Lower adenoma miss rate with FUSE vs. conventional colonoscopy with proximal retroflexion: a randomized back-to-back trial

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.

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.

Second exam of right colon improves adenoma detection rate: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and study aims  A second examination of the right colon, either as a second forward view (SFV) or as retroflexion (RF) in the cecum, can increase adenoma detection rate (ADR) in the right colon. In this meta-analysis, we have evaluated the role of a second examination of the right colon in improving ADR. Methods  We reviewed several databases to identify randomized controlled trials that compared right colon SFV with no SFV, and RCTs that compared SFV with RF in the right colon, and reported data on ADR. Our outcomes of interest were ADR and polyp detection rate (PDR) with SFV vs no SFV, right colon and total withdrawal times, and additional ADR and PDR with SFV vs RF. For categorical variables, we calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs); for continuous variables, we calculated standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95 % CI. Data were analyzed using random effects model. Results  We included six studies with 3901 patients. Comparing SFV with no SFV, right colon ADR and PDR were significantly higher in the SFV group: ADR (RR [95 % CI] 1.39 [1.22,1.58]) and PDR (RR [95 % CI] 1.47 [1.30, 1.65]). We found no significant difference in right colon withdrawal time (SMD [95 % CI] 1.54 [-0.20,3.28]) or total withdrawal time (SMD (95 % CI) 0.37 [-0.39,1.13]) with and without SFV. We found no significant difference in additional ADR between SFV and RF. Conclusions  SFV of the right colon significantly increases right-sided and overall ADR.

Designs of colonoscopic adenoma detection trials: more positive results with tandem than with parallel studies - an analysis of studies on imaging techniques and mechanical devices

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) has been shown to correlate with interval cancers after screening colonoscopy and is commonly used as surrogate parameter for its outcome quality. ADR improvements by various techniques have been studied in randomised trials using either parallel or tandem methodololgy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was done on randomised trials (full papers, English language) on tandem or parallel studies using either adenoma miss rates (AMR) or ADR as main outcome to test different novel technologies on imaging (new endoscope generation, narrow band imaging, iScan, Fujinon intelligent chromoendoscopy/blue laser imaging and wide angle scopes) and mechanical devices (transparent caps, endocuff, endorings and balloons). Available meta analyses were also screened for randomised studies.

RESULTS

Overall, 24 randomised tandem trials with AMR (variable definitions and methodology) and 42 parallel studies using ADR (homogeneous methodology) as primary outcome were included. Significant differences in favour of the new method were found in 66.7% of tandem studies (8222 patients) but in only 23.8% of parallel studies (28 059 patients), with higher rates of positive studies for mechanical devices than for imaging methods. In a random-effects model, small absolute risk differences were found, but these were double in magnitude for tandem as compared with parallel studies (imaging: tandem 0.04 (0.01, 0.07), parallel 0.02 (0.00, 0.04); mechanical devices: tandem 0.08 (0.00, 0.15), parallel 0.04 (0.01, 0.07)). Nevertheless, 94.2% of missed adenomas in the tandem studies were small (<1 cm) and/or non-advanced.

CONCLUSIONS

A tandem study is more likely to yield positive results than a simple parallel trial; this may be due to the use of different parameters, variable definitions and methodology, and perhaps also a higher likelihood of bias. Therefore, we suggest to accept positive results of tandem studies only if accompanied by positive results from parallel trials.

Proximal retroflexion versus second forward view of the right colon during screening colonoscopy: A multicentre randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation for the detection of colorectal cancer, but the right colon is more difficult to examine than the left colon. A second examination of the proximal colon has the potential to reduce rates of missed pathology.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether proximal retroflexion improves the adenoma detection rate or other outcomes in the right colon compared with the forward view.

METHODS

We performed a multicentre randomized controlled trial of patients from the colorectal cancer screening programme with a positive faecal immunochemical test. Patients were randomized to a second right colon examination using proximal retroflexion or forward view.

RESULTS

A total of 692 patients were included. A second examination of the right colon, with an average additional procedure time of 1.62 min, increased the adenoma detection rate by 11%, regardless of the method used (9% proximal retroflexion vs. 12% second forward view, p = 0.21). The adenoma miss rate was 19% (17% proximal retroflexion vs. 20% forward view, p = 0.28) The success rate of retroflexion was 83%, without secondary complications. In the 15.6% of patients in whom lesions were detected during the second pass, endoscopic follow-up was modified by reducing the time of the next colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

A second examination of the right colon, either from retroflexion or second forward view, can increase adenoma detection rate and shorten surveillance intervals in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. This should be emphasized during colonoscopy training and integrated into diagnostic colonoscopy practice.

INCREASED RISK OF SYNCHRONOUS COLORECTAL LESIONS IN PATIENTS REFERRED FOR ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION OF LATERAL SPREADING TUMORS

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection is one of the most frequent therapeutic alternatives for large colorectal lateral spreading tumors. There are few data on the prevalence of synchronous lesions on these patients.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the prevalence of synchronous colorectal lesions in patients referred for endoscopic mucosal resection of lateral spreading tumors >20 mm.

METHODS

We reviewed the endoscopic database of our Department and identified adult patients who were referred for the resection of a colorectal lateral spreading tumor >20 mm and had a diagnostic colonoscopy performed up to six months before. The proportion of patients with at least one synchronous lesion was estimated. The following features were compared between patients with and without synchronous lesions: age, gender, bowel preparation quality and cecal intubation on index colonoscopy and therapeutic colonoscopy, serrated adenoma as index lesion.

RESULTS

From December 2016 to November 2017, we identified 70 patients who fulfilled inclusion criteria. Median size of lesions was 25 mm (20-45). Eighty percent were located in the right colon and 35.71% were serrated adenomas. Synchronous lesion rate was 38.57%. Bowel preparation quality was similar in both groups when comparing both index and therapeutic colonoscopies. Patients with synchronous lesions had a higher proportion of serrated adenoma as index lesion than patients without synchronous lesions [51.85% vs 25.58%, OR 3.13 (1.13-8.68), P=0.03].

CONCLUSION

We found a high prevalence of synchronous lesions among patients with a large colorectal lateral spreading tumor. This risk seems to be increased if index lesions are serrated adenomas.

Right-Sided Location Not Associated With Missed Colorectal Adenomas in an Individual-Level Reanalysis of Tandem Colonoscopy Studies

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Interval cancers occur more frequently in the right colon. One reason could be that right-sided adenomas are frequently missed in colonoscopy examinations. We reanalyzed data from tandem colonoscopies to assess adenoma miss rates in relation to location and other factors.

METHODS

We pooled data from 8 randomized tandem trials comprising 2218 patients who had diagnostic or screening colonoscopies (adenomas detected in 49.8% of patients). We performed a mixed-effects logistic regression with patients as cluster effects with different independent parameters. Factors analyzed included location (left vs right, splenic flexure as cutoff), adenoma size, form, and histologic features. Analyses were controlled for potential confounding factors such as patient sex and age, colonoscopy indication, and bowel cleanliness.

RESULTS

Right-side location was not an independent risk factor for missed adenomas (odds ratio [OR] compared with the left side, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75-1.17). However, compared with adenomas ≤5 mm, the OR for missing adenomas of 6-9 mm was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.44-0.87), and the OR for missing adenomas of ≥10 mm was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.33-0.77). Compared with pedunculated adenomas, sessile (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.16-2.85) and flat adenomas (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.49-4.10) were more likely to be missed. Histologic features were not significant risk factors for missed adenomas (OR for adenomas with high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.34-1.37 and OR for sessile serrated adenomas, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.47-1.64 compared with low-grade adenomas). Men had a higher number of adenomas per colonoscopy (1.27; 95% CI, 1.21-1.33) than women (0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93). Men were less likely to have missed adenomas than women (OR for missed adenomas in men, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of data from 8 randomized trials, we found that right-side location of an adenoma does not increase its odds for being missed during colonoscopy but that adenoma size and histologic features do increase risk. Further studies are needed to determine why adenomas are more frequently missed during colonoscopies in women than men.

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.

Optimizing Screening Colonoscopy: Strategies and Alternatives

Screening colonoscopy is the most effective screening procedure for the prevention of colorectal cancer. The efficacy of colonoscopy is highly dependent on the overall quality of how this procedure is indicated, planned, prepared, and performed. The quality is directly linked to the number of polyps and/or adenomas detected or, in other words, to the number of polyps or adenomas missed during the procedure. The quality has a direct impact on the rate of interval carcinoma and on the range of how the incidence and occurrence of colorectal cancer is reduced. This review summarizes the current status on general measures and procedure improvements and standards as well as technical advances which have been suggested and established to improve the quality of polyp and adenoma detection rate. This includes selection and preparation of the patients, planning, methodological and technical performance of the procedure, and technical advances of the endoscope technology in order to improve screening results. It also covers new technologies with wide angle endoscopes (Ewave) and IT-based approaches using artificial intelligence to such as ai4GI for the polyp detection and image analysis.

Role of Full-spectrum Endoscopy in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Randomized Trial

GOALS

The aim of this study was to compare a new, full-spectrum endoscope (Fuse; EndoChoice, Alpharetta, GA) to standard forward-viewing colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal neoplasms.

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy, the gold standard for the detection of colorectal cancer, fails to detect 22% to 28% of polyps, increasing the risk of interval cancer. Endoscopic improvement of the adenoma detection rate decrease interval carcinomas. Full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) (330-degree field of view), in a tandem study, has been shown to reduce the adenoma miss rate.

STUDY

Prospective, randomized study of 249 patients in patients referred from the colorectal screening program with a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT). Patients were randomized to standard forward-viewing colonoscopy (170 degrees) or to full-spectrum colonoscopy with the Fuse system (330 degrees). Study variables were the adenoma detection rate, the polyp detection rate, the mean number of adenomas per procedure, the lesions detected according to the location, morphology and size, cecal intubation rate, total procedure time, insertion time to the cecum, therapeutic success, and adverse events.

RESULTS

The Fuse system did not produce a significantly higher adenoma detection rate than standard forward-viewing colonoscopy (FUSE 73.1% vs. standard colonoscopy 68.1%; P=0.47) but did have a significantly longer insertion time (FUSE 6.2 min vs. standard colonoscopy 4.2 min; P< 0.001). Further analysis failed to reveal any significant difference in polyp/adenoma detection rates by lesion size or colonic section.

CONCLUSIONS

FUSE did not detect significantly more colorectal neoplasia than forward viewing colonoscopy in a medium-risk CRC screening population with positive FOBT.

Meta-analysis indicates that add-on devices and new endoscopes reduce colonoscopy adenoma miss rate

INTRODUCTION

A variety of add-on devices and new-generation endoscopes have the potential to detect lesions 'hidden' behind colonic folds. We measured the effect of these new modalities on colonoscopy's lesions miss rates by a meta-analysis of data from individual studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed literature searches in Medline and Cochrane Library for back-to-back randomized-controlled trials evaluating colonoscope add-on devices and new endoscopes in terms of lesions miss rates. The effect size on study outcomes is shown as relative risk (95% confidence interval).

RESULTS

We identified nine tandem studies with 1594 patients: seven evaluating add-on devices (one with cap, two with Endocuff, one with Endorings, one with Third-Eye Retroscope, two with G-EYE endoscope) and two evaluating the full-spectrum endoscopy system (FUSE) in comparison with conventional colonoscopy (CC). Overall, adenoma miss rate (AMR) was significantly lower with add-on devices/FUSE [0.33 (0.22-0.50), P<0.00001] compared with CC, the effect being similar among the add-on devices [0.35 (0.22-0.57), P<0.0001] and the FUSE [0.26 (0.15-0.46), P<0.00001] studies, respectively. Advanced AMR and polyp miss rate (PMR) were also significantly lower using add-on devices/FUSE [0.30 (0.21-0.44), P<0.0001 and 0.31 (0.13-0.79), P=0.01, respectively]. Use of add-on devices/FUSE scope was associated with significantly lower AMR and PMR in the proximal colon and it was associated with shortening of the colonoscopy surveillance interval.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis provides evidence that AMR, advanced AMR, and PMR are significantly lower using add-on to colonoscope devices and the full-spectrum endoscopy systems compared with CC. Heterogeneity among the included studies and the small number of detected advanced adenomas call for cautious interpretation of the results.

An Additional 30-s Observation of the Right-Sided Colon with Narrow Band Imaging Decreases Missed Polyps: A Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

Previous narrow-band imaging (NBI) was dark and reported not to be useful for polyp detection. In this study, we analyzed the efficacy of an additional 30-s observation of the right-sided colon with the recent bright high-resolution NBI.

