A prospective randomized study on computed virtual chromoendoscopy versus conventional colonoscopy for the detection of small colorectal adenomas

Prospective study of diagnostic yields of flexible spectral imaging color enhancement installed in colon capsule endoscopy for colorectal polyps and tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We prospectively determined the efficacy of flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (FICE) used with second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) for colorectal polyps and tumors (CRTs).

METHODS

This study included optical colonoscopy within 4 months after CCE. Two colonoscopists independently reviewed CCE using white-light images (CCE-WL) and CCE using FICE images (CCE-FICE), respectively. Based on colonoscopic findings as the criterion standard, the diagnostic accuracy for CRTs was compared between CCE-WL and CCE-FICE.

RESULTS

Of 89 enrolled patients (65 men and 24 women; 75 with CRTs including 36 with serrated lesions, 63 with adenomas, and 9 with adenocarcinomas), the per-patient detectability of CCE-FICE for the representative CRTs was significantly higher than that of CCE-WL: overall CRTs (CCE-WL, 79%; CCE-FICE, 88%; P = .0001), 6- to 9-mm CRTs (CCE-WL, 63%; CCE-FICE, 94%; P = .0055), and ≥6-mm CRTs (CCE-WL, 78%; CCE-FICE, 93%; P = .0159). The per-lesion sensitivity of CCE-FICE was significantly higher than that of CCE-WL for CRTs: overall (CCE-WL, 61%; CCE-FICE, 79%; P < .0001), <6 mm (CCE-WL, 53%; CCE-FICE, 69%; P < .0001), 6- to 9-mm CRTs (CCE-WL, 65%; CCE-FICE, 93%; P = .0007), slightly elevated CRTs (CCE-WL, 53%; CCE-FICE, 75%; P < .0001), tubular adenomas (CCE-WL, 61%; CCE-FICE, 79%; P < .0001), and serrated polyps (CCE-WL, 57%; CCE-FICE, 74%; P = .0022). Both modes detected all adenocarcinomas. No significant differences were found between CCE-WL and CCE-FICE of the per-lesion sensitivity for ≥10-mm CRTs (CCE-WL, 81%; CCE-FICE, 94%; P = .1138) or protruding CRTs (CCE-WL, 77%; CCE-FICE, 86%; P = .0614). Kappa coefficients for overall CRTs for CCE-WL and CCE-FICE were .66 and .64, respectively, which indicated substantial agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

CCE-FICE improved the detection rates for all CRTs except adenocarcinomas, ≥10-mm polyps, and protruding polyps when compared with CCE-WL. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN 000021125.).

Variability in adenoma detection rate in control groups of randomized colonoscopy trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is still the main surrogate outcome parameter of screening colonoscopy, but most studies include mixed indications, and basic ADR is quite variable. We therefore looked at the control groups in randomized ADR trials using advanced imaging or mechanical methods to find out whether indications or other factors influence ADR levels.

METHODS

Patients in the control groups of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ADR increase using various methods were collected based on a systematic review; this control group had to use high-definition white-light endoscopy performed between 2008 and 2021. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool ADR in control groups and its 95% confidence interval (CI) according to clinical (indication and demographic), study setting (tandem/parallel, number of centers, sample size), and technical (type of intervention, withdrawal time) parameters. Interstudy heterogeneity was reported with the I2 statistic. Multivariable mixed-effects meta-regression was performed for potentially relevant variables.

RESULTS

From 80 studies, 25,304 patients in the respective control groups were included. ADR in control arms varied between 8.2% and 68.1% with a high degree of heterogeneity (I2 = 95.1%; random-effect pooled value, 37.5%; 95% CI, 34.6‒40.5). There was no difference in ADR levels between primary colonoscopy screening (12 RCTs, 15%) and mixed indications including screening/surveillance and diagnostic colonoscopy; however, fecal immunochemical testing as an indication for colonoscopy was an independent predictor of ADR (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4). Other well-known parameters were confirmed by our analysis such as age (OR, 1.038; 95% CI, 1.004-1.074), sex (male sex: OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03), and withdrawal time (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1). The type of intervention (imaging vs mechanical) had no influence, but methodologic factors did: More recent year of publication and smaller sample size were associated with higher ADR.

