for gastrointestinal endoscopy, AWMF registry no. 021-022]. Z Gastroenterol 2015; 53: E1-E227
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: S3-S43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Schlemper RJ, Riddell RH, Kato Y. et al. The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Gut 2000; 47: 251-255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Dixon MF. Gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia: Vienna revisited. Gut 2002; 51: 130-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Larsen K, Merlo J. Appropriate assessment of neighborhood effects on individual health: integrating random and fixed effects in multilevel logistic regression. Am J Epidemiol 2005; 161: 81-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Almario CV, Spiegel BM. Does endoscopist fatigue impact adenoma detection rate? A review of the evidence to date. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 611-613
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Brand EC, Wallace MB. Strategies to increase adenoma detection rates. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2017; 15: 184-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Brenner H, Altenhofen L, Kretschmann J. et al. Trends in adenoma detection rates during the first 10 years of the German Screening Colonoscopy Program. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 356-366.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Loberg M, Kalager M, Holme O. et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer mortality after adenoma removal. NEJM 2014; 371: 799-807
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Adler A, Lieberman D, Aminalai A. et al. Data quality of the German screening colonoscopy registry. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 813-818
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Abu Dayyeh BK, Thosani N, Konda V. et al. ASGE Technology Committee systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the ASGE PIVI thresholds for adopting real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 502.e501-502.e516
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Rees CJ, Rajasekhar PT, Wilson A. et al. Narrow band imaging optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps in routine clinical practice: the Detect Inspect Characterise Resect and Discard 2 (DISCARD 2) study. Gut 2017; 66: 887-895
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Vu HT, Sayuk GS, Hollander TG. et al. Resect and discard approach to colon polyps: real-world applicability among academic and community gastroenterologists. Dig Dis Sci 2015; 60: 502-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ladabaum U, Fioritto A, Mitani A. et al. Real-time optical biopsy of colon polyps with narrow band imaging in community practice does not yet meet key thresholds for clinical decisions. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 81-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 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
  • 32 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
  • 33 Ikematsu H, Saito Y, Tanaka S. et al. The impact of narrow band imaging for colon polyp detection: a multicenter randomized controlled trial by tandem colonoscopy. J Gastroenterol 2012; 47: 1099-1107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Gross SA, Buchner AM, Crook JE. et al. A comparison of high definition-image enhanced colonoscopy and standard white-light colonoscopy for colorectal polyp detection. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 1045-1051
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kaltenbach T, Friedland S, Soetikno R. A randomised tandem colonoscopy trial of narrow band imaging versus white light examination to compare neoplasia miss rates. Gut 2008; 57: 1406-1412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Dinesen L, Chua TJ, Kaffes AJ. Meta-analysis of narrow-band imaging versus conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 604-611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Nagorni A, Bjelakovic G, Petrovic B. Narrow band imaging versus conventional white light colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 1: Cd008361
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Pasha SF, Leighton JA, Das A. et al. Comparison of the yield and miss rate of narrow band imaging and white light endoscopy in patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 363-370 ; quiz 371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Hewett DG, Rex DK. Cap-fitted colonoscopy: a randomized, tandem colonoscopy study of adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 775-781
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Matsushita M, Hajiro K, Okazaki K. et al. Efficacy of total colonoscopy with a transparent cap in comparison with colonoscopy without the cap. Endoscopy 1998; 30: 444-447
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar