Impact of experience with a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rates and withdrawal times during colonoscopy: the Third Eye Retroscope study group

Efficacy of cecal retroflexion observed on adenoma missing of ascending colon during colonoscopy: A prospective, randomized, pilot trial

BACKGROUND

Although colonoscopic retroflexion has been proved effective in reducing missed adenomas, there is still a lack of comprehensive and in-depth research focused on the ascending colon. We aimed to conduct a randomized controlled trial and tandem colonoscopy to investigate whether cecal retroflexion observed during colonoscopy can reduce missed adenomas in the ascending colon.

METHODS

Men and women required to be between 45 and 80 years of age were screened for enrollment in the trial. Patients were randomly assigned according to a 1:1 ratio to either the trial group or control group. Patients in the trial group underwent 2 forward examination and a cecal retroflexion observed in the ascending colon, while patients in the control group underwent only 2 forward examinations in the ascending colon. The primary outcome was adenoma miss rate. The secondary outcomes contained adenoma detection rate, polyp miss rate, polyp detection rate, insertion time and withdrawal time. Differences between groups in the primary outcome and in the other categorical indicators were tested using chi-squared test and Fisher exact test. For the comparison of continuous outcomes, the Student t test was applied.

RESULTS

A total of 60 subjects were eligible for the study between April to June 2020, of which 55 were randomized and eligible for analysis (26 to the control group and 29 to the trial group). The characteristics of patients were no significant differences statistically between the trial group and the control group. Similarly, the characteristics of the colonoscopy procedures included cecal insertion distance, the length of cecum and ascending colon, insertion time, withdrawal time, quality of bowel preparation, numerical rating scale for pain, polyps detected, and adenomas detected, and there were no significant differences statistically between the 2 groups (P = .864, P = .754, P = .700, P = .974, P = .585, P = .835, P = .373, P = .489). The characteristics of the polyps were also no significant differences statistically between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

This pilot trial failed to show benefit of cecal retroflexion observed on adenoma missing of ascending colon during colonoscopy; however, further conclusions require a prospective study with a higher level of evidence. (NCT03355443).

Recent advances in devices and technologies that might prove revolutionary for colonoscopy procedures

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy and second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the world. Adenoma detection rate (ADR), a quality indicator for colonoscopy, has gained prominence as it is inversely related to CRC incidence and mortality. As such, recent efforts have focused on developing novel colonoscopy devices and technologies to improve ADR.

AREAS COVERED

The main objective of this paper is to provide an overview of advancements in the fields of colonoscopy mechanical attachments, artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy, and colonoscopy optical enhancements with respect to ADR. We accomplished this by performing a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases from inception to September 2023. This review is intended to be an introduction to colonoscopy devices and technologies.

EXPERT OPINION

Numerous mechanical attachments and optical enhancements have been developed that have the potential to improve ADR and AI has gone from being an inaccessible concept to a feasible means for improving ADR. While these advances are exciting and portend a change in what will be considered standard colonoscopy, they continue to require refinement. Future studies should focus on combining modalities to further improve ADR and exploring the use of these technologies in other facets of colonoscopy.

Changes in Adenoma Detection Rate From Full-Spectrum Endoscopy to Standard Forward-Viewing Endoscopy

GOALS

The aim was to investigate the adenoma detection rate (ADR) of endoscopists who have used full-spectrum endoscopy (Fuse) for 3 years and revert back to traditional forward-viewing endoscopes (R-TFV) at an ambulatory surgical center.

BACKGROUND

Traditional forward viewing (TFV) endoscopes have 1 camera and provide an angle of view of 140 to 170 degrees, whereas Fuse provides a 330 degrees view through the addition of 2 side cameras. It has previously been reported that Fuse increased the ADR by 5.4% when compared with previous rates using TFV. Fuse is no longer commercially available. The ADR of endoscopists who revert back to TFV is unknown.

STUDY

We conducted a retrospective analysis of data examining the ADR from average risk screening colonoscopies at a 5-room ambulatory surgical center where endoscopists transitioned from TFV to Fuse in April 2014 and then reverted back to TFV in 2016. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were ADR for advanced and right-sided adenomas.

RESULTS

A total of 6110 procedures were reviewed. The ADR was 23.70% for TFV, 29.02% for Fuse and 28.88% for R-TFV. The ADR for advanced adenomas was 3.8% for TFV, 6.0% for Fuse and 7.3% for R-TFV. The ADR for right-sided adenomas was 13.0% for TFV, 16.7% for Fuse and 16.0% for R-TFV. The results for all 3 categories showed a statistical difference between TFV and Fuse as well as between TFV and R-TFV. There were no statistical differences between the ADR of Fuse compared with R-TFV.

CONCLUSIONS

During R-TFV, endoscopists are able to maintain their increased ability to detect adenomas. This would suggest that there was a change in behavior in endoscopists using Fuse that was durable.

Detecting colon polyps in endoscopic images using artificial intelligence constructed with automated collection of annotated images from an endoscopy reporting system

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) has made considerable progress in image recognition, especially in the analysis of endoscopic images. The availability of large-scale annotated datasets has contributed to the recent progress in this field. Datasets of high-quality annotated endoscopic images are widely available, particularly in Japan. A system for collecting annotated data reported daily could aid in accumulating a significant number of high-quality annotated datasets.

AIM

We assessed the validity of using daily annotated endoscopic images in a constructed reporting system for a prototype AI model for polyp detection.

METHODS

We constructed an automated collection system for daily annotated datasets from an endoscopy reporting system. The key images were selected and annotated for each case only during daily practice, not to be performed retrospectively. We automatically extracted annotated endoscopic images of diminutive colon polyps that had been diagnosed (study period March-September 2018) using the keywords of diagnostic information, and additionally collect the normal colon images. The collected dataset was devised into training and validation to build and evaluate the AI system. The detection model was developed using a deep learning algorithm, RetinaNet.

RESULTS

The automated system collected endoscopic images (47,391) from colonoscopies (745), and extracted key colon polyp images (1356) with localized annotations. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of our AI model were 97.0%, 97.7%, and 97.3% (n = 300), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The automated system enabled the development of a high-performance colon polyp detector using images in endoscopy reporting system without the efforts of retrospective annotation works.

Detection of colorectal lesions during colonoscopy

Owing to its high mortality rate, the prevention of colorectal cancer is of particular importance. The resection of colorectal polyps is reported to drastically reduce colorectal cancer mortality, and examination by endoscopists who had a high adenoma detection rate was found to lower the risk of colorectal cancer, highlighting the importance of identifying lesions. Various devices, imaging techniques, and diagnostic tools aimed at reducing the rate of missed lesions have therefore been developed to improve detection. The distal attachments and devices for improving the endoscopic view angle are intended to help avoid missing blind spots such as folds and flexures in the colon, whereas the imaging techniques represented by image‐enhanced endoscopy contribute to improving lesion visibility. Recent advances in artificial intelligence‐supported detection systems are expected to supplement an endoscopist's eye through the instant diagnosis of the lesions displayed on the monitor. In this review, we provide an outline of each tool and assess its impact on the reduction in the incidence of missed colorectal polyps by summarizing previous clinical research and meta‐analyses. Although useful, the many devices, image‐enhanced endoscopy, and artificial intelligence tools exhibited various limitations. Integrating these tools can improve their shortcomings. Combining artificial intelligence‐based diagnoses with wide‐angle image‐enhanced endoscopy may be particularly useful. Thus, we hope that such tools will be available in the near future.

Will purposely seeking detect more colorectal polyps than routine performing during colonoscopy?

BACKGROUND & GOALS

We observed that the number of colorectal polyps found intraoperatively was often higher than that encountered preoperatively during elective colonoscopic polypectomy. To evaluate whether more polyps can be detected when they are purposely sought than when they are routinely examined during colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized into groups A and B. Before colonoscopy was performed, endoscopists were instructed to seek polyps for group A purposely but not for group B. Polypectomy was electively completed. In groups A and B, the cases of elective polypectomy were named groups AR and BR, including groups AR-1 and BR-1, during the first colonoscopy and groups AR-2 and BR-2 during the second colonoscopy for polypectomy, respectively. The following data were calculated: the number of polyps detected (NPD) and the polyp detection rate (PDR) in all cases and the number of polyps missed (NPM) and partial polyp miss rate (PPMR) in the cases of colorectal polyps.

RESULTS

A total of 419 cases were included in group A, 421 in group B, 43 in group AR, and 35 in group BR. No significant differences in PDR were found between groups A and B and in PPMR between groups AR-1 and BR-1 (P > .05), although PPMR in group AR-1 was higher than in group AR-2 (P < .05), similar results were found in PPMR between groups BR-1 and BR-2 (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Purposely seeking for colorectal polyps did not result in more polyps detected compared with routine colonoscopy.

The quality of colorectal polypectomy. Is it enough to have just a visual assessment of the site?

INTRODUCTION

Performing a colonoscopy allows the examination of the entire colon and the assessment of polyps.

PATIENTS, MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from January 2018 until February 2020 (two years), in which we enrolled a number of 210 patients performing colonoscopy in the Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, Romania. We performed 326 polypectomies.

RESULTS

We classified the polyps into diminutive (n=169), small (n=103) and large polyps (n=54). Regarding the polypectomy technique, our results indicated that 40 out of 48 (83.3%) polypectomies with the biopsy forceps were complete, as well as 27 out of 31 (87.1%) cold snare polypectomies and 12 out of 14 (85.7%) hot snare polypectomies. The differences were not statistically significant (p=0.116). Regarding the number of incomplete polypectomies, our data suggests that the high expertise endoscopist had two incomplete resections (5.1% of total), the medium expertise endoscopist 1 had also two incomplete resections (11.1% of total), the medium expertise endoscopist 2 had three incomplete resections (15% of total), the limited expertise endoscopist 1 had three incomplete resections (27.27% of total) and the limited expertise endoscopist 2 had four incomplete resections (30.76% of total). Analyzing the data, the differences were statistically significant (p=0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is able to suggest that high-definition white-light endoscopy (HD-WLE) macroscopic visualization of the polyp resection site is not enough to assess complete polyp resection and follow-up colonoscopy should be performed for cases with incomplete margins of resection.

The Use of Attachment Devices to Aid in Adenoma Detection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the intent of maximizing adenoma detection rate (ADR), different devices and colonoscopic innovations have been introduced over the past few years. There are a variety of attachment devices available for use in colonoscopy, all intended to improve ADR. In this review, we evaluate the evidence surrounding the available attachment devices and their impact on ADR.

RECENT FINDINGS

Endocuff, Endoring, Transparent cap, G-EYE balloon, and Third Eye Retroscope were all included in this review. Three of the devices, Endocuff, Endoring, and transparent hood or cap, have been shown to increase ADR without significantly altering the use of the colonoscope. Although balloon-assisted colonoscopy is not currently FDA-approved, it has the potential to increase ADR as well.

SUMMARY

Mechanical enhancement has been shown to complement the current forward-viewing colonoscope, and Endocuff appears to be the most beneficial attachment to improve ADR.

Advances in endoscopy for colorectal polyp detection and classification

While colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for colon cancer screening, recent advancements in endoscopes have allowed for improved visualization of the colonic mucosa and improved polyp detection rates. Newer technologies also allow for assessment of structural changes for polyp discrimination and determination of histologic type. Classification of polyps prevents the need for a histopathologic report, which requires the additional time and expertise of a pathologist and adds to the overall cost. This review considered advances in endoscopic technologies reported in PubMed over the past 12 years. Technologies that allow for increased visual field of colonic mucosa and may lead to improved colon polyp detection rates include cap-assisted colonoscopy, RetroView, extra-wide-angle view colonoscope, full-spectrum endoscopy, Third Eye Retroscope, NaviAid G-EYE balloon colonoscope, EndoRings, and Endocuff. Image-enhancing methods allow for pit pattern analysis of colorectal lesions, which enables the physician to classify colorectal polyps according to certain polyp characteristics. Image-enhancing methods include chromoendoscopy, autofluorescence, and virtual chromoendoscopy, including narrow band imaging, i-SCAN, flexible spectral imaging chromoendoscopy, and STORZ professional image enhancement systems. In addition, advancements have been made in in vivo microscopic evaluation of colonic epithelium, including confocal laser endomicroscopy, endocytoscopy, optical coherence tomography, spectroscopy, and autofluorescence spectroscopy. Colon capsule endoscopy also has a role in colon polyp detection and classification. The advancements in polyp detection and classification have great promise for earlier detection and removal of advanced adenomas before they advance to colorectal cancer.

Advanced endoscopy technologies to improve the detection and characterisation of colorrectal polyps

Colorectal cancer is a major health problem. An improvement to its survival has been demonstrated by performing colonoscopy screenings and removing its precursor lesions: polyps. However, colonoscopy is not infallible and multiple strategies have been proposed aimed at improving the quality thereof. This report describes the endoscopic systems available to improve the detection and characterization of polyps, the different classifications for histological prediction and the current indications of advanced endoscopic diagnostic techniques.

Linked color imaging for the detection of early gastrointestinal neoplasms

In routine upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, overlooking neoplastic lesions is inevitable even for well-trained endoscopists. Various methods have been reported to improve the detection of gastrointestinal neoplasms including chromoendoscopy, special endoscopes, and processor and image enhanced technologies. Equipment-based image enhanced endoscopy (e-IEE) using narrow band imaging (NBI) and blue laser imaging (BLI) is useful to characterize known lesions with magnification at a close-up view. However, they are not useful for the early detection of superficial, pale neoplasms, or both because of the weak image at a distant view in a wide lumen such as the stomach or colon. Linked color imaging (LCI) is a novel pre- and post-processing technology developed by Fujifilm Corporation that has sufficient brightness to illuminate a wide lumen. LCI delineates early gastric cancers as orange-red and intestinal metaplasia as purple. LCI improves the adenoma detection rate in the colon and decreases the polyp miss rate. LCI contributes to the detection of superficial lesions throughout the gastrointestinal tract by enhancing the color contrast between the neoplasm and the surrounding mucosa. LCI can distinguish them by their specific color allocation based mainly on the distribution of capillaries. The authors believe that moving forward, LCI should be used in routine upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Safety, Feasibility, and Efficacy of Pancolonic Retroflexed Viewing Using a Short-turn Radius Colonoscope

GOALS

The goal of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of routine segmental retroflexed withdrawal viewing (RV) of the colon with the RetroView colonoscope.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, single-center, 2-stage diagnostic trial. After cecal intubation, mucosal evaluation by forward viewing (FV) and RV was performed by segment (right, transverse, left, and sigmoid colon, and rectum). Lesions detected during FV were removed and/or marked before retroflexion. Safety and feasibility were measured through adverse event and technical success rates. All lesions detected and removed endoscopically were recorded.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-five patients underwent colonoscopy with the RetroView colonoscope. Retroflexion by segment was successful in the right, transverse, left, and sigmoid colon, and rectum in 98.9%, 100%, 100%, 82.6%, and 100% of cases, respectively. The mean total procedure time was 16.6 minutes. Ninety-four lesions were detected through retroflexion evaluation, for an increase in the lesions' detection rate of 30.7%. The per-adenoma miss rate of standard colonoscopy (FV) was 35.71%. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) for FV was 16%, whereas, when performing FV and RV, the ADR increased to 24.9%. Adverse events were recorded in 0.4% of cases. Therapeutic procedures were performed successfully through the retroflexed position in 81/225 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine retroflexion evaluation of the colonic mucosa by segment using the RetroView colonoscope is safe and feasible. Retroflexion evaluation increases the detection rate of colonic lesions behind folds, including the number of adenomas per colonoscopy and ADR, offering a complete screening colonoscopy. All therapeutic procedures are feasible through retroflexion.

Development of a real-time endoscopic image diagnosis support system using deep learning technology in colonoscopy

Gaps in colonoscopy skills among endoscopists, primarily due to experience, have been identified, and solutions are critically needed. Hence, the development of a real-time robust detection system for colorectal neoplasms is considered to significantly reduce the risk of missed lesions during colonoscopy. Here, we develop an artificial intelligence (AI) system that automatically detects early signs of colorectal cancer during colonoscopy; the AI system shows the sensitivity and specificity are 97.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 95.9%–98.4%) and 99.0% (95% CI = 98.6%–99.2%), respectively, and the area under the curve is 0.975 (95% CI = 0.964–0.986) in the validation set. Moreover, the sensitivities are 98.0% (95% CI = 96.6%–98.8%) in the polypoid subgroup and 93.7% (95% CI = 87.6%–96.9%) in the non-polypoid subgroup; To accelerate the detection, tensor metrics in the trained model was decomposed, and the system can predict cancerous regions 21.9 ms/image on average. These findings suggest that the system is sufficient to support endoscopists in the high detection against non-polypoid lesions, which are frequently missed by optical colonoscopy. This AI system can alert endoscopists in real-time to avoid missing abnormalities such as non-polypoid polyps during colonoscopy, improving the early detection of this disease.

Effect of video monitor size on polyp detection: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the most important quality metric for colonoscopy. Numerous factors are known to influence ADR. However, no data on the effect of monitor size on ADR exist. The aim of this study was to compare the ADR and polyp detection rate (PDR) achieved using 2 different-size video monitors (19-inch diagonal and 32-inch diagonal).

METHODS

In a single-center, prospective, randomized clinical trial, endoscopists were randomized on a daily basis to perform routine ambulatory colonoscopies with either a 32-inch diagonal or a 19-inch diagonal video monitor.

RESULTS

The study was conducted between October 2013 and April 2014 in an outpatient center of a tertiary referral hospital. Fifteen endoscopists performed 1795 outpatient colonoscopies (mean age, 55 years; 56% women; screening, 56%). There was no substantial difference in baseline patient characteristics between the 2 arms. The overall ADR (27.4% vs 27.9%; P = .80) and PDR (32.8% vs 34.4%; P = .50) were not significantly different between the 32-inch and 19-inch monitor group, respectively. The findings were not significantly altered when stratified by indication, cecal intubation, bowel preparation, operator experience, and time of endoscopy as well as in a multivariable model that included these variables as potential confounders (all P > .05). Overall, the ADR and PDR for each individual endoscopist did not appear to be influenced by monitor size.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this trial do not support the notion that larger video monitors improve ADR. Future efforts to increase ADR should focus on other aspects of colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01952418.).

The Role of Behind Folds Visualizing Techniques and Technologies in Improving Adenoma Detection Rate

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies in the Western world and is thought to develop from premalignant polyps. Over the past decade, several behind folds visualizing techniques (BFTs) have become available to improve polyp detection. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare BFTs with conventional colonoscopy (CC).

RECENT FINDINGS

In the past five years, 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 8384 patients comparing different BFTs with CC were published. The overall relative risks for adenoma detection rate, polyp detection rate, and adenoma miss rate comparing BFTs with CC were 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.10; P = 0.15), 1.03 (95% CI 0.98-1.09; P = 0.28), and 0.70 (95% CI 0.46-1.05; P = 0.08), respectively. Other quality metrics for colonoscopy were not significantly different between BFT-assisted colonoscopy and CC either. This meta-analysis of RCTs published in the past five years does not show a significant benefit of BFTs on any of the important quality metrics of colonoscopy. The lack of additional effect of BFTs might be due to improved awareness of colonoscopy quality metrics and colonoscopy skills among endoscopists combined with improvements of conventional colonoscope technology.

No Interval Cancers in Endoscopic Practice

Colonoscopy is long time the most preferred method for CRC screening along with diagnosis and treatment for a range of colon diseases. Based on its difficulty in visualizing precursor CRC lesions, mostly those located on the right colon, this method can be subject of improvement. The colonoscopy quality can be influenced by many factors such as colon preparation, retraction time, the colonoscopists medical training and knowledges as well as the performance of endoscopy equipment. The bad quality of colonoscopy will result in the emergence of interval cancers defined, based on the author, as cancers that appear at 3-5 years up to 10 years from the colonoscopy procedure. Interval cancers have predominantly incriminated both the colonoscopy quality and the clinician competences and less the tumor biology. Subsequently there were set quality indicators of colonoscopy in order to raise the quality of the exploration. Among the important indicators, proving their utility in studies, the ADR (adenoma detection rate) is most commonly used along with PDR (polyp detection rate) and APC (adenoma per colonoscopy). Following the purpose of obtaining a higher colonoscopy quality the medical units should keep in check all indicators. Furthermore, there should be an active involvement in an additional training of non-conforming medical personnel or even restrain of practice, given the medical legal actions that have interval cancers as a main cause.

Changes in Adenoma Detection Rate With Implementation of Full-spectrum Endoscopy: A Report of 3998 Screening Colonoscopies

GOALS

To investigate the effect of implementing full-spectrum endoscopy (Fuse) on adenoma detection rate (ADR) at an ambulatory surgical center (ASC).

BACKGROUND

Traditional forward viewing (TFV) endoscopes have 1 camera and provide an angle of view of 140 to 170 degrees, whereas Fuse provides a 330 degrees view through the addition of 2 side cameras. Although randomized studies have shown that Fuse decreases adenoma miss rates, its impact on ADR in a screening population is currently unknown.

STUDY

We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from average risk screening colonoscopies at a 5-room ASC. This ASC transitioned from TFV to Fuse in April 2014. The primary outcome was ADR defined as the percentage of patients who underwent screening colonoscopy and were found to have at least 1 adenomatous polyp.

RESULTS

A total of 1696 screening colonoscopies were performed with TFV and 2302 with Fuse. Overall ADR was 23.7% with TFV and 29.0% with Fuse (P<0.01), an absolute increase of 5.3%. ADR for the proximal colon increased from 13.0% with TFV to 16.7% with Fuse (3.8% increase, P<0.01). ADR for advanced adenomas improved from 3.8% with TFV to 6.0% with Fuse (2.2% increase; P<0.01). The mean number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy increased from 0.32 to 0.41 (P<0.01). In multivariate analysis, the adjusted odds ratio for detecting an adenoma with Fuse versus TFV was 1.30 (P<0.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.51).

CONCLUSIONS

ADR significantly increased after adopting Fuse endoscopes at an ASC. Further studies are warranted to further understand the effects of Fuse on ADR in real-world settings.

ADR evaluation of screening colonoscopies during 2016 - 2017 in a private health clinic in Peru

Background and study aims  High-quality colonoscopy is fundamental for preventing colorectal cancer (CRC). The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key colonoscopy quality measure. The aim of this study was to establish the screening colonoscopy ADR of a tertiary referral center in Peru, identify the relationship between the ADR and patient age, sex and the colonoscopist, and determine the endoscopic and histopathological characteristics of the lesions found. Patients and methods  A retrospective observational longitudinal study was undertaken between January 2016 and June 2017. Results  Eight colonoscopists performed screening colonoscopies on 620 patients scoring ≥ 6 points on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS); cecal intubation was complete in 595 patients (cecal intubation rate [CIR] 95.9 %). The overall ADR was 29.7 % (females 25.4 %, males 33.1 %, P  = 0.040, 95 %Cl). The ADR colonoscopist range was 25.0 % to 34.4 %. The highest ADR (41.2 %, P  = 0.013, 95 %Cl) was for patients aged 65 to 75 years. Adenoma colon locations were: left 49 %, transverse 21.6 % and right 29.4 %. Adenoma dysplasia grades: low 98 %, high 2 %. Sixty-three percent of the lesions were 5 mm to 10 mm. Resections performed: 78.5 % cold biopsy forceps (CBF), 3.4 % cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and 18.1 % endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Conclusions  The ADR established was in line with the joint American College of Gastroenterology (ACG)/American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) recommendations and related to patient age and gender but not to the colonoscopist. Colonoscopists should ensure rigorous application of the colonoscopy quality actions. ADR should be evaluated frequently.

Colonoscopic withdrawal time and adenoma detection in the right colon

Shorter colonoscopic withdrawal time (CWT) has been associated with lower adenoma detection rate (ADR), which can increase the risk of interval colorectal cancer (ICC) that commonly arises in the right colon (RC). Therefore, a better ADR in the RC could decrease the incidence of ICC. We analyzed the relationship between CWT and ADR in the RC and entire colon.We retrospectively reviewed the patients who had undergone screening colonoscopy at Chungnam National University Hospital between March 2015 and February 2016. We enrolled 5370 patients in whom colonoscopies were performed by 7 gastroenterologists. We categorized patients into 4 groups in the RC and 6 groups in the entire colon by CWT. Multivariable analysis was used for detection of adenoma in the RC and entire colon.In the RC, the odds ratio (OR) of CWT longer than 3 minutes was 3.70, compared to CWT of <2 minutes [3.06-4.85, 95% confidence interval (CI), P < .001]. In the entire colon, the OR of CWT between 9 to 10 minutes and longer than 10 minutes was 3.34 [2.61-4.27, 95% CI, P < .001] and 3.49 [2.80-4.33, 95% CI, P < .001] compared to CWT of <6 minutes.Based on our result, we suggest that the optimum CWT in the RC should exceed 3 minutes, and considering the "ceiling effect," the optimum CWT in the entire colon should exceed 9 minutes.

G-EYE advanced colonoscopy for improved polyp detection rates - a randomized tandem pilot study with different endoscopists

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

 The most commonly missed polyps in colonoscopy are those located behind haustral folds. The G-EYE system is a standard colonoscope consisting of re-processable balloon at its distal tip. The G-EYE balloon improves the detection of polyps by straightening the haustral folds. In our back-to-back tandem study, we aimed to determine whether and to what extent the G-EYE system could reduce adenoma miss rates in screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

 Patients referred to colonoscopy were randomized into 2 groups. Group A underwent a standard colonoscopy (SC) followed by balloon colonoscopy (BC), and Group B underwent BC followed by SC. In this randomized tandem study, the investigator's level of training and the endoscopists themselves were changed after each withdrawal. Each endoscopist was blinded to the results of the first withdrawal.

RESULTS

 Fifty-eight patients were enrolled and randomized into 2 groups with similar baseline characteristics. Nine patients were excluded from the study. Twenty-five patients underwent SC followed by BC while 24 underwent BC followed by SC. The adenoma miss rate for SC was 41 %, with an additional detection rate of 69 % for BC (ratio 1.69). The overall miss rate for polyps was 60 % for SC, with an additional detection rate of 150 % for BC (ratio 2.5). Experienced investigators who used BC were able to identify an additional 7 polyps while inexperienced investigators.

CONCLUSIONS

 Although our results could not clearly confirm that BC improves adenoma detection, the investigator's experience appears to be a major determinant of the adenoma detection rate.

Position change during colonoscopy improves caecal intubation rate, mucosal visibility, and adenoma detection in patients with suboptimal caecal preparation

Introduction

Most colonoscopies are completed in the left lateral (LL) position but in cases of suboptimal caecal preparation, changing the patient's position to supine (S) and, if needed, to right lateral (RL) improves caecal intubation rate, mucosal visibility, and adenoma detection.

Aim

To determine if position change during colonoscopy facilitates optimal visualisation of the caecum.

Material and methods

A total of 359 patients were grouped into three categories based on the initial caecal intubation position. After caecal intubation, caecal visibility was scored on a four-point scale depending on the number of imaginary quadrants of the caecum completely visualized - Arya Caecal Prep Score. A score of 1 or 2 was unsatisfactory, while 3 or 4 was considered satisfactory. In patients with unsatisfactory score, position was changed from LL to S and then RL and visibility was scored again.

Results

The initial caecal intubation in the LL position was achieved in 66.8% of patients, S in 28.5%, and RL in 4.8% of patients. 84.5% (300/355) of patients had an acceptable visualisation score at the initial caecal intubation position. Of the 55 patients with unsatisfactory caecum visualisation scores in the initial intubation position, 30 (8.5%) had satisfactory scores after the first position change (95% CI: 5.77-11.84). Twenty-five (7.04%) subjects required two position changes (95% CI: 4.61-10.22%). An additional 9.3% (11/118) of adenomas were detected in caecum and ascending colon following position change.

Conclusions

Changing patient position improves caecal intubation rate, mucosal visibility, and adenoma detection.

Cap cuff-assisted colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy for adenoma detection: a randomized back-to-back study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EndoCuff is a disposable device applied to standard colonoscopes to improve mucosal visualization. Randomized parallel trials have shown that EndoCuff increases the adenoma detection rate (ADR). The primary aim of this study was to compare the ADR between EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopies (EAC) and standard colonoscopies within a randomized back-to-back trial.

METHODS

This was a single-center randomized crossover study (NCT02374515) involving adult patients undergoing screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy. Participants received back-to-back standard colonoscopies and EACs in a random order, performed by the same endoscopist. All polyps were excised, but only those proven at histology to be adenomas were considered for analysis.

RESULTS

From February 2015 to March 2016, a total of 288 patients were enrolled, and 274 were included in the per-protocol analysis. Compared with standard colonoscopies, EACs increased the ADR (29.6% vs 26.3%; P < .01) and the number of diagnosed adenomas (176 vs 129; P < .01), particularly in the left (73 vs 46; P < .01) and right sides of the colon (83 vs 63; P < .01). EAC increased the detection of adenomas <5 mm (129 vs 84; P < .01), but no difference was found with regard to larger lesions. In 7.3% of patients, findings of EndoCuff shortened the surveillance interval determined by standard colonoscopy findings. EndoCuff caused 7 mucosal erosions (2.5% of patients), requiring a mucosal adrenaline injection in 1 case.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of EndoCuff increases the number of identified adenomas, primarily small adenomas in the left and right sides of the colon. This increases the ADR and allows a better definition of the surveillance program. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02374515.).

Impact of Full Spectrum Endoscopy® (Fuse®, EndoChoice®) on adenoma detection: a prospective French pilot study

Background

Currently, colonoscopy and polypectomy are the gold standard methods for the prevention of incident cases of colorectal cancer. The use of a new colonoscope (Fuse^®, EndoChoice^®) with a larger view of up to 330° appears to improve the adenoma detection rate (ADR). We performed a prospective observational study concerning this scope. The primary endpoint was potentially omitted adenomas (POA), i.e. adenomas seen on the side screens that will not appear on the central display during colonoscopy withdrawal without oriented movements. Secondary endpoints included our ADR, Fuse^® impact on ADR, time to cecal intubation and withdrawal time.

Methods

We performed a single-center prospective study in one French center. We enrolled patients over 18 years of age between January 2015 and March 2016.

Results

We included 141 patients; 3 were excluded because their colonoscopies were incomplete. Our study included 78 men and 60 women (sex ratio 1.3). The mean age was 60.4 years. A total of 130 polyps were resected. In all, 88/130 were adenomas (68%) and 34/88 adenomas (39%) were POA. The mean time to cecum was 10 min, and the mean withdrawal time was 12 min. ADR was 35% for men and 31% for women. The estimated ADR without POA was 29% for men and 19% for women.

Conclusions

The Fuse^® system appears to be safe and efficient. POA represented 39% of all adenomas. The impact of the panoramic view on the ADR was considered substantial. The main limitations are the lack of randomization and the absence of a control group.

Detectability of colorectal neoplastic lesions using a novel endoscopic system with blue laser imaging: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Most studies have not reported an improvement in the detection of adenomas with the use of image-enhanced colonoscopy methods, possibly because of the darkness of the images. To overcome this limitation, a new-generation endoscopic system has been developed. This system has 2 blue-laser imaging (BLI) observation modes. The BLI observation was set to BLI-bright mode to detect lesions. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of BLI in detecting lesions.

METHODS

This study was designed as a randomized controlled trial with participants from 8 institutions. We enrolled patients aged ≥40 years. The participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups: observation by using white-light imaging (WLI) with a conventional xenon light source (WLI group) or observation by using BLI-bright mode with a laser light source (BLI group). All of the detected lesions were resected or had a biopsy taken for histopathologic analysis. The primary outcome was the mean number of adenomas per patient (MAP) that were detected per procedure.

RESULTS

The WLI and BLI groups consisted of 474 and 489 patients, respectively. The MAP was significantly higher in the BLI group than in the WLI group (mean ± standard deviation [SD] WLI 1.01 ± 1.36, BLI 1.27 ± 1.73; P = .008). Adenoma detection rate in the BLI group was not significantly higher than in the WLI group. Observation times differed significantly, with BLI (9.48 minutes) being longer than WLI (8.42; P < .001). The mean (± SD) number of polyps per patient was significantly higher in the BLI group compared with the WLI group (WLI 1.43 ± 1.64, BLI 1.84 ± 2.09; P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A newly developed system that uses BLI improves the detection of adenomatous lesions compared with WLI. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN 000014555.).

Technological advances for improving adenoma detection rates: The changing face of colonoscopy

Worldwide, colorectal cancer is the third commonest cancer. Over 90% follow an adenoma-to-cancer sequence over many years. Colonoscopy is the gold standard method for cancer screening and early adenoma detection. However, considerable variation exists between endoscopists' detection rates. This review considers the effects of different endoscopic techniques on adenoma detection. Two areas of technological interest were considered: (1) optical technologies and (2) mechanical technologies. Optical solutions, including FICE, NBI, i-SCAN and high definition colonoscopy showed mixed results. In contrast, mechanical advances, such as cap-assisted colonoscopy, FUSE, EndoCuff and G-EYE™, showed promise, with reported detections rates of up to 69%. However, before definitive recommendations can be made for their incorporation into daily practice, further studies and comparison trials are required.

New endoscopes and add-on devices to improve colonoscopy performance

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for colorectal cancer prevention; however, it is still an imperfect modality. Precancerous lesions can be lost during screening examinations, thus increasing the risk of interval cancer. A variety of factors either patient-, or endoscopist dependent or even the procedure itself may contribute to loss of lesions. Sophisticated modalities including advanced technology endoscopes and add-on devices have been developed in an effort to eliminate colonoscopy's drawbacks and maximize its ability to detect potentially culprit polyps. Novel colonoscopes aim to widen the field of view. They incorporate more than one cameras enabling simultaneous image transmission. In that way the field of view can expand up to 330°. On the other hand a plethora of add-on devices attachable on the standard colonoscope promise to detect lesions in the proximal aspect of colonic folds either by offering a retrograde view of the lumen or by straightening the haustral folds during withdrawal. In this minireview we discuss how these recent advances affect colonoscopy performance by improving its quality indicators (cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate) and other metrics (polyp detection rate, adenomas per colonoscopy, polyp/adenoma miss rate) associated with examination's outcomes.