CONCLUSIONS

A high level of variability was found in the level of ADR in the control groups of RCTs. With regards to indications, only fecal immunochemical test-based colonoscopy studies influenced basic ADR, and primary colonoscopy screening appeared to be similar to other indications. Standardization for variables related to clinical, methodologic, and technical parameters is required to achieve generalizability and reproducibility.

Evaluation of colon mucosa using screening colonoscopy and flexible spectral imaging color enhancement in patients with long lasting ulcerative colitis

AIM

To determine which flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (FICE) channel best visualizes colon mucosa in ulcerative colitis (UC) and to compare FICE imaging with standard imaging.

METHODS

The study enrolled patients with ulcerative colitis in remission who had inflammatory bowel disease for at least 8 years. All patients underwent screening colonoscopy. The entire colon, especially the suspicious areas in terms of dysplasia, were imaged with standard endoscopy and FICE. Random and target biopsies were obtained. Histopathological diagnosis was made and image patterns were evaluated. Seven endoscopists evaluated normal, colitis, and polyp images obtained with FICE.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-three colon segments were evaluated and 1831 images were obtained from 18 patients. A total of 1652 images were FICE and 179 were standard images. Separate FICE images were obtained for normal colon mucosa, polypoid lesions, and colitis areas. Normal colon mucosa was best visualized using the second, sixth, and ninth FICE channel; polyps using the third, seventh, and ninth channel; and colitis using the second, third, and ninth channel. When all images were analyzed, the second and ninth channel were significantly better than the other channels. A total of 584 biopsies were obtained, including 492 (84.2%) random biopsies and 92 (15.7%) target biopsies. Random biopsies detected no dysplasia, but target biopsies detected low-grade dysplasia in three diminutive polyps.

CONCLUSION

FICE was not significantly better at dysplasia screening than the standard procedure, but it effectively detected diminutive polyps and evaluated surface patterns without using magnification. FICE might contribute to the assessment of inflammation severity in patients with UC in clinical remission. However, more extensive studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

Computer-aided detection versus advanced imaging for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Computer-aided detection (CADe) techniques based on artificial intelligence algorithms can assist endoscopists in detecting colorectal neoplasia. CADe has been associated with an increased adenoma detection rate, a key quality indicator, but the utility of CADe compared with existing advanced imaging techniques and distal attachment devices is unclear.

METHODS

For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we did a comprehensive search of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases from inception to Nov 30, 2020, for randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of the following endoscopic techniques in detecting colorectal neoplasia: CADe, high definition (HD) white-light endoscopy, chromoendoscopy, or add-on devices (ie, systems that increase mucosal visualisation, such as full spectrum endoscopy [FUSE] or G-EYE balloon endoscopy). We collected data on adenoma detection rates, sessile serrated lesion detection rates, the proportion of large adenomas detected per colonoscopy, and withdrawal times. A frequentist framework, random-effects network meta-analysis was done to compare artificial intelligence with chromoendoscopy, increased mucosal visualisation systems, and HD white-light endoscopy (the control group). We estimated odds ratios (ORs) for the adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated lesion detection rate, and proportion of large adenomas detected per colonoscopy, and calculated mean differences for withdrawal time, with 95% CIs. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

