Linked colour imaging versus white-light colonoscopy for the detection of flat colorectal lesions: A randomized controlled trial

The impact of linked color imaging on adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Colorectal cancer prevention relies on surveillance colonoscopy, with the adenoma detection rate as a key factor in examination quality. Linked color imaging (LCI) enhances lesion contrast and improves the examination performance. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of LCI on adenoma detection rate in adults who underwent colonoscopy.

METHODS

We searched the Medline, PubMed, BIREME, LILACS, and Scientific Electronic Library Online databases for randomized controlled trials comparing the use of LCI versus white light imaging (WLI), published up to March 2023. The outcomes included lesion characteristics, number of adenomas per patient, and the additional polyp detection rate.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included in the analysis, which showed that LCI was more accurate than WLI in detecting adenomas, with an increased number of adenomas detected per patient. Although LCI performed well in terms of lesion size, morphology, and location, the subgroup analyses did not reveal any statistically significant differences between LCI and WLI. The addition of LCI did not result in significant improvements in the detection of serrated lesions, and there were no differences in the withdrawal time between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LCI has been shown to be effective in detecting colonic lesions, improving the number of adenomas detected per patient and improving polyp detection rate without negatively affecting other quality criteria in colonoscopy.

Impact of linked color imaging on the proximal adenoma miss rate: a multicenter tandem randomized controlled trial (the COCORICO trial)

BACKGROUND

Missed lesions are common during standard colonoscopy and are correlated with post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Contrast-enhanced technologies have recently been developed to improve polyp detection. We aimed to evaluate the impact of linked color imaging (LCI) on the proximal adenoma miss rate in routine colonoscopy.

METHODS

This national, multicenter, tandem, randomized trial compared the outcomes of colonoscopy with white-light imaging (WLI) versus LCI for polyp detection in the right colon. Two consecutive examinations of the right colon (upstream of the hepatic flexure) were made with WLI and LCI by the same operator. First-pass examination by WLI or LCI was randomized 1:1 after cecal intubation. According to statistical calculations, 10 endoscopy units had to include approximately 700 patients. The primary outcome was proximal adenoma miss rate. Secondary outcomes were the proximal miss rates for sessile serrated lesions (SSL), advanced adenomas, and polyps.

RESULTS

764 patients were included from 1 January 2020 to 22 December 2022, and 686 patients were randomized (345 WLI first vs. 341 LCI first). Both groups were comparable in terms of demographics and indications. The proximal adenoma miss rate was not significantly higher in the WLI-first group (36.7%) vs. the LCI-first group (31.8%) (estimated mean absolute difference: 4.9% [95%CI -5.2% to 15.0%], P = 0.34). There was also no significant difference in miss rates for SSLs, advanced adenomas, and polyps in the proximal colon.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to previous data, this study does not support the benefit of LCI to the proximal adenoma miss rate in routine colonoscopy.

Linked color imaging versus white light imaging in the diagnosis of colorectal lesions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Miss rate of colorectal neoplasia is associated with lesion histology, size, morphology, or location.

Objectives

We aim to compare the efficacy of Linked color imaging (LCI) versus white light imaging (WLI) for adenoma detection rate (ADR), the detection of sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), serrated lesions (SLs), advanced adenomas (AAs), diminutive lesions (DLs), and flat lesions (FLs) by using per-patient and per-lesion analysis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources and methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched through May 1st, 2023. We calculated risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference for continuous outcomes, and performed sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses.

Results

Overall, 17 RCTs (10,624 patients) were included. In per-patient analysis, ADR was higher in the LCI group versus the WLI group (p < 0.00001). This effect was consistent for SSL (p = 0.005), SLs (p = 0.01), AAs (p = 0.04), DLs (p < 0.00001), and FLs (p < 0.0001). In per-lesion analysis, LCI showed a significant superiority over WLI with regard to the mean number of adenomas per patient (p < 0.00001). This effect was in accordance with mean SSL (p = 0.001), mean SLs (p < 0.00001), and mean DLs (p < 0.0001) per patient. A subgroup analysis showed that the beneficial effect of the LCI group on the detection of AAs, SSL, and FLs was maintained only for studies when experts and trainees were included but not for experts only.

Conclusions

Meta-analyses of RCTs data support the use of LCI in clinical practice, especially for trainees.

Colorectal sessile serrated lesion detection using linked-color imaging versus narrow-band imaging: a parallel randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have reported the effectiveness of narrow-band imaging (NBI) and linked-color imaging (LCI) in improving the detection of colorectal neoplasms. There has however been no direct comparison between LCI and NBI in the detection of colorectal sessile serrated lesions (SSLs). The present study aimed to compare the effectiveness of LCI and NBI in detecting colorectal SSLs.

METHODS

A prospective, parallel, randomized controlled trial was conducted. The participants were randomly assigned to the LCI or NBI arms. The primary end point was the SSL detection rate (SDR).

