Improved adenoma detection with Endocuff Vision: the ADENOMA randomised controlled trial

Improved Adenoma Detection Rate Using a Novel Colonoscopic Distal Attachment: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the effect of Embrella, a novel-designed colonoscopic distal attachment, on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma per colonoscopy (APC), compared with standard colonoscopy in routine practice.

METHODS

All consecutive participants who underwent routine colonoscopic examinations at 3 endoscopy centers in China were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the Embrella-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) or standard colonoscopy (SC) groups. ADR, APC, inspection time, pain scores, and adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,179 participants were randomized into the EAC (n = 593) and SC groups (n = 586). EAC increased the overall ADR from 24.6% to 34.2% ( P < 0.001) and improved APC from 0.44 to 0.64 ( P = 0.002). Subgroup analyses indicated that EAC significantly improved ADR for adenomas < 10 mm (13.8% vs 8.5%, P = 0.004 for 5-9 mm and 27.0% vs 17.2%, P < 0.001 for < 5 mm), nonpedunculated adenomas (26.6% vs 18.8%, P < 0.001), and adenomas in the transverse (10.8% vs 6.1%, P = 0.004) and left colon (21.6% vs 13.7%, P < 0.001). APC in the subgroup analyses was consistent with ADR. The mean inspection time was shorter with EAC (6.52 vs 6.68 minutes, P = 0.046), with no significant impact on participants' pain scores ( P = 0.377). Moreover, no EAC-related adverse events occurred.

DISCUSSION

EAC significantly increased ADR and APC compared with SC, particularly for adenomas <10 mm, nonpedunculated adenomas, and adenomas in the transverse and left colon.

Comparison of adenoma miss rate and adenoma detection rate between conventional colonoscopy and colonoscopy with second-generation distal attachment cuff: a multicenter, randomized, back-to-back trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endocuff Vision (Olympus Europe, Hamburg, Germany) has been designed to enhance mucosal visualization, thereby improving detection of (pre-)malignant colorectal lesions. This multicenter, international, back-to-back, randomized colonoscopy trial compared the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma miss rate (AMR) between Endocuff Vision-assisted colonoscopy (EVC) and conventional colonoscopy (CC).

METHODS

Patients aged 40 to 75 years referred for non-immunochemical fecal occult blood test-based screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy were included at 10 hospitals and randomized into 4 groups: group 1, 2 × CC; group 2, CC followed by EVC; group 3, EVC followed by CC; and group 4, 2 × EVC. Primary outcomes included ADR and AMR.

RESULTS

A total of 717 patients were randomized, of whom 661 patients (92.2%) had 1 and 646 (90.1%) patients had 2 completed back-to-back colonoscopies. EVC did not significantly improve ADR compared to CC (41.1%; [95% confidence interval (CI), 36.1-46.3] vs 35.5% [95% CI, 30.7-40.6], respectively; P = .125), but EVC did reduce AMR by 11.7% (29.6% [95% CI, 23.6-36.5] vs 17.9% [95% CI, 12.5-23.5], respectively; P = .049). AMR of 2 × CC compared to 2 × EVC was also not significantly different (25.9% [95% CI, 19.3-33.9] vs 18.8% [95% CI, 13.9-24.8], respectively; P = .172). Only 3.7% of the polyps missed during the first procedures had advanced pathologic features. Factors affecting risk of missing adenomas were age (P = .002), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (P = .008), and region where colonoscopy was performed (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our trial shows that EVC reduces the risk of missing adenomas but does not lead to a significantly improved ADR. Remarkably, 25% of adenomas are still missed during conventional colonoscopies, which is not different from miss rates reported 25 years ago; reassuringly, advanced features were only found in 3.7% of these missed lesions. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03418948.).

The impact of EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy on the polyp detection rate: A cross-over randomized back-to-back study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide, and most CRCs develop from polyps with malignant potential. We aimed to study the difference in polyp detection rate between EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopies (EAC) and standard colonoscopy (SC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study was conducted at Cairo University Hospitals on patients referred for screening or diagnostic colonoscopy from July 2018 to August 2020. All included patients underwent back-to-back standard colonoscopy (SC) and ENDOCUFF VISION-assisted colonoscopies (EAC).