FINDINGS

50 randomised controlled trials, comprising 34 445 participants, were included in our main analysis (six trials of CADe, 18 of chromoendoscopy, and 26 of increased mucosal visualisation systems). HD white-light endoscopy was the control technique in all 50 studies. Compared with the control technique, the adenoma detection rate was 7·4% higher with CADe (OR 1·78 [95% CI 1·44-2·18]), 4·4% higher with chromoendoscopy (1·22 [1·08-1·39]), and 4·1% higher with increased mucosal visualisation systems (1·16 [1·04-1·28]). CADe ranked as the superior technique for adenoma detection (with moderate confidence in hierarchical ranking); cross-comparisons of CADe with other imaging techniques showed a significant increase in the adenoma detection rate with CADe versus increased mucosal visualisation systems (OR 1·54 [95% CI 1·22-1·94]; low certainty of evidence) and with CADe versus chromoendoscopy (1·45 [1·14-1·85]; moderate certainty of evidence). When focusing on large adenomas (≥10 mm) there was a significant increase in the detection of large adenomas only with CADe (OR 1·69 [95% CI 1·10-2·60], moderate certainty of evidence) when compared to HD white-light endoscopy; CADe ranked as the superior strategy for detection of large adenomas. CADe also seemed to be the superior strategy for detection of sessile serrated lesions (with moderate confidence in hierarchical ranking), although no significant increase in the sessile serrated lesion detection rate was shown (OR 1·37 [95% CI 0·65-2·88]). No significant difference in withdrawal time was reported for CADe compared with the other techniques.

INTERPRETATION

Based on the published literature, detection rates of colorectal neoplasia are higher with CADe than with other techniques such as chromoendoscopy or tools that increase mucosal visualisation, supporting wider incorporation of CADe strategies into community endoscopy services.

FUNDING

None.

Compared Abilities of Endoscopic Techniques to Increase Colon Adenoma Detection Rates: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality metric for colorectal cancer screening. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the overall and comparative efficacies of different endoscopic techniques in adenoma detection.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of published articles and abstracts, through March 15, 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing colonoscopy that compared the efficacy of different devices in detection of adenomas. Our final analysis included 74 2-arm trials that comprised 44948 patients. These studies compared efficacies of add-on devices (cap, endocuff, endo-rings, G-EYE), enhanced imaging techniques (chromoendoscopy, narrow-band imaging, flexible spectral imaging color enhancement, blue laser imaging), new scopes (full-spectrum endoscopy, extra-wide-angle-view colonoscopy, dual focus), and low-cost optimizing existing resources (water-aided colonoscopy, second observer, dynamic position change), alone or in combination with high-definition colonoscopy or each other. Primary outcome was increase in ADR. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, and appraised quality of evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

Low-cost optimizing existing resources (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI,1.17-1.43), enhanced imaging techniques (OR,1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.35), and add-on devices (OR,1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29) were associated with a moderate increase in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy; there was low to moderate confidence in estimates. Use of newer scopes was not associated with significant increases in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.21). In our comparative efficacy analysis, no specific technology for increasing ADR was superior to others. We did not find significant differences between technologies in detection of advanced ADR, polyp detection rate, or mean number of adenomas/patient.

CONCLUSIONS

In a network meta-analysis of published trials, we found that low-cost optimization of existing resources to be as effective as enhanced endoscopic imaging, or add-on devices, in increasing ADR during high-definition colonoscopy.

Comparison of the detection of colorectal lesions in different endoscopic modalities: A network meta-analysis and systematic review

A colonoscopy is considered to be the standard diagnostic test used to detect early colorectal lesions. Detection rates are expected to improve with optimised visualisation. A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate detection efficiency in several colonoscopic modalities. Relevant articles were identified in searches of the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. The modalities, comprising of standard-definition white light (SDWL), high-definition white light (HDWL), narrow-band imaging (NBI), autofluorescence imaging (AFI), PENTAX image enhanced technology (i-SCAN), Fuji Intelligent Color Enhancement (FICE), dye-based chromoendoscopy and novel image enhanced systems, including blue laser imaging (BLI) and linked color imaging (LCI), were compared to identify the most efficient modalities that could be used to detect colorectal lesions. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. As a result, 40 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall, in the network meta-analyses, NBI (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.04-1.58), FICE (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.11-1.77), chromoendoscopy (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.22-1.93) and AFI (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-2.87) were significantly better compared with SDWL at identifying adenoma in patients, and chromoendoscopy also proved significantly superior to HDWL (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.60). In pairwise analyses, it was demonstrated that chromoendoscopy was significantly superior to HDWL at detecting the number of polyps (MD, -1.11; 95% CI, -1.46, -0.76) and flat lesions (MD, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.49, -0.10) per subject. Additionally, FICE detected a significantly greater number of subjects with polyps (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.96) and NBI was significantly better at detecting the number of subjects with flat lesions (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-0.99) compared with HDWL. Based on the meta-analysis, NBI, FICE and AFI were significantly better compared with SDWL at detecting patients with adenoma. Additionally, chromoendoscopy was significantly better than SDWL and HDWL at detecting the number of colorectal adenoma, however additional studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Comparison of linked color imaging and white-light colonoscopy for detection of colorectal polyps: a multicenter, randomized, crossover trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Linked color imaging (LCI), a recently developed technology, uses a laser endoscopic system to enhance the color separation of red color to depict red and white colors more vividly. The benefits of LCI in the detection of colorectal polyps remain unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of LCI to improve the detection of colorectal polyps compared with white-light (WL) endoscopy.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, crossover, prospective, randomized controlled trial in 3 hospitals in China. All patients underwent crossover colonoscopies with LCI and WL endoscopy in a randomized order. All lesions were removed during the second endoscopic procedure. The primary outcome measure was the difference in sensitivity between LCI and WL endoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. The secondary outcome measures were the adenoma detection rate per patient in the 2 groups and the factors associated with polyp miss rates.