RESULTS

406 patients were involved; 204 in the LCI arm and 202 in the NBI arm. The total polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, and SDR were 54.2 %, 38.7 %, and 10.8%, respectively. The SDR was not significantly different between the LCI and NBI arms (12.3 % vs. 9.4 %; P = 0.36). The differences in the detection rate and the per-patient number of polyps, adenomas, diminutive lesions, and flat lesions between LCI and NBI also were not statistically significant. Multivariate analysis showed that LCI and NBI were not independent factors associated with SDR, whereas Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score (odds ratio [OR] 1.35, 95 %CI 1.03-1.76; P = 0.03), withdrawal time (OR 1.13, 95 %CI 1.00-1.26; P = 0.04), and operator experience (OR 3.73, 95 %CI 1.67-8.32; P = 0.001) were independent factors associated with SDR.

CONCLUSIONS

LCI and NBI are comparable for SSL detection, as well as for the detection of polyps and adenomas.

Colorectal Sessile Serrated Lesion Detection Using Linked Color Imaging: A Multicenter, Parallel Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Linked color imaging (LCI) is a novel technology that improves the color differences between colorectal lesions and the surrounding mucosa. The present study aims to compare the detection of colorectal sessile serrated lesions (SSL) using LCI with white light imaging (WLI).

METHOD

A large-scale, multicenter, parallel prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted in 4 hospitals in China. The participants were randomly assigned to the LCI group and WLI group. The primary endpoint was the SSL detection rate (SDR).

RESULTS

A total of 884 patients were involved in the intention-to-treat analysis, with 441 patients in the LCI group and 443 patients in the WLI group. The total polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, and SDR were 51.8%, 35.7%, and 8.6%, respectively. The SDR was significantly higher in the LCI group than in the WLI group (11.3% vs 5.9%, P = .004). Furthermore, LCI significantly increased the number of polyps and adenomas detected per patient, when compared with WLI (P < .05). In addition, there was higher detection rate of diminutive and flat lesions in the LCI group (P < .05). Multivariate analysis revealed that LCI is an independent factor associated with SDR (hazard ratio, 1.990; 95% confidence interval, 1.203-3.293; P = .007), along with withdrawal time (hazard ratio, 1.157; 95% confidence interval, 1.060-1.263; P = .001) and operator experience (hazard ratio, 1.850; 95% confidence interval, 1.045-3.273; P = .035).

CONCLUSIONS

LCI is significantly superior to WLI for SSL detection, and may improve polyp and adenoma detection. LCI can be recommended as an appropriate method for routine inspection during colonoscopy (http://www.chictr.org.cn number, ChiCTR2000035705).

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.

Mucosal imaging in colon polyps: New advances and what the future may hold

An expanding range of advanced mucosal imaging technologies have been developed with the goal of improving the detection and characterization of lesions in the gastrointestinal tract. Many technologies have targeted colorectal neoplasia given the potential for intervention prior to the development of invasive cancer in the setting of widespread surveillance programs. Improvement in adenoma detection reduces miss rates and prevents interval cancer development. Advanced imaging technologies aim to enhance detection without significantly increasing procedural time. Accurate polyp characterisation guides resection techniques for larger polyps, as well as providing the platform for the "resect and discard" and "do not resect" strategies for small and diminutive polyps. This review aims to collate and summarise the evidence regarding these technologies to guide colonoscopic practice in both interventional and non-interventional endoscopists.

Measuring and Improving Quality of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely preventable, yet it remains a major public health issue as it is the third most common and deadly malignancy in the United States. While there are many ways to screen for CRC, colonoscopy remains the gold standard as it is the only test that is both cancer-detecting and cancer-preventing through removal of precancerous polyps. Through identifying and removing neoplastic lesions, colonoscopy reduces CRC incidence by 31%-91% and CRC mortality by 65%-88%. However, colonoscopy is not an infallible test-there is a chance for missed lesions during the exam and there is substantial variation in outcomes among endoscopists. To enhance the quality of colonoscopic exams, and ultimately to improve CRC outcomes, quality indicators have been developed for measuring endoscopists' performance. In this review, we describe the colonoscopic quality indicators and benchmarks recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy/American College of Gastroenterology Task Force on Quality in Endoscopy for screening colonoscopies in average-risk individuals. Measuring and monitoring endoscopists' performance on these measures are critical first steps in striving toward conducting high quality exams. We also review the evidence for interventions that aim to improve critical measures including adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, cecal intubation, and bowel preparation quality. Finally, we provide a preview of the forthcoming Advancing Care for Appropriate Colon Health Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Value Pathway by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and its potential impact on clinical practice.

Clinical Applications of Linked Color Imaging and Blue Laser/Light Imaging in the Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Superficial Colorectal Tumors

Considering its contribution to reducing colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality, the most important task of colonoscopy is to find all existing polyps. Moreover, the accurate detection of existing polyps determines the risk of colorectal cancer morbidity and is an important factor in deciding the appropriate surveillance program for patients. Image-enhanced endoscopy is an easy-to-use modality with improved lesion detection. Linked color imaging (LCI) and blue laser/light imaging (BLI) are useful modalities for improving colonoscopy quality. Each mode has unique optical features; therefore, their intended use differs. LCI contributes to improved polyp detection due to its brightness and high color contrast between the lesion and normal mucosa, while BLI contributes to the characterization of detected polyps by evaluating the vessel and surface patterns of detected lesions. The proper use of these observation modes allows for more efficient endoscopic diagnosis. Moreover, recent developments in artificial intelligence will soon change the clinical practice of colonoscopy and this system will provide an efficient education modality for novice endoscopists.