METHODS

We enrolled patients undergoing colonoscopy from February 2015 to May 2017 in two institutions. All procedures were performed with the latest system (EVIS LUCERA ELITE, Olympus). The cecum and ascending colon were first observed with white light imaging (WLI) in both the NBI and WLI group. Then, the colonoscope was re-inserted, and the cecum and ascending colon were observed for an additional 30 s. In this second observation, NBI was performed for the first 130 patients in the NBI group and WLI for the next 130 in the WLI group. The number of adenoma and sessile serrated polyps (ASPs) in the second observation were examined in both groups. According to our initial pilot study, the sample size was estimated at 126.

RESULTS

In the first observation, the number of ASPs was 72 in the NBI group and 72 in the WLI group (p = 1.0). In the second observation, the number of ASPs was 23 in the NBI group and 10 in the WLI group (p = 0.02). The polyp and adenoma detection rates in the second observation were 16.2% and 12.3% in the NBI group and 7.7% (p = 0.03) and 6.2% (p = 0.09) in the WLI group.

CONCLUSIONS

The additional 30-s observation with recent NBI decreased missed polyps in the right-sided colon.

New-generation full-spectrum endoscopy versus standard forward-viewing colonoscopy: a multicenter, randomized, tandem colonoscopy trial (J-FUSE Study)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although colonoscopy is the criterion standard for detection of colorectal adenomas, some adenomas are missed. Full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) allows for observation with a 330-degree angle of view, which is expected to decrease the miss rate. However, no consensus has been reached regarding the superiority of FUSE over standard forward-viewing colonoscopy (SFVC) for detection of adenomas; we therefore compared new-generation FUSE and SFVC regarding colorectal adenoma miss rate (AMR) in this, the first reported randomized control trial using new-generation FUSE.

METHODS

We enrolled individuals aged 40 to 75 years who had been referred for screening, surveillance, fecal occult blood test positivity, or symptoms in a prospective randomized trial of tandem colonoscopy in 8 institutions. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via computer-generated stratified randomization. Neither the endoscopists nor patients were blinded to the allocation. The primary endpoint was AMR per patient (AMR-PP).

RESULTS

We enrolled 345 patients and included 319 in the per-protocol analyses. AMR-PP was significantly lower with FUSE (11.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0%-15.4%) than with SFVC (22.9%; 95% CI, 17.5%-28.3%; P < .001). AMR-PP for lesions ≤5 mm in size was significantly lower with FUSE (10.4%; 95% CI, 6.5%-14.3%) than with SFVC (20.0%; 95% CI, 14.4%-25.6%; P = .0057). Furthermore, AMR-PP in the ascending colon was significantly lower with FUSE (4.3%; 95% CI, 1.4%-7.2%) than with SFVC (10.6%; 95% CI, 6.1%-15.1%; P = .0212).

CONCLUSIONS

FUSE is superior to SFVC regarding both AMR-PP and AMR; additionally, AMR-PP is both significantly lower with FUSE than SFVC for lesions ≤5 mm in size and in the ascending colon. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000020448.).

Full spectrum endoscopy for an easy and adequate visualization of Vater's papilla

Patients with classical familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) are at high risk for developing colorectal cancer (CRC) and duodenal adenomas. Current guidelines recommend to start duodenal screening at the age of 25-30 years and standard upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is considered inadequate for an optimal visualization of the duodenum. We used the Full-Spectrum Endoscopy^® (FUSE^®; EndoChoice Inc., Atlanta, GA, USA) esophagogastroduodenoscope (FUSE-EGD) for an upper GI screening procedure of a 20-year-old Caucasian male with classical FAP. The pioneer design of the FUSE-EGD allowed an easy and accurate examination of the ampulla with standard scope manipulation maneuvers.

New technologies improve adenoma detection rate, adenoma miss rate, and polyp detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The need to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) for colorectal cancer screening has ushered in devices that mechanically or optically improve conventional colonoscopy. Recently, new technology devices (NTDs) have become available. We aimed to compare the ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), and adenoma miss rate (AMR) between NTDs and conventional colonoscopy and between mechanical and optical NTDs.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception through September 2017 for articles or abstracts reporting ADR, PDR, and AMR with NTDs. Randomized controlled trials and case-control studies with >10 subjects were included. Primary outcomes included ADR, PDR, and AMR odds ratio (OR) between conventional colonoscopy and NTDs. Secondary outcomes included cecal intubation rates, adverse events, cecal intubation time, and total colonoscopy time.

