A prospective cohort study evaluating a novel colonoscopy platform featuring full-spectrum endoscopy^[*]

Background and study aims: Although colonoscopy is the criterion standard for detecting colorectal adenomas and cancers, a significant percentage of adenomas are missed with this technique. We aimed to establish the feasibility, usability, and safety of a novel colonoscopy platform featuring full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE).

Patients and methods: This was a prospective, single-center pilot and feasibility study. In total, 50 individuals, ages 18 – 70 years, underwent colonoscopy featuring FUSE (up to 330° field of view) for colorectal cancer screening, polyp surveillance, or diagnostic evaluation. Study end points included success of cecal intubation, time to cecal intubation, withdrawal time, total procedure time, success of therapeutic interventions, adverse events, and endoscopists’ subjective evaluation of FUSE.

Results: Cecal intubation was achieved in 50/50 individuals (100 %). Time to cecum (minutes, mean ± SD) was 3.1 ± 1.5 minutes, withdrawal time 12.7 ± 4.4 minutes, and total procedure time 15.3 ± 4.6 minutes. In 22/50 cases (44 %), 26 therapeutic interventions were performed: 19 (73.1 %) biopsies and 7 (26.9 %) polypectomies. No acute or delayed adverse events were observed. Patient satisfaction and endoscopist subjective evaluation were high.

Conclusions: A colonoscopy platform featuring full-spectrum endoscopy appears feasible, usable, and safe. These results represent an important advance in colonoscopy imaging technology and should be further pursued in comparative human studies.

^* This material was presented in abstract form as an oral presentation (by I.M.G.) at United European Gastroenterology Week 2012 Free Paper Session “New endoscopic and imaging technologies,” 24 October 2012, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

• References

• 1 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
• 2 Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH et al. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 162-168
• 3 Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 844-857
• 4 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ et al. Colonoscopy polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
• 5 Hixson LJ, Fennerty MB, Sampliner RE et al. Prospective blinded trial of the colonoscopic miss-rate of large colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 125-127
• 6 Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 24-28
• 7 Pickhardt PJ, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA et al. Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 352-359
• 8 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
• 9 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
• 10 Leufkens AM, DeMarco DC, Rastogi A et al. Effect of retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: the TERRACE study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 480-489
• 11 Leufkens AM, van Oijen MGH, Siersema PD. Factors influencing the miss rate of polyps in a back-to-back colonoscopy study. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 470-475
• 12 Harrison M, Singh N, Rex DK. Impact of proximal colon retroflexion on adenoma miss rates. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 519-522
• 13 Hewett DG, Rex DK. Miss rate of right-sided colon examination during colonoscopy defined by retroflexion: an observational study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 246-252
• 14 Rex DK. Accessing proximal aspects of folds and flexures during colonoscopy: impact of a pediatric colonoscope with a short bending section. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 1504-1507
• 15 Rex DK, Chadalawada V, Helper DJ. Wide angle colonoscopy with a prototype instrument: impact on miss rates and efficiency as determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2000-2005
• 16 Deenadayalu VP, Chadalawada V, Rex DK. 170 degrees wide-angle colonoscope: effect on efficiency and miss rates. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 2138-2142
• 17 Sanchez-Yague A, Kaltenbach T, Yamamoto H et al. The endoscopic cap that can (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 169-178
• 18 Triadafilopoulos G, Watts HD, Van Dam J et al. A novel retrograde-viewing auxiliary imaging device (Third Eye Retroscope) improves the detection of simulated polyps in anatomic models of the colon. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 139-144
• 19 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
• 20 DeMarco DC, Odstrcil E, Lara LF et al. Impact of experience with a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rates and withdrawal times during colonoscopy: the Third Eye Retroscope study group. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 542-550
• 21 Waye JD, Heigh RI, Rex DK et al. A retrograde-viewing device improves detection of adenomas in the colon: a prospective efficacy evaluation. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 551-556
• 22 Gralnek IM, Carr-Locke DL, Segol O et al. Comparison of standard forward viewing mode versus ultra-wide viewing mode of a novel colonoscopy platform: a prospective, multicenter study in the detection of simulated polyps in an in vitro colon model. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 472-479
• 23 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