RESULTS

214 patients were included in this study. In comparison between EAC and SC, EAC increased the polyp detection rate (69 (32.24 %) vs. 57(26.64 %) (p < 0.05), EAC increased the detection of diminutive polyps ≤ 5 mm (104 vs. 81) (p < 0.05), and small polyps 6-9 mm (12 vs. 10) while there was no difference in large polyps ≥ 10 mm. EAC increased the adenoma detection rate (ADR) (37 (17.2 %) vs. 32(14.9 %) (p < 0.05). The findings detected by EAC shortened the interval of surveillance determined by SC findings. EndoCuff caused six mucosal erosions (2.8 %) in patients.

CONCLUSION

EAC increases the number of detected colonic polyps, primarily small polyps on the left and right sides of the colon.

Linked-color imaging with or without artificial intelligence for adenoma detection: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important indicator of colonoscopy quality and colorectal cancer incidence. Both linked-color imaging (LCI) with artificial intelligence (LCA) and LCI alone increase adenoma detection during colonoscopy, although it remains unclear whether one modality is superior. This study compared ADR between LCA and LCI alone, including according to endoscopists' experience (experts and trainees) and polyp size.

METHODS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy for positive fecal immunochemical tests, follow-up of colon polyps, and abdominal symptoms at a single institution were randomly assigned to the LCA or LCI group. ADR, adenoma per colonoscopy (APC), cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, number of adenomas per location, and adenoma size were compared.

RESULTS

The LCA (n=400) and LCI (n=400) groups showed comparable cecal intubation and withdrawal times. The LCA group showed a significantly higher ADR (58.8% vs. 43.5%; P<0.001) and mean (95%CI) APC (1.31 [1.15 to 1.47] vs. 0.94 [0.80 to 1.07]; P<0.001), particularly in the ascending colon (0.30 [0.24 to 0.36] vs. 0.20 [0.15 to 0.25]; P=0.02). Total number of nonpolypoid-type adenomas was also significantly higher in the LCA group (0.15 [0.09 to 0.20] vs. 0.08 [0.05 to 0.10]; P=0.02). Small polyps (≤5, 6-9mm) were detected significantly more frequently in the LCA group (0.75 [0.64 to 0.86] vs. 0.48 [0.40 to 0.57], P<0.001 and 0.34 [0.26 to 0.41] vs. 0.24 [0.18 to 0.29], P=0.04, respectively). In both groups, ADR was not significantly different between experts and trainees.

CONCLUSIONS

LCA was significantly superior to LCI alone in terms of ADR.

Development and external validation of a transfer learning-based system for the pathological diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a large emulated prospective study

Background

The progress in Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and management has resulted in an unprecedented caseload for histopathological diagnosis. While artificial intelligence (AI) presents a potential solution, the predominant emphasis on slide-level aggregation performance without thorough verification of cancer in each location, impedes both explainability and transparency. Effectively addressing these challenges is crucial to ensuring the reliability and efficacy of AI in histology applications.

Method

In this study, we created an innovative AI algorithm using transfer learning from a polyp segmentation model in endoscopy. The algorithm precisely localized CRC targets within 0.25 mm² grids from whole slide imaging (WSI). We assessed the CRC detection capabilities at this fine granularity and examined the influence of AI on the diagnostic behavior of pathologists. The evaluation utilized an extensive dataset comprising 858 consecutive patient cases with 1418 WSIs obtained from an external center.

Results

Our results underscore a notable sensitivity of 90.25% and specificity of 96.60% at the grid level, accompanied by a commendable area under the curve (AUC) of 0.962. This translates to an impressive 99.39% sensitivity at the slide level, coupled with a negative likelihood ratio of <0.01, signifying the dependability of the AI system to preclude diagnostic considerations. The positive likelihood ratio of 26.54, surpassing 10 at the grid level, underscores the imperative for meticulous scrutiny of any AI-generated highlights. Consequently, all four participating pathologists demonstrated statistically significant diagnostic improvements with AI assistance.

Conclusion

Our transfer learning approach has successfully yielded an algorithm that can be validated for CRC histological localizations in whole slide imaging. The outcome advocates for the integration of the AI system into histopathological diagnosis, serving either as a diagnostic exclusion application or a computer-aided detection (CADe) tool. This integration has the potential to alleviate the workload of pathologists and ultimately benefit patients.

Endocuff With or Without Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy in Detection of Colorectal Adenoma: A Randomized Colonoscopy Trial

INTRODUCTION

Both artificial intelligence (AI) and distal attachment devices have been shown to improve adenoma detection rate and reduce miss rate during colonoscopy. We studied the combined effect of Endocuff and AI on enhancing detection rates of various colonic lesions.

METHODS

This was a 3-arm prospective randomized colonoscopy study involving patients aged 40 years or older. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to undergo Endocuff with AI, AI alone, or standard high-definition (HD) colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) between the Endocuff-AI and AI groups while secondary outcomes included detection rates of polyp (PDR), sessile serrated lesion (sessile detection rate [SDR]), and advanced adenoma (advanced adenoma detection rate) between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 682 patients were included (mean age 65.4 years, 52.3% male), with 53.7% undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. The ADR for the Endocuff-AI, AI, and HD groups was 58.7%, 53.8%, and 46.3%, respectively, while the corresponding PDR was 77.0%, 74.0%, and 61.2%. A significant increase in ADR, PDR, and SDR was observed between the Endocuff-AI and AI groups (ADR difference: 4.9%, 95% CI: 1.4%-8.2%, P = 0.03; PDR difference: 3.0%, 95% CI: 0.4%-5.8%, P = 0.04; SDR difference: 6.4%, 95% CI: 3.4%-9.7%, P < 0.01). Both Endocuff-AI and AI groups had a higher ADR, PDR, SDR, and advanced adenoma detection rate than the HD group (all P < 0.01).

DISCUSSION

Endocuff in combination with AI further improves various colonic lesion detection rates when compared with AI alone.

Texture and color enhancement imaging (TXI) plus endocuff vision versus TXI alone for colorectal adenoma detection: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Increasing the adenoma detection rate (ADR) helps reduce the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Texture and Color Enhancement Imaging (TXI) improves ADR by enhancing the brightness and contrast of endoscopic images. Endocuff Vision (ECV) is a mucosal exposure device that helps flatten the colonic folds. The benefit of combining TXI with ECV has not been studied previously. Thus, we aimed to compare the ADR between using TXI combined with ECV and TXI alone.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial recruiting patients aged ≥ 40 years who underwent colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening or gastrointestinal symptoms. The participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into the TXI with ECV (TXI + ECV) and the TXI groups. Experienced endoscopists with ≥ 40% ADR performed all colonoscopies. The primary outcome was ADR.

RESULTS

We had 189 and 192 patients in the TXI + ECV and TXI groups, respectively. The baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable. The ADR was significantly higher in the TXI + ECV group than in the TXI group (65.6% vs. 52.1%, P = 0.007). Adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) was significantly greater in the TXI + ECV group than in the TXI group (1.6 vs. 1.2, P = 0.021), prominently proximal (1.0 vs. 0.7, P = 0.031), non-pedunculated (1.4 vs. 1.1, P = 0.035), and diminutive (1.3 vs. 1, P = 0.045) adenomas. Serrated lesion detection rate, insertion time, and withdrawal time did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Adding ECV to TXI significantly improves ADR and APC compared to using TXI alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Thai Clinical Trials Registry TCTR20220507004.

Patients' experience of using colonoscopy as a diagnostic test after a positive FOBT/FIT: a systematic review of the quantitative literature

OBJECTIVES

Faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) are among the most used screening modalities for colorectal cancer (CRC). Colonoscopy is also widely used as a screening and diagnostic test for adults with a positive FOBT/FIT. Patient experience of colonoscopy is an important component for most CRC screening programmes. Individuals with negative experiences are less likely to engage with colonoscopy in the future and can deter others from attending colonoscopy when invited. This review synthesised data on patient experience with colonoscopy, following a positive result, to provide insights into how to improve patient experience within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched for quantitative questionnaire studies evaluating patient-reported experience with colonoscopy, following a positive screening FOB/FIT result. The search was limited to studies published between 2000 and 2021 (ie, when the first FOBT/FIT screening programmes for CRC were introduced). Data-driven and narrative summary techniques were used to summarise the literature.

RESULTS

In total, six studies from the UK (n=4), Spain (n=1) and the Netherlands (n=1) were included in the review (total participants: 152 329; response rate: 68.0-79.3%). Patient experiences were categorised into three 'stages': 'pre-colonoscopy', 'during the test' and 'post-colonoscopy'. Overall, patients reported a positive experience in all six studies. Bowel preparation was the most frequently endorsed issue experienced pre-test (experienced by 10.0-41.0% of individuals, across all studies), pain and discomfort for during the test (experienced by 10.0-21.0% of participants) and abdominal pain and discomfort after the test (these were experienced by 14.8-22% of patients).

CONCLUSION

This review highlighted that patient-reported experiences associated with colonoscopy were generally positive. To improve the colonoscopy experience, bowel screening centres should investigate means to: make bowel preparation more acceptable, make colonoscopy less painful and reduce post-colonoscopy symptoms.

Effect of add-on devices with projections on screening colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Add-on devices with projections, e.g., Endocuff, Endocuff Vision, EndoRings, and Wingcap, placed on the distal tip of the colonoscope promise to improve the detection of precancerous lesions. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of these devices exclusively among individuals undergoing colonoscopy for screening purpose.

Methods

A computerized literature search was performed across MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials that compared standard colonoscopy (SC) to procedures using add-on devices. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR), while secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), advanced ADR (AADR), and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR). The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using a random-effects model and presented as the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Seven studies enrolling a total of 5785 patients were included. The use of add-on-devices with projections was associated with a higher ADR compared to SC: 45.9% vs. 41.1%; RR 1.18, 95%CI 1.02-1.37; P=0.03; I2=79%. Although PDR was higher in screening colonoscopies assisted by add-on devices as compared to SC, the difference failed to reach significance: 55.1% vs. 50.8%; RR 1.10, 95%CI 0.96-1.26; P=0.17; I2=75%. No difference was found between procedures assisted by add-on devices with projections and SC colonoscopies in terms of AADR (18.5% vs. 17.6%; RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.79-1.27; P=0.98; I2=56%) or SSLDR (6.8% vs. 5.8%; RR 1.17, 95%CI 0.95-1.44; P=0.15; I2=0%).

Conclusion

Colonoscopy assisted by add-on devices with projections achieves a better ADR compared to SC among individuals undergoing screening for bowel cancer.

Colorectal polyp outcomes after participation in the seAFOod polyp prevention trial: Evidence of rebound elevated colorectal polyp risk after short-term aspirin use

BACKGROUND

The seAFOod polyp prevention trial was a randomised, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial of aspirin 300 mg and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) 2000 mg daily in individuals who had a screening colonoscopy in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Aspirin treatment was associated with a 20% reduction in colorectal polyp number at BCSP surveillance colonoscopy 12 months later. It is unclear what happens to colorectal polyp risk after short-term aspirin use.

AIM

To investigate colorectal polyp risk according to the original trial treatment allocation, up to 6 years after trial participation.

METHODS

All seAFOod trial participants were scheduled for further BCSP surveillance and provided informed consent for the collection of colonoscopy outcomes. We linked BCSP colonoscopy data to trial outcomes data.

RESULTS

In total, 507 individuals underwent one or more colonoscopies after trial participation. Individuals grouped by treatment allocation were well matched for clinical characteristics, follow-up duration and number of surveillance colonoscopies. The polyp detection rate (PDR; the number of individuals who had ≥1 colorectal polyp detected) after randomization to placebo aspirin was 71.1%. The PDR was 80.1% for individuals who had received aspirin (odds ratio [OR] 1.13 [95% confidence interval 1.02, 1.24]; p = 0.02). There was no difference in colorectal polyp outcomes between individuals who had been allocated to EPA compared with its placebo (OR for PDR 1.00 [0.91, 1.10]; p = 0.92).

CONCLUSION

Individuals who received aspirin in the seAFOod trial demonstrated increased colorectal polyp risk during post-trial surveillance. Rebound elevated neoplastic risk after short-term aspirin use has important implications for aspirin cessation driven by age-related bleeding risk. ISRCTN05926847.

Colorectal cancer incidence trends by tumour location among adults of screening-age in England: a population-based study

AIM

Proximal and distal colorectal cancers (CRCs) exhibit different clinical, molecular and biological patterns. The aim of this study was to determine temporal trends in the age-standardized incidence rates (ASIRs) of proximal and distal CRC following the introduction of the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in 2006.