RESULTS

From 141 citations, 45 studies with 20,887 subjects were eligible for ≥1 analyses. Overall, the ORs for ADR (1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-1.47; P < .01) and PDR (1.51; 95% CI, 1.37-1.67; P < .01) were higher with NTDs. Higher ADR (OR, 1.52 vs 1.25; P = .035) and PDR (OR, 1.63 vs 1.10; P ≤ .01) were observed with mechanical NTDs. The overall AMR with NTDs was lower compared with conventional colonoscopy (OR, .19; 95% CI, .14-.26; P < .01). Mechanical NTDs had lower AMRs compared with optical NTDs (OR, .10 vs .33; P < .01). No differences in cecal intubation rates, cecal intubation time, or total colonoscopy time were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Newer endoscopic technologies are an effective option to improve ADR and PDR and decrease AMR, particularly with mechanical NTDs. No differences in operability and safety were found.

Full-spectrum versus standard colonoscopy for improving polyp detection rate: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Full-spectrum endoscopy represents a new endoscopic platform allowing a panoramic 330 degree view of the colon, but evidence of its superiority over standard colonoscopy is still lacking. Our study is the first meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of full-spectrum endoscopy with standard colonoscopy.

METHODS

Through a systematic literature review until May 2017, we identified eight randomized-controlled trials. Primary outcomes were polyp detection rate and adenoma detection rate, while cecal intubation time and total colonoscopy time were secondary outcomes. Direct meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

No difference in terms of polyp detection rate and adenoma detection rate was found (risk ratio: 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.89-1.12, P = 0.96, and 1.05, 0.94-1.17, P = 0.40, respectively). Adenoma miss rate resulted significantly in favor of full-spectrum endoscopy (risk ratio: 0.35, 0.25-0.48, P < 0.01), although the difference was not significant for greater (>5 mm) and pedunculated lesions (risk ratio: 0.38, 0.09-1.60, P = 0.19, and risk ratio: 0.15, 0.01-3.00, P = 0.21, respectively). Cecal intubation time was not different between the two techniques (mean standardized difference: 0.22 min, -1.18 to 1.62, P = 0.76), while total colonoscopy time was significantly shorter when adopting full-spectrum endoscopy (mean difference: -2.60, -4.60 to -0.61, P = 0.01). Sensitivity analysis confirmed all the findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Full-spectrum endoscopy appears as a promising and reliable technology able to significantly decrease the number of adenomas missed and procedural times, while its superiority over standard colonoscopy in terms of adenoma detection rate results is still unclear.

Can technology increase adenoma detection rate?

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide and the second most common cause of cancer-related death in Europe and North America. Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation for the colon but is not perfect, and small or flat adenomas can be missed which increases the risk of patients subsequently developing colorectal cancer. Adenoma detection rate is the most widely used marker of quality, and low rates are associated with increased rates of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Standards of colonoscopy and adenoma detection vary widely between different endoscopists. Interventions to improve adenoma detection rate are therefore required. Many devices have been purported to increase adenoma detection rate. This review looks at current available evidence for device technology to improve adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy.

New endoscopy advances to refine adenoma detection rate for colorectal cancer screening: None is the winner

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in males and second in females, and globally the fourth cause for cancer death worldwide. Oncological screening of CRC has a major role in the management of the disease and it is mostly performed by colonoscopy. Anyway, effectiveness of endoscopic screening for CRC strictly depends on adequate detection and removal of potentially precancerous lesions, and accuracy of colonoscopy in detection of adenomas is still suboptimal. For this reason, several technological advances have been implemented in order to improve the diagnostic sensitivity of colonoscopy in adenoma detection. Among these: (1) Visual technologies such as chromoendoscopy and narrow band imaging; (2) optical innovation as high definition endoscopy, full-spectrum endoscopy or Third Eye Retroscope; and (3) mechanical advances as Cap assisted colonoscopy, Endocuff, Endoring and G-Eye endoscope. All these technologies advances have been tested over time by clinical studies with mixed results. Which of them is more likely to be successful in the next future?

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.