Randomized control trial of adenoma detection rate in Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy versus transparent hood-assisted colonoscopy

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.

Second-generation distal attachment cuff for adenoma detection in screening colonoscopy: a randomized multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Randomized studies have demonstrated that a distal attachment cap with rubber side arms, the Endocuff Vision (ECV; Olympus America, Center Valley, Pa, USA), increased colonoscopic adenoma detection rate (ADR) in various mixed patient collectives. This is the first study to evaluate its use in a primary colonoscopic screening program.

METHODS

Patients over age 55 years undergoing screening colonoscopy in 9 German private offices in Berlin and Hamburg were randomized to either the study group using ECV or the control group using high-definition colonoscopies (standard of care). The main outcome parameter was ADR, whereas secondary outcomes were detection rates of all adenomas per colonoscopy (APCs), of adenoma subgroups, and of hyperplastic polyps.

RESULTS

Of 1416 patients (mean age, 61.1 years; 51.8% women), with a median of 41 examinations per examiner (n = 23; interquartile range, 12-81), 700 were examined with ECV and 716 without. Adjusting for the effects of the colonoscopies, ADR was 39.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.6%-46.3%) in the ECV group versus 32.2% (95% CI, 25.9%-38.6%) in the control group, which resulted in an increase of 7.2% (95% CI, 2.3%-12.2%; P = .004). The increase in ADR was mainly because of small polyps, with adjusted ADRs for adenomas <10 mm of 33.3% (95% CI, 26.5%-40.2%) for study patients versus 24.0% (95% CI, 18.2%-29.8%) for control patients (P < .001). APC was also significantly increased (.57 ECV vs .51 control subjects, P = .045).

CONCLUSIONS

A distal attachment cap with side arms significantly increased the ADR in patients undergoing primary colonoscopic screening. Because of the correlation of ADR and interval cancer, its use should be encouraged, especially in this setting. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03442738.).

Comparative Efficacy of Endoscopic Assist Devices on Colonic Adenoma Detection: A Systematic Review With Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Numerous endoscopic assist devices exist, yet data surrounding their comparative efficacy is lacking. We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analysis to determine the comparative efficacy of endoscopic assist devices on colonic adenoma detection.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using multiple electronic databases through July 2020, to identify all randomized controlled trials and dual-arm observational studies compared with either other endoscopic assist devices and/or standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), serrated adenoma detection rate (SADR), right-sided adenoma detection rate (RADR), and proximal adenoma detection rate (PADR).

RESULTS

Fifty-seven studies (31,051 patients) met inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Network meta-analysis identified an enhanced ADR among (clear) cap [odds ratio (OR): 2.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.45-4.99], endocuff, (OR: 4.95, 95% CI: 3.15-7.78), and endoring (OR: 3.68, 95% CI: 1.47-9.20)-with no significant difference amongst any particular device. Similar findings for PDR were also seen. Enhanced SADR was identified for endocuff (OR: 9.43) and endoring (OR: 4.06) compared with standard colonoscopy. Enhanced RADR (OR: 5.36) and PADR (OR: 3.78) were only identified for endocuff. Endocuff comparatively demonstrated the greatest ADR, PDR, and SADR, but this was not significant when compared with the other assist devices. Subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials identified enhanced PDR and ADR for both cap and endocuff.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic assist devices displayed increased ADR and PDR as compared with standard colonoscopy and thus should be widely adopted. A nonsignificant trend was seen toward higher efficacy for the endocuff device.

High-Definition Colonoscopy Compared With Cuff- and Cap-Assisted Colonoscopy: Results From a Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Mucosal exposure devices including distal attachments such as the cuff and cap have shown variable results in improving adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared with high-definition white light colonoscopy (HDWLE).

METHODS

We performed a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy comparing HDWLE to 2 different types of distal attachments: cuff (CF) (Endocuff Vision) or cap (CP) (Reveal). The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes included adenomas per colonoscopy, advanced adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rate, right-sided ADR, withdrawal time, and adverse events. Continuous variables were compared using Student's t test and categorical variables were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact test using statistical software Stata version16. A P value <.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

A total of 1203 subjects were randomized to either HDWLE (n = 384; mean 62 years of age; 81.3% males), CF (n = 379; mean 62.7 years of age; 79.9% males) or CP (n = 379; mean age 62.1 years of age; 80.5% males). No significant differences were found among 3 groups for ADR (57.3%, 59.1%, and 55.7%; P = .6), adenomas per colonoscopy (1.4 ± 1.9, 1.6 ± 2.4, and 1.4 ± 2; P = .3), advanced adenoma (7.6%, 9.2%, and 8.2%; P = .7), sessile serrated lesion (6.8%, 6.3%, and 5.5%; P = .8), or right ADR (48.2%, 49.3%, and 46.2%; P = .7). The number of polyps per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CF group compared with HDWLE and CP group (2.7 ± 3.4, 2.3 ± 2.5, and 2.2 ± 2.3; P = .013). In a multivariable model, after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, withdrawal time, and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score, there was no impact of device type on the primary outcome of ADR (P = .77). In screening patients, CF resulted in more neoplasms per colonoscopy (CF: 1.7 ± 2.6, HDWLE: 1.3 ± 1.7, and CP: 1.2 ± 1.8; P = .047) with a shorter withdrawal time.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this multicenter randomized controlled trial do not show any significant benefit of using either distal attachment devices (CF or CP) over HDWLE, at least in high-detector endoscopists. The Endocuff may have an advantage in the screening population. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03952611).