[New Colonoscopy Devices to Improve Colon Neoplasm Detection]

Early detection and removal of adenomatous polyps can prevent the development of colorectal cancer. However, it is fairly common-up to 20%-for polyps to be undetected in a colonoscopy due to poor visualization of the proximal aspect of colonic folds and anatomical flexures. To overcome these limitations, many new endoscopes and accessories have been developed. A wide-angle colonoscopy did not improve the detection of adenoma compared with the standard colonoscopy. An extra-wide angle and Retroview colonoscopies showed a significantly lower miss rate of polyps in the colon model. However, clinical trials are mandatory in the future. The recently introduced full spectrum endoscopy system showed a significantly higher adenoma detection rate than the standard forward-viewing colonoscopy. In accessories, The cap-assisted colonoscopy showed only a marginal or no benefit on the detection of polyps and adenomas. In contrast, a colonoscopy with Endocuff, EndoRings, and G-eye have showed significantly lower adenoma miss rates. The Third Eye, which provides additional retrograde viewing, has revealed a significant improvement in the detection of adenoma and polyp. However, the Third Eye Retroscope was limited by its deployment through the working channel of the scope. Recently, the Third Eye Panoramic cap, which was designed to overcome the limitation of the Third Eye Retroscope, was introduced. In the future, this would be needed to evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency and safety for these new colonoscopies and accessories.

Advances in image enhancement in colonoscopy for detection of adenomas

High-quality colonoscopy is mandatory to prevent adenoma recurrence and colorectal cancer. In the past few years, technical advances have been developed with the purpose of improving adenoma detection rate (ADR), one of the most important validated colonoscopy quality benchmarks. Several techniques or devices are used to optimize visualization: observation techniques; add-on devices; auxiliary imaging devices; colonoscopes with increased field of view; and colonoscopes with an integrated inflatable reusable balloon. Image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) facilitates the detection and characterization of polyps and especially nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasms. Indigo carmine is the most frequently used dye in colonoscopy as it deposits in depressed areas, improving detection of flat and depressed lesions. Virtual chromoendoscopy has emerged as an effective contrast enhancement technology without the limitation of preparing dyes and applying them through the colonoscope working channel. Narrow-band imaging (NBI) enhances the capillary pattern and surface of the mucosa using optical filters, and second-generation NBI provides a twofold brighter image than the previous system, yielding promising ADR results. Moreover, a second-generation blue laser imaging system, LASEREO, has been reported to improve not only polyp detection rate but also ADR, becoming a promising IEE modality. Herein, we describe technical advances in colonoscopy imaging and their effect on ADR.

Endoscopic Improvement of the Adenoma Detection Rate during Colonoscopy - Where Do We Stand in 2015?

BACKGROUND

The presence of colorectal adenomas is considered a major risk factor for colorectal cancer development. The implementation of screening colonoscopy programs in the Western world has led to a substantial reduction of colorectal cancer death. Many efforts have been made to reduce the adenoma miss rates by the application of new endoscopic devices and techniques for better adenoma visualization.

SUMMARY

This special review gives the readership an overview of current endoscopic innovations that can aid in the increase of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy. These innovations include the use of devices like EndoCuff® and EndoRings® as well as new technical equipment like third-eye endoscope® and full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE®).

KEY MESSAGE

Technical improvements and newly developed accessories are able to improve the ADR. However, additional costs and a willingness to invest into potentially expensive equipment might be necessary. Investigator-dependent skills remain the backbone in the ADR detection.

[Additional polyp detection rate using colonoscopic retroflexion in right colon]

BACKGROUND/AIMS

There have been several studies showing that retroflexion (RF) in the right colon (RC) could reduce the polyp miss rate of proximal colon during colonoscopy. This study was conducted to evaluate the additional benefit of RF technique in the RC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent colonoscopy from May 2008 to April 2011 were enrolled in the study. Data were obtained by retrospectively reviewing the medical records. RF was attempted in every patients undergoing colonoscopy since May 2008 except in cases of small RC vault, co-morbidity, severe diverticulosis, failed RF despite two trials, complaints of severe abdominal pain, or time burden. At first, RC was examined under direct vision. It was then examined by RF to detect missed polyps during the initial observation. Finally, the RC was re-examined with direct view.

RESULTS

The cumulative RF success rate in the RC was 78.84% (1,805 of 2,319). The RF success rate increased with the number of cases (50% at 160 cases, 70% at 400 cases, and reached near 90% over 1,000 cases). Few polyps (4.88%) were detected only with RF and the additional adenoma detection rate was 3.32%. The additional polyp/adenoma detection rates were higher in the old age group (p<0.01). There were no RF associated perforation or severe complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Using RF examination, additional 4.88% of polyps could be detected in the RC. This technique could be a useful and safe method to detect hidden polyp during colonoscopy.

Can Technology Improve the Quality of Colonoscopy?

In order for screening colonoscopy to be an effective tool in reducing colon cancer incidence, exams must be performed in a high-quality manner. Quality metrics have been presented by gastroenterology societies and now include higher adenoma detection rate targets than in the past. In many cases, the quality of colonoscopy can often be improved with simple low-cost interventions such as improved procedure technique, implementing split-dose bowel prep, and monitoring individuals' performances. Emerging technology has expanded our field of view and image quality during colonoscopy. We will critically review several technological advances in the context of quality metrics and discuss if technology can really improve the quality of colonoscopy.

Use of wide-screen, high-definition monitors for improving adenoma detection: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Colonoscopy is sensitive at detecting large polyps; however, a significant polyp miss rate is still recognized. Indicators such as the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and, more recently, the adenoma per colonoscopy rate (APC) are increasingly used to ensure quality in colonoscopy. We carried out a prospective, randomized, controlled study evaluating improvement in adenoma detection between wide-screen, high-definition (WSHD) monitors compared to standard monitors (SD).

METHODS

Patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy were randomized to a WSHD room or SD. Polyp size, location, shape, and histology were recorded. Right-sided polyps were considered to be those proximal to the splenic flexure.

RESULTS

A total of 152 patients were enrolled in the study, with 78 (51.3%) and 74 (48.7%) enrolled in the WSHD and SD groups, respectively. A 10% absolute difference in favor of the WSHD group was noted for the ADR (41% vs 31% patients); however, the difference was statistically not significant. In the WSHD and SD groups, APC of 0.9 ± 1.4 versus 0.7 ± 1.4 (P = 0.49) were noted, respectively. For polyps <5 mm, an ADR of 0.3 ± 0.4 versus 0.2 ± 0.4 (P = 0.34) and APC of 0.5 ± 1.1 versus 0.2 ± 0.5 (P = 0.06) were seen in the WSHD and SD groups.

CONCLUSION

This study shows a trend toward improvement in ADR, with an increase in APC for small adenomas that approaches statistical significance. WSHD monitors are a one-time, low-cost intervention for improving the quality of colonoscopy with potentially favorable outcomes.

Feasibility of full-spectrum endoscopy: Korea’s first full-spectrum endoscopy colonoscopic trial

AIM: To evaluate the full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) colonoscopy system as the first report on the utility thereof in a Korean population.