RESULTS

A total of 152 patients were randomized, and 141 were included in the analysis. The overall polyp detection rate increased significantly by 24% for LCI colonoscopy, corresponding to a higher sensitivity with LCI than with WL endoscopy (91% vs 73%, P < .0001). Furthermore, LCI identified significantly more patients (32%) with polyps. The per-patient adenoma detection rate was significantly higher for LCI than for WL endoscopy (37% vs 28%; 95% confidence interval, 2.39%-19.41%).

CONCLUSIONS

LCI improves the detection of colorectal polyps and adenomas during colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02724397.).

Who and how to screen for cancer in at-risk inflammatory bowel disease patients

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) include both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis and both diseases are marked by inflammation within the gastrointestinal tract. Due to long-standing inflammation, IBD patients are at increased risk of colorectal cancer, especially patients with chronic inflammation, pancolitis, co-diagnosis of primary sclerosing cholangitis and a longer duration of disease. Small bowel inflammation places Crohn's patients at an increased risk of small bowel cancer. A higher risk of skin cancers, lymphomas and cervical abnormalities is also seen in IBD patients; this is likely related to both disease factors and the presence of immunosuppressive medication. This article reviews which patients are at an increased risk of IBD-associated or IBD treatment-associated cancers, when to begin screening and which screening methods are recommended.

High-definition endoscopy with iScan and Lugol's solution for the detection of inflammation in patients with nonerosive reflux disease: histologic evaluation in comparison with a control group

Nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) is commonly diagnosed in patients with symptoms of reflux. The aim of the present study was to determine whether high-definition endoscopy (HD) plus equipped with the iScan function or chromoendoscopy with Lugol's solution might permit the differentiation of NERD patients from those without reflux symptoms, proven by targeted biopsies of endoscopic lesions. A total of 100 patients without regular intake of proton pump inhibitors and with a normal conventional upper endoscopy were prospectively divided into NERD patients and controls. A second upper endoscopy was performed using HD+ with additional iScan function and then Lugol's solution was applied. Biopsy specimens were taken from the gastroesophageal junction in all patients. A total of 65 patients with reflux symptoms and 27 controls were included. HD(+) endoscopy with iScan revealed subtle mucosal breaks in 52 patients; the subsequent biopsies confirmed esophagitis in all cases. After Lugol's solution, 58 patients showed mucosal breaks. Sensitivity for the iScan procedure was 82.5%, whereas that for Lugol's solution was 92.06%. Excellent positive predictive values of 100% and 98.3%, respectively, were noted. The present study suggests that the majority of patients with NERD and typical symptoms of reflux disease can be identified by iScan or Lugol's chromoendoscopy as minimal erosive reflux disease (ERD) patients.