METHOD

The National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service database was used to identify incident cases of CRC among adults of screening age (60-74 years) between 2001 and 2017. ASIRs were calculated using the European Standard Population 2013 and incidence trends analysed by anatomical subsite (proximal, caecum to descending colon; distal, sigmoid to rectum), sex and Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) quintile using Joinpoint regression software.

RESULTS

Between 2001 and 2017, 541 515 incident cases of CRC were diagnosed [236 167 proximal (43.6%) and 305 348 distal (56.4%)]. A marginal reduction in the proximal ASIR was noted from 2008 [annual percentage change (APC) -1.4% (95% CI -2.0% to -0.9%)] compared with a greater reduction in distal ASIR from 2011 to 2014 [APC -6.6% (95% CI -11.5% to -1.5%)] which plateaued thereafter [APC -0.5% (95% CI -3.2% to 2.2%)]. Incidence rates decreased more rapidly in men than women. Adults in IMD quintiles 4-5 experienced the greatest reduction in distal tumours [APC -3.5% (95% CI -4.3% to -2.7%)].

CONCLUSION

Following the introduction of the English BCSP, the incidence of CRC has subsequently reduced among adults of screening age, with this trend being most pronounced in distal tumours and in men. There is also evidence of a reduction in the deprivation gap for distal tumour incidence. Strategies to improve the detection of proximal tumours are warranted.

Artificial intelligence in oncology: chances and pitfalls

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been available in rudimentary forms for many decades. Early AI programs were successful in niche areas such as chess or handwriting recognition. However, AI methods had little practical impact on the practice of medicine until recently. Beginning around 2012, AI has emerged as an increasingly important tool in healthcare, and AI-based devices are now approved for clinical use. These devices are capable of processing image data, making diagnoses, and predicting biomarkers for solid tumors, among other applications. Despite this progress, the development of AI in medicine is still in its early stages, and there have been exponential technical advancements since 2022, with some AI programs now demonstrating human-level understanding of image and text data. In the past, technical advances have led to new medical applications with a delay of a few years. Therefore, now we might be at the beginning of a new era in which AI will become even more important in clinical practice. It is essential that this transformation is humane and evidence based, and physicians must take a leading role in ensuring this, particularly in hematology and oncology.

Endocuff Vision-Assisted Resection for Difficult Colonic Lesions-Preliminary Results of a Multicenter, Prospective Randomized Pilot Study

Background-Screening programs for colorectal cancer are implemented due to their ability to reduce mortality. The Endocuff Vision is a new endoscopic device that significantly improves the adenoma detection rate. The primary outcome was to assess the efficacy of ECV in improving stability and reducing operation time during difficult colon polypectomies in a multicenter randomized prospective study. Methods-In a randomized multicenter pilot study, two groups of patients who underwent difficult polypectomies with and without the assistance of Endocuff Vision were compared. Demographics and clinical characteristics of patients were obtained, and polyps' size, morphology, site, and access (SMSA); polypectomy time; and endoscope stability were evaluated. Results-From October 2016 to April 2020, 32 patients were enrolled. In total, 12 patients underwent Endocuff Vision polypectomy, and 20 patients underwent standard polypectomy by using a computer-generated random number table. No statistical differences were found in clinical characteristics, SMSA, and polypectomy time. The most interesting findings were the positive correlations between shaking and SMSA (r = 0.55, p = 0.005) and shaking and polypectomy time (r = 0.745, p < 0.0001). Conclusion-Endocuff Vision seems to be adequately stable during difficult endoscopic resection procedures. The new parameter proposed that shaking is strongly correlated to the stability of the endoscope, the difficulty of the resection (SMSA), and the polypectomy time.