METHODS: We explored the efficacy of the FUSE colonoscopy in a retrospective, single-center feasibility study performed between February 1 and July 20, 2015. A total of 262 subjects (age range: 22-80) underwent the FUSE colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, polyp surveillance, or diagnostic evaluation. The cecal intubation success rate, the polyp detection rate (PDR), the adenoma detection rate (ADR), and the diverticulum detection rate (DDR), were calculated. Also, the success rates of therapeutic interventions were evaluated with biopsy confirmation.

RESULTS: All patients completed the study and the success rates of cecal and terminal ileal intubation were 100% with the FUSE colonoscope; we found 313 polyps in 142 patients and 173 adenomas in 95. The overall PDR, ADR and DDR were 54.2%, 36.3%, and 25.2%, respectively, and were higher in males, and increased with age. The endoscopists and nurses involved considered that the full-spectrum colonoscope improved navigation and orientation within the colon. No colonoscopy was aborted because of colonoscope malfunction.

CONCLUSION: The FUSE colonoscopy yielded a higher PDR, ADR, DDR than did traditional colonoscopy, without therapeutic failure or complications, showing feasible, effective, and safe in this first Korean trial.

Usefulness of oil lubrication during colonoscopy: A comparative study with the conventional technique

BACKGROUND

The different forms of lubrication are among the most simple, accessible, and economic techniques that have been implemented for improving the diagnostic performance of colonoscopy.

AIM

To determine whether the use of oil improved the number of complete colonoscopies, facilitated the procedure, reduced pain, or improved the study's diagnostic performance, compared with the conventional lubrication technique.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and seventy-five patients referred for colonoscopy were alternately allocated to receive treatment with the standard lubrication method with chlorhexidine gel (group 1) or lubrication with corn oil administered through the working channel (group II). The number of complete colonoscopies, the length of time needed to reach the cecum, the degree of difficulty estimated by the endoscopist and the assistant, the level of pain at the end of the study estimated by the patient, and the endoscopic findings were all determined.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients made up group I and 87 made up group II. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in relation to general characteristics, the number of complete colonoscopies (93 vs. 97%, respectively), the time needed to reach the cecum (8:00 vs. 8:41min, respectively), the level of pain at the end of the study, or the detection of polyps. The degree of difficulty was slightly lower in group II, but with no statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Lubrication with oil during colonoscopy did not improve the number of complete colonoscopies, did not facilitate the study, nor did it reduce pain or increase the diagnostic performance of the study, when compared with the conventional technique.

The diminutive colon polyp: biopsy, snare, leave alone?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Diminutive polyps, measuring between 1 and 5 mm, represent the vast majority of colorectal polyps encountered during screening colonoscopy. Although the chance of harboring advanced adenoma or neoplastic cells is low, ensuring a complete polyp resection with clear margins is crucial to reduce the risk of interval colorectal cancer. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the different methods applied for polypectomy of diminutive polyps and clarify whether a diminutive polyp should be retrieved or left in place.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cold biopsy polypectomy is indicated for resection of polyps measuring 1-3 mm and removal of 4-5 mm polyps should be ensured by cold snare polypectomy. Over the last decade, hot biopsy polypectomy has been gradually abandoned because of an increased risk of diathermic injury. The resect and discard strategy and the diagnose and disregard strategy should be performed only by expert endoscopists, who should use validated scales and document the polyp features by storing several endoscopic images.

SUMMARY

Nowadays, complete resection of diminutive polyps, following the most appropriate technique, is recommended in clinical practice. The resect and discard strategy and the diagnose and disregard strategy should be reserved to expert endoscopists.

How to improve colon cancer screening rates

Colorectal carcinoma is a common cause of death throughout the world and may be prevented by routine control, which can detect precancerous neoplasms and early cancers before they undergo malignant transformation or metastasis. Three strategies may improve colon cancer screening rates: convince the population about the importance of undergoing a screening test; achieve higher efficacy in standard screening tests and make them more available to the community and develop new more sensitive and efficacious screening methods and make them available as routine tests. In this light, the present study seeks to review these three means through which to increase colon cancer screening rates.

Interval Colorectal Cancer After Colonoscopy: Exploring Explanations and Solutions

There is good evidence that colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been successful at reducing both CRC incidence and death. Colonoscopy, utilized as either a primary screening tool or a follow-up exam when other screening tests are positive, has significantly contributed to these encouraging trends. However, it is well recognized that colonoscopy is not perfectly sensitive for the detection of neoplasia and that CRC can be diagnosed within a short interval following a colonoscopy that did not detect one. The literature surrounding these cases has rapidly expanded over the last decade. Specifically, studies aimed at understanding the frequency of these events and the likely explanations for their occurrence have been performed. This review will highlight current knowledge around the epidemiology of interval post colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC). The common explanations for these cancers including missed lesions, new lesions, and incompletely resected lesions will be reviewed and their contribution to interval PCCRC estimated. Finally, the relationship of these putative explanations to potential opportunities to prevent interval PCCRC will be explored. Current approaches to prevention largely center on consistent adherence to quality colonoscopy standards. Future approaches include advances in technology to better visualize the colon and adequately resect detected neoplasia. Finally, improvement in training as well as development of a culture of continuous quality improvement will be essential to maximize the benefits of colonoscopy in daily clinical practice.

Colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer had a low incidence several decades ago. However, it has become a predominant cancer and now accounts for approximately 10% of cancer-related mortality in western countries. The 'rise' of colorectal cancer in developed countries can be attributed to the increasingly ageing population, unfavourable modern dietary habits and an increase in risk factors, such as smoking, low physical exercise and obesity. New treatments for primary and metastatic colorectal cancer have emerged, providing additional options for patients; these treatments include laparoscopic surgery for primary disease, more-aggressive resection of metastatic disease (such as liver and pulmonary metastases), radiotherapy for rectal cancer, and neoadjuvant and palliative chemotherapies. However, these new treatment options have had limited impact on cure rates and long-term survival. For these reasons, and the recognition that colorectal cancer is long preceded by a polypoid precursor, screening programmes have gained momentum. This Primer provides an overview of the current state of the art of knowledge on the epidemiology and mechanisms of colorectal cancer, as well as on diagnosis and treatment.

Value of screening endoscopy in evaluation of esophageal, gastric and colon cancers

Esophageal, gastric, and colorectal cancers are deadly diseases that continue to plague our world today. The value of screening endoscopy in evaluating these types of cancers is a critical area of discussion due to a potential reduction in morbidity and mortality. This article describes how to identify a good screening test and explains what are important criteria in the field of screening endoscopy. Furthermore, the current status and progress of screening endoscopy for esophageal, gastric, and colorectal cancer will be evaluated and discussed. Mass screening programs have not been implemented for esophageal and gastric carcinomas in those with average or low risk populations. However, studies of high-risk populations have found value and a cost-benefit in conducting screening endoscopy. Colorectal cancer, on the other hand, has had mass screening programs in place for many years due to the clear evidence of improved outcomes. As the role of endoscopy as a screening tool has continued to develop, newer technology and techniques have emerged to improve its utility. Many new image enhancement techniques and computer processing programs have shown promise and may have a significant role in the future of endoscopic screening. These developments are paving the way for improving the diagnostic and therapeutic capability of endoscopy in the field of gastroenterology.