Image-enhanced, chromo, and cap-assisted colonoscopy for improving adenoma/neoplasia detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The effectiveness of narrow band imaging (NBI), chromoendoscopy (CE), and cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) on adenoma detection rate (ADR) has been investigated in previous meta-analyses; however, there have been no meta-analyses of autofluorescence imaging (AFI) or flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (FICE) or i-scan. The aim of this study was to determine whether AFI and FICE/i-scan was more effective than standard/high-definition white light endoscopy to improve ADR and to update previous meta-analyses of NBI, CE, and CAC.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Four investigators selected appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCT) using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. All RCTs in which colonoscopy were performed with AFI, FICE, i-scan, NBI, CE, and CAC were included. The risk ratios (RRs) calculated from adenoma/neoplasia detection rate were used as the main outcome measurement.

RESULTS

A total of 42 studies were included in the analysis. Pooled estimates of RR (95%confidence interval [CI]) using AFI, FICE/i-scan, NBI, CE, and CAC were 1.04 (95% CI: 0.87-1.24) (I² = 0%) (fixed effects model [FEM]); 1.09 (95% CI: 0.97-1.23) (I² = 5%) (FEM); 1.03 (95% CI: 0.96-1.11) (I² = 0%) (FEM); 1.36 (95% CI: 1.23-1.51) (I² = 16%) (FEM); and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.93-1.14) (I² = 48%) (random effects model [REM]), respectively. The pooled estimate of RR (95%CI) using indigo carmine in non-ulcerative colitis (UC) patients and methylene blue in UC patients was 1.33 (95% CI: 1.20-1.48) (I² = 14%) (FEM) and 2.39 (95% CI: 1.18-4.84) (I² = 0%) (FEM), respectively.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to AFI, FICE/i-scan, NBI, and CAC, only CE improves ADR. CE with methylene blue, though not NBI, is effective for surveillance of neoplasia in chronic UC patients.

Endoscopic experience improves interobserver agreement in the grading of esophagitis by Los Angeles classification: conventional endoscopy and optimal band image system

Background/Aims

Interobserver variation by experience was documented for the diagnosis of esophagitis using the Los Angeles classification. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether interobserver agreement can be improved by higher levels of endoscopic experience in the diagnosis of erosive esophagitis.

Methods

Endoscopic images of 51 patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms were obtained with conventional endoscopy and optimal band imaging (OBI). Endoscopists were divided into an expert group (16 gastroenterologic endoscopic specialists guaranteed by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy) and a trainee group (individuals with fellowships, first year of specialty training in gastroenterology). All endoscopists had no or minimal experience with OBI. GERD was diagnosed using the Los Angeles classification with or without OBI.

Results

The mean weighted paired κ statistics for interobserver agreement in grading erosive esophagitis by conventional endoscopy in the expert group was better than that in the trainee group (0.51 vs 0.42, p<0.05). The mean weighted paired k statistics in the expert group and in the trainee group based on conventional endoscopy with OBI did not differ (0.42, 0.42).

Conclusions

Interobserver agreement in the expert group using conventional endoscopy was better than that in the trainee group. Endoscopic experience can improve the interobserver agreement in the grading of esophagitis using the Los Angeles classification.

Ancillary imaging techniques and adenoma detection

Advancements in image technology have allowed recognition of mucosal architecture in more detail and may improve adenoma detection. This review provides a technical overview on individual imaging technologies and their effect on detection of adenomas. Only high-definition endoscopy has been shown to improve detection of small adenomas. None of the digital chromoendoscopy technologies improves adenoma detection. Limited studies on autoimmunfluorescence imaging in conjunction with high-definition endoscopy may improve detection of small adenomas.

Magnified and enhanced computed virtual chromoendoscopy in gastric neoplasia: A feasibility study

AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of a new computed virtual chromoendoscopy (CVC) device (M i-scan) in the diagnosis of gastric neoplasia.