Image enhanced colonoscopy: updates and prospects-a review

Colonoscopy has been proven to be a successful approach in both identifying and preventing colorectal cancer. The incorporation of advanced imaging technologies, such as image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE), plays a vital role in real-time diagnosis. The advancements in endoscopic imaging technology have been continuous, from replacing fiber optics with charge-coupled devices to the introduction of chromoendoscopy in the 1970s. Recent technological advancements include "push-button" technologies like autofluorescence imaging (AFI), narrowed-spectrum endoscopy, and confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE). Dye-based chromoendoscopy (DCE) is falling out of favor due to the longer time required for application and removal of the dye and the difficulty of identifying lesions in certain situations. Narrow band imaging (NBI) is a technology that filters the light used for illumination leading to improved contrast and better visibility of structures on the mucosal surface and has shown a consistently higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared to white light endoscopy. CLE has high sensitivity and specificity for polyp detection and characterization, and several classifications have been developed for accurate identification of normal, regenerative, and dysplastic epithelium. Other IEE technologies, such as blue laser imaging (BLI), linked-color imaging (LCI), i-SCAN, and AFI, have also shown promise in improving ADR and characterizing polyps. New technologies, such as Optivista, red dichromatic imaging (RDI), texture and color enhancement imaging (TXI), and computer-aided detection (CAD) using artificial intelligence (AI), are being developed to improve polyp detection and pathology prediction prior to widespread use in clinical practice.

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.

Effect of real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal adenoma in routine colonoscopy (COLO-GENIUS): a single-centre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence systems have been developed to improve polyp detection. We aimed to evaluate the effect of real-time computer-aided detection (CADe) on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in routine colonoscopy.

METHODS

This single-centre randomised controlled trial (COLO-GENIUS) was done at the Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Pôle Digestif Paris-Bercy, Clinique Paris-Bercy, Charenton-le-Pont, France. All consecutive individuals aged 18 years or older who were scheduled for a total colonoscopy and had an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 1-3 were screened for inclusion. After the caecum was reached and the colonic preparation was appropriate, eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1; computer-generated random numbers list) to either standard colonoscopy or CADe-assisted colonoscopy (GI Genius 2.0.2; Medtronic). Participants and cytopathologists were masked to study assignment, whereas endoscopists were not. The primary outcome was ADR, which was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned participants except those with misplaced consent forms). Safety was analysed in all included patients. According to statistical calculations, 20 endoscopists from the Clinique Paris-Bercy had to include approximately 2100 participants with 1:1 randomisation. The trial is complete and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04440865.

FINDINGS

Between May 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022, 2592 participants were assessed for eligibility, of whom 2039 were randomly assigned to standard colonoscopy (n=1026) or CADe-assisted colonoscopy (n=1013). 14 participants in the standard group and ten participants in the CADe group were then excluded due to misplaced consent forms, leaving 2015 participants (979 [48·6%] men and 1036 [51·4%] women) in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. ADR was 33·7% (341 of 1012 colonoscopies) in the standard group and 37·5% (376 of 1003 colonoscopies) in the CADe group (estimated mean absolute difference 4·1 percentage points [95% CI 0·0-8·1]; p=0·051). One bleeding event without deglobulisation occurred in the CADe group after a large (>2 cm) polyp resection and resolved after a haemostasis clip was placed during a second colonoscopy.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings support the benefits of CADe, even in a non-academic centre. Systematic use of CADe in routine colonoscopy should be considered.

FUNDING

None.

Quality in colonoscopy: time to ensure national standards are implemented?

Background

High-quality colonoscopy is crucial to ensure complete mucosal visualisation and to maximise detection of pathology. Previous audits showing variable quality have prompted national and international colonoscopy improvement programmes, including the development of quality assurance standards and key performance indicators (KPIs). The most widely used marker of mucosal visualisation is the adenoma detection rate (ADR), however, histological confirmation is required to calculate this. We explored the relationship between core colonoscopy KPIs.

Methods

Data were collected from colonoscopists in eight hospitals in North East England over a 6-month period, as part of a quality improvement study. Procedural information was collected including number of colonoscopies, caecal intubation rate (CIR), ADR and polyp detection rate (PDR). Associations between KPIs and colonoscopy performance were analysed.

Results

9265 colonoscopies performed by 118 endoscopists were included. Mean ADR and PDR per endoscopist were 16.6% (range 0-36.3, SD 7.4) and 27.2% (range 0-57.5, SD 9.3), respectively. Mean number of colonoscopies conducted in 6 months was 78.5 (range 4-334, SD 61). Mean CIR was 91.2% (range 55.5-100, SD 6.6). Total number of colonoscopies and ADR>15% were significantly associated (p=0.04). Undertaking fewer colonoscopies and using hyoscine butylbromide less frequently was significantly associated with ADR<15%. CIR, endoscopist grade, % male patients, mean patient age and CIR were not significantly related to ADR<15%. In adjusted analyses, factors which affected ADR were PDR and mean patient age.