New technologies and techniques to improve adenoma detection in colonoscopy

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key component of colonoscopy quality assessment, with a direct link between itself and future mortality from colorectal cancer. There are a number of potential factors, both modifiable and non-modifiable that can impact upon ADR. As methods, understanding and technologies advance, so should our ability to improve ADRs, and thus, reduce colorectal cancer mortality. This article will review new technologies and techniques that improve ADR, both in terms of the endoscopes themselves and adjuncts to current systems. In particular it focuses on effective techniques and behaviours, developments in image enhancement, advancement in endoscope design and developments in accessories that may improve ADR. It also highlights the key role that continued medical education plays in improving the quality of colonoscopy and thus ADR. The review aims to present a balanced summary of the evidence currently available and does not propose to serve as a guideline.

Intraprocedural bowel cleansing with the JetPrep cleansing system improves adenoma detection

AIM: To investigate the impact of JetPrep cleansing on adenoma detection rates.

METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, crossover trial, patients were blindly randomized to an intervention arm or a control arm. In accordance with the risk profile for the development of colorectal carcinoma, the study participants were divided into high-risk and low-risk groups. Individuals with just one criterion (age > 70 years, adenoma in medical history, and first-degree relative with colorectal cancer) were regarded as high-risk patients. Bowel preparation was performed in a standardized manner one day before the procedure. Participants in the intervention arm underwent an initial colonoscopy with standard bowel cleansing using a 250-mL syringe followed by a second colonoscopy that included irrigation by the use of the JetPrep cleansing system. The reverse sequence was used in the control arm. The study participants were divided into a high-risk group and a low-risk group according to their respective risk profiles for the development of colorectal carcinoma.

RESULTS: A total of 64 patients (34 men and 30 women) were included in the study; 22 were included in the high-risk group. After randomization, 30 patients were assigned to the control group (group A) and 34 to the intervention group (group B). The average Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score was 5.15 ± 2.04. The withdrawal time needed for the first step was significantly longer in group A using the JetPrep system (9.41 ± 3.34 min) compared to group B (7.5 ± 1.92 min). A total of 163 polyps were discovered in 64 study participants who underwent both investigation steps. In group A, 49.4% of the polyps were detected during the step of standard bowel cleansing while the miss rate constituted 50.7%. Group B underwent cleansing with the JetPrep system during the first examination step, and as many as 73.9% of polyps were identified during this step. Thus, the miss rate in group B was a mere 26.1% (P < 0.001). When considering only the right side of the colon, the miss rate in group A during the first examination was 60.6%, in contrast to a miss rate of 26.4% in group B (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: JetPrep is recommended for use during colonoscopy because a better prepared bowel enables a better adenoma detection, particularly in the proximal colon.

Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy increases polyp detection rate: a simulated randomized study involving an anatomic colorectal model and 32 international endoscopists

BACKGROUND

The undetected colonic lesions behind the folds and flexures are a major factor contributing to the adenoma miss rate.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of Endocuff, a special attachment was fixed at the distal tip of a colonoscope, for the polyp detection. This soft accessory is composed of a plastic cap surrounded by flexible finger-like projections on the lateral sides of the cap that make holding of the folds during scope withdrawal easier.

DESIGN

This was a simulated pilot study with one anatomic colorectal model, containing 13 polyps positioned in obvious locations and behind the folds. Thirty-two endoscopists (16 Japanese and 16 foreign visitors) with different levels of experience performed examinations on the model in a randomized order by using Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and standard colonoscope (SC).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

To assess the detection rate of polyps and the feasibility of Endocuff insertion.

RESULTS

EAC detected significantly more polyps than SC with 9.9 versus 7.5 mean lesions (p = 0.03), respectively, comparing the 16 first colonoscopies in each group. Endocuff was useful independent of the level of experience of the participants. After crossover, EAC in second position allowed an additional detection of 1.8 polyps compared with SC (p = 0.001). After adjustment on experience, time of detection, and order of colonoscopy, EAC over-detected 1.2 polyps (p = 0.0037). The insertion time (p = 0.99) was identical. There was no difference in the mean time of polyp detection between EAC and SC groups (p = 0.520).

LIMITATIONS

This was not a clinical study. The stiffness of the folds in the colonic model was higher than in the human large bowel.

CONCLUSION

EAC was associated with a higher polyp detection rate. Even in such relatively stiff anatomic model, it was easier to spread out the colonic mucosa between the folds using this cap. This study provides an additional argument for the routine application of this easy-to-use accessory to improve polyp detection.

Advanced technology for the improvement of adenoma and polyp detection during colonoscopy

Early detection and removal of adenomatous polyps reduces colorectal cancer death. However, many studies have reported that up to 20% of adenomas can be missed during colonoscopy. To improve visualization and reduce the blind spot of the colonic mucosa for an increase in the adenoma detection rate, many endoscopic techniques and technologies have been developed. The benefit of the high-definition endoscope for improving adenoma and polyp detection is marginal. Wide-angle colonoscope has failed to improve adenoma detection compared to standard colonoscopy. Although the cap-assisted colonoscope can reduce cecal intubation times, it does not seem to improve adenoma and polyp detection. The diagnostic accuracy of the colon capsule endoscope is low compared to the conventional colonoscope. Third Eye(®) retroscope(®) , which provides additional retrograde viewing, has revealed significant improvement in adenoma and polyp detection compared to standard colonoscopy. However, this device increases procedural times. Recently developed full-spectrum endoscopy colonoscope and extra-wide-angle-view colonoscope have demonstrated a significantly lower miss rate of polyps. However, clinical trials are mandatory to determine the efficacy of these novel technologies for cancer screening. In addition, education and training for these novel techniques and technologies should seriously be considered to improve adenoma and polyp detection.

Techniques and technologies to maximize mucosal exposure

Performing high-quality colonoscopy is one of the important goals of gastroenterology practices and requires achieving a high level of bowel cleansing, performing good and safe polypectomy, and detecting all polyps present in the colon. This article summarizes currently available techniques and technologies to maximize mucosal visualization. Several maneuvers can be applied during insertion and withdrawal of the colonoscope to optimize mucosal visualization and decrease the number of missed polyps. Newly developed technologies support the endoscopist in the detection of polyps. Each technique is reviewed, with emphasis on the impact on colorectal polyp detection.

The endoscopy evolution: 'the superscope era'

Developments to the design of the flexible endoscope are transforming the field of gastroenterology. There is a drive to improve colonic adenoma detection rates leading to advancements in the design of the colonoscope. Novel endoscopes now allow increased visualisation of colonic mucosa, including behind colonic folds, and aim to reduce pain associated with the procedure. In addition, a shift in surgical paradigm towards minimally invasive endoluminal surgery has meant innovations in flexible platforms are being sought. There are a number of limitations of the basic endoscope. These include a lack of stability and triangulation of instruments. Modifications to the flexible endoscope design form the basis of a number of newly developed and research platforms, some of which are discussed in this review.