METHODS: Patients with superficial lesions no larger than 1.0 cm found during high definition endoscopy were included. Those with advanced or obviously protruded or depressed lesions, lesions larger than 1.0 cm and/or lesions which were not amenable to observation by zoom function were excluded. The endoscopist was required to give the real-time descriptions of surface pit patterns of the lesions, based on surface pattern classification of enhanced magnification endoscopy. According to previous reports, types I-III represent non-neoplastic lesions, and types IV-V represent neoplastic lesions. Diagnosis with M i-scan and biopsy was performed before histopathological diagnosis. Magnified images of gastric lesions with and without enhancement were collected for further analysis. The diagnostic yield of real-time M i-scan and effects on magnification image quality by tone enhancement (TE), surface enhancement (SE) and color enhancement (CE) were calculated. The selected images were sent to another endoscopist. The endoscopist rated the image quality of each lesion at 3 levels. Ratings of image quality were based on visualization of pit pattern, vessel and demarcation line.

RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-three patients were recruited. Five patients were excluded for advanced gastric lesions, 1 patient was excluded for poor preparation and 2 patients were excluded for superficial lesions larger than 1.0 cm; 132 patients were excluded for no lesions found by high definition endoscopy. In the end, 43 patients with 43 lesions were included. Histopathology revealed 10 inflammation, 14 atrophy, 10 metaplasia, 1 low grade dysplasia (LGD), 5 high grade dysplasia (HGD) and 3 cancers. For 7 lesions classified into type I, histopathology revealed 6 atrophy and 1 metaplasia; for 10 lesions classified into type II, histopathology revealed 2 inflammation, 7 atrophy and 1 metaplasia; for 10 lesions classified into type III, histopathology revealed 1 inflammation, 8 metaplasia and 1 LGD; for 9 lesions classified into type IV, histopathology revealed 4 inflammation, 1 atrophy and 4 HGD; for 7 lesions classified into type V, histopathology revealed 3 inflammation, 1 HGD and 3 cancers. A total of 172 still images, including 43 images by white light (MWL) and 129 images by M i-scan (43 with TE, 43 with SE and 43 with CE), were selected and sent to the endoscopist who did the analysis. General image quality of M i-scan with TE and SE was significantly better than that of MWL (TE, 4.55 ± 1.07; SE, 4.30 ± 1.02; MWL, 3.25 ± 0.99; P < 0.001). Visualization of pit pattern was significantly improved by M i-scan with SE (1.93 ± 0.25 vs 1.50 ± 0.50, P < 0.001). Microvessel visualization was significantly improved by M i-scan with TE (1.23 ± 0.78 vs 0.76 ± 0.73, P < 0.001). Demarcation line visualization was improved by M i-scan with both TE and SE (TE, 1.75 ± 0.52; SE, 1.56 ± 0.59; MWL, 0.98 ± 0.44; P < 0.001). M i-scan with CE did not show any significant improvements of image quality in general or in the 3 key parameters. Although M i-scan with TE and SE slightly increased the diagnostic yield of MWL, there was no significant difference (P > 0.1).

CONCLUSION: Although digital enhancement improves the image quality of magnification endoscopy, its value in improving the diagnostic yield seems to be limited.

Prospective, randomized, back-to-back trial evaluating the usefulness of i-SCAN in screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

The newly developed i-SCAN application can theoretically maximize the effectiveness of colonoscopy. However, the practical usefulness of the i-SCAN application during screening colonoscopy has not been assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of the i-SCAN application during screening colonoscopy.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomized trial that used a modified, back-to-back colonoscopy.

SETTING

Academic hospital.

PATIENTS

This study involved 389 asymptomatic, consecutive, average-risk patients who underwent screening colonoscopy.

INTERVENTION

The patients were randomized to the first withdrawal with either conventional high-definition white light (HDWL group; n = 119), i-SCAN contrast/surface enhancement (CE/SE) mode (i-SCAN1 group; n = 115), or i-SCAN CE/SE/tone enhancement-colorectal mode (i-SCAN2 group; n = 118). All patients underwent a second examination with HDWL as the criterion standard.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome measurement was the adenoma detection rate and adenoma miss rate. The secondary outcome measurement was the accuracy of the histologic prediction of neoplastic and nonneoplastic polyps.