Endo-wing versus transparent hood-assisted colonoscopy for colorectal adenoma detection: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This study aimed to compare the mean number of adenomas in patients undergoing Endo-wing-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and transparent hood-assisted colonoscopy (TAC).

METHODS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy for positive fecal immunochemical tests, colon polyp surveillance, and evaluation of abdominal symptoms at a single institution were randomly assigned to the EAC or TAC group. The mean number of adenomas per patient, adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, mean number of adenomas per location, and adenoma size were compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 800 patients were enrolled. The EAC and TAC groups comprised 372 and 393 patients, respectively. The groups did not significantly differ with respect to cecal intubation and withdrawal times. The mean number of adenomas per patient was significantly higher in the EAC group (1.13 vs 0.90, P = 0.04), particularly in the sigmoid colon (0.54 [201/372] vs 0.38 [149/393], P = 0.04). The adenoma detection rates were 48.1% and 45.0% in the EAC and TAC groups, respectively, albeit without significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.393). The total number of sessile-type adenomas (0.73 [270/372] vs 0.47 [183/393], P < 0.0001) and small polyps (≤ 5 mm) (0.53 [198/372] vs 0.41 [159/393], P = 0.016) was significantly higher in the EAC group.

CONCLUSION

Endo-wing-assisted colonoscopy is significantly superior to TAC in terms of the mean number of adenomas per patient.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

None.

Linked color imaging versus white light imaging colonoscopy for colorectal adenoma detection: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The adenoma detection rate is an important indicator of colonoscopy quality and colorectal cancer incidence. We compared the adenoma detection rates between white light imaging (WLI) and linked color imaging (LCI) colonoscopy.

METHODS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy for positive fecal immunochemical tests, follow-up of colon polyps, and abdominal symptoms at three institutions were randomly assigned to the LCI or WLI groups. Mean adenoma number per patient (including based on endoscopists' experience), adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, mean adenoma number per location, and adenoma size were compared.

RESULTS

The LCI and WLI groups comprised 494 and 501 patients, respectively. No significant differences in the cecal intubation rate (LCI vs WLI: 99.5% vs 99.4%), cecal intubation time, and withdrawal time were noted between groups. The mean adenoma number per patient was significantly higher in the LCI group than in the WLI group (1.07 vs 0.88, P = 0.04), particularly in the descending [0.12 (58/494) vs 0.07 (35/501), P = 0.01] and sigmoid colon [0.41 (201/494) vs 0.30 (149/501), P ≤ 0.001]. However, the adenoma detection rate was 47.1% in the LCI group and 46.9% in the WLI group, with no significant difference (P = 0.93). The total number of sessile-type adenomas was significantly higher in the LCI group than in the WLI group (346/494 vs 278/501, P = 0.04). As for polyp size, small polyps (≤ 5 mm) were detected at a significantly higher rate in the LCI group (271/494 vs 336/501, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Linked color imaging is significantly superior to WLI in terms of mean adenoma number per patient.

Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy versus cap-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection rate: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Add-on devices have been widely used in clinical practice. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the adenoma detection rate between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases were searched. Outcomes included adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, and withdrawal time. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain the odds ratio or risk ratio. Continuous data were pooled using the mean difference.

RESULTS

Of the 240 articles reviewed, six randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 1994 patients. In the meta-analysis, no statistical difference in adenoma detection rate was detected between EAC and CAC (47.0% vs 45.1%; P = 0.33). EAC significantly improved detection rate of diminutive adenomas/polyps compared with CAC (P = 0.01). Cecal intubation was achieved in 96.5% in EAC group and 97.9% in CAC group (P = 0.04). Besides, no statistical difference was found in cecal intubation time (P = 0.86), withdrawal time (P = 0.88), small adenomas/polyps (P = 0.60), or large adenomas/polyps (P = 0.95).

CONCLUSION

EAC and CAC have their respective merits. EAC significantly improve the detection of diminutive adenomas/polyps. CAC was better in cecal intubation rate.

GIE Editorial Board top 10 topics: advances in GI endoscopy in 2019

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's GIE Editorial Board reviewed original endoscopy-related articles published during 2019 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and 10 other leading medical and gastroenterology journals. Votes from each individual member were tallied to identify a consensus list of 10 topic areas of major advances in GI endoscopy. Individual board members summarized important findings published in these 10 areas of disinfection, artificial intelligence, bariatric endoscopy, adenoma detection, polypectomy, novel imaging, Barrett's esophagus, third space endoscopy, interventional EUS, and training. This document summarizes these "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2019.

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.