RESULTS

The adenoma detection rates during the first withdrawal of HDWL, i-SCAN1, and i-SCAN2 were 31.9%, 36.5%, and 33.1%, respectively (P = .742), and the adenoma miss rates of each group were 22.9%, 19.3%, and 15.9%, respectively (P = .513). Based on the multivariate analysis, the application of i-SCAN was not associated with an improvement in adenoma detection and the prevention of missed polyps. However, the prediction of neoplastic and nonneoplastic colorectal lesions was more precise in the i-SCAN2 group compared with the HDWL group (accuracy 79.3% vs 75.5%, P = .029; sensitivity 86.5% vs 72.6%, P = .020; and specificity 91.4% vs 80.6%, P = .040).

LIMITATIONS

Single-center trial.

CONCLUSION

i-SCAN during the screening colonoscopy may fail to improve adenoma detection and the prevention of missed polyps, but i-SCAN appears to be effective for real-time histologic prediction of polyps compared with conventional HDWL colonoscopy. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01417611.).

Detectability of colon polyp using computed virtual chromoendoscopy with flexible spectral imaging color enhancement

The aim of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility of using computed virtual chromoendoscopy with the flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (FICE) for colon neoplasia screening. A modified back-to-back colonoscopy using FICE and white light in the right-sided colon was conducted prospectively for the consecutive patients attending for the postoperative (sigmoidectomy or anterior resection) follow-up colonoscopy. Histopathology of detected lesions was confirmed by evaluation of endoscopic resection or biopsy specimens. One-hundred and two patients were enrolled, and 100 patients (61 males and mean age 63 years) were finally analyzed. The total number of polyps detected by FICE and white light colonoscopy was 65 and 45, respectively. The miss rate for all polyps with FICE (24%) was significantly less than that with white light (46%) (P = 0.03). Colonoscopy using FICE could beneficially enhance the detection of neoplastic lesions in the right-sided colon compared to white light colonoscopy.

Evolving techniques in colonoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarizes recent clinical studies of colonoscopy technique and new technologies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Water immersion reduces pain and sedation doses in unsedated and lightly sedated colonoscopy. Cap-fitted colonoscopy makes insertion faster and improves detection of lesions behind folds, but the latter effect is operator-dependent. A single controlled trial showed improved detection with the Third Eye Retroscope, but the two arms of the study were not controlled for withdrawal time. Chromoendoscopy increases detection of diminutive adenomas, but adds time to the colonoscopy procedure. Electronic chromoendoscopy methods (narrow band imaging, Fujinon Intelligent ChromoEndoscopy, i-scan, and autofluorescence) have been either unsuccessful in improving detection or require more study. However, these methods and several other methods (chromoendoscopy with magnification, confocal laser microscopy, and endocytoscopy) allow accurate real time determination of polyp histology.

SUMMARY

Water immersion is a clear advance in unsedated colonoscopy. Cap-fitted colonoscopy is a promising method for both practical and effective visualization of the proximal sides of haustral folds. Electronic chromoendoscopy has been largely ineffective at improving polyp detection, but is effective (as are confocal laser microscopy and endocytoscopy) for diagnosis of polyp histology.

Endoscopic colorectal imaging and therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Colorectal cancer screening and prevention is a pivotal element in every gastroenterologist practice. Recent advances in imaging technology and treatment opened the field for endoscopic management of large flat colorectal polyps and early cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

High-definition white light colonoscopy allowed for better characterization of colon polyps, particularly flat lesions. Chromoendoscopy facilitated the identification of colon polyps as well as better endoscopic polyp characterization, with strong correlation with final pathological diagnosis, opening the field of 'virtual' biopsy. One particular technology, confocal endomicroscopy can magnify an image approximately 1000 times resembling optical microscopy with very good correlation with histology. Endoscopic mucosal resection has gained great acceptance to manage flat colorectal polyps with the two major complications being bleeding and perforation, both now under 5% in experienced hands. Endoscopic submucosal resection was developed to increase en-bloc resection (less residual disease) of a flat colorectal lesion but one has to accept a higher perforation rate around 10%.

SUMMARY

Current technology allows for better polyp identification and characterization, which can be managed endoscopically.