Conclusion

Colonoscopists who perform fewer than the nationally stipulated minimum of 100 procedures per year had significantly lower ADRs. This study demonstrates that PDR can be used as a marker of ADR; providing age is also considered.

Unlocking quality in endoscopic mucosal resection

A review of the development of the key performance metrics of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), learning from the experience of the establishment of widespread colonoscopy quality measurements. Potential future performance markers for both colonoscopy and EMR are also evaluated to ensure continued high quality performance is maintained with a focus service framework and predictors of patient outcome.

Enhancing Ergonomics in Pediatric Endoscopy Training and Practice

Pediatric endoscopists are at risk of work-related injuries from overuse and repetitive motions during endoscopy. Recently, there has been increasing appreciation for the importance of ergonomics education and training to help build long-term habits that prevent injury. This article reviews the epidemiology of endoscopy-related injuries in pediatric practice, describes methods for controlling exposures in the workplace, discusses key ergonomic principles that can be used to mitigate injury risk, and outlines tips for integrating education on endoscopy ergonomics during training.

Eye tracking technology in endoscopy: Looking to the future

The visual patterns of an endoscopist, that is, what the endoscopist is looking at during luminal endoscopy, is an interesting area with an evolving evidence base. The tools required for gaze analysis have become cheaper and more easily accessible. A comprehensive literature search was undertaken identifying 19 relevant papers. Gaze analysis has been used to identify certain visual patterns associated with higher polyp detection rates. There have also been increasing applications of gaze analysis as an objective study tool to compare the effectiveness of endoscopic imaging technologies. Gaze analysis also has the potential to be incorporated into endoscopic training. Eye movements have been used to control and steer a robotic endoscope. This review presents the current evidence available in this novel and evolving field of endoscopic research.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

The effect of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy compared with standard colonoscopy is conflicting in terms of the adenoma detection rate. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library were searched up to the end of June 8, 2021. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy with standard colonoscopy were included. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain the relative risk with a 95% CI, whereas continuous data were pooled using a mean difference with 95% CI.

RESULTS

A total of 23 RCTs involving 17,999 patients were included. Compared with standard colonoscopy, use of the Endocuff was associated with a significant improvement in the adenoma detection rate (RR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.24), polyp detection rate (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.09-1.25), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (RR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.05-1.43), left-side lesion detection rate (RR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.43), and mean number of adenomas per patient (MD = 0.17, 95% CI 0.08-0.26). There were no significant differences between the and groups in detection of advanced adenomas, mean number of polyps per patient, right-side lesion detection rate, cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time and withdrawal time.

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled evidence suggests a significant improvement in the adenoma detection rate, and polyp detection rate using the Endocuff. On the other hand, no significant effect on the detection of advanced adenomas and mean number of polyps per patient was noted.

Negative effect of prolonged cecal intubation time on adenoma detection in female patients

Background and Aim

Withdrawal time of the colonoscope is associated with adenoma detection. However, the association between cecal intubation time and adenoma detection remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the association between cecal intubation time and adenoma detection.

Methods

This retrospective study analyzed prospectively collected data from a randomized controlled trial on female patients who underwent colonoscopy in an academic hospital. The primary outcome was the mean number of all adenomas detected per patient. Secondary outcomes included the mean number of advanced, diminutive, small/large, right-sided colonic, and left-sided colonic adenomas detected per patient. Furthermore, the detection rates of all categories of adenoma were evaluated.

Results

The analysis included 216 female patients aged ≥20 years. The correlation analysis did not reveal a significant relationship (P = 0.473) between cecal intubation and withdrawal times. The mean number of all adenomas detected per patient declined by approximately 30% (1.05-0.70) from the fastest to the slowest insertion time quartile. Adjusted regression analysis showed a significant decrease in the mean number of all adenomas detected per patient with increased intubation time (relative risk, RR = 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.99, P = 0.045), whereas the mean number of other categories of adenomas detected per patient and the detection rates of all categories of adenoma were not associated with the cecal intubation time.

Conclusions

This study showed a significant association between prolonged cecal intubation time and decreased adenoma detection. The cecal intubation time may be a significant quality indicator for 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.).

Evaluation of a real-time computer-aided polyp detection system during screening colonoscopy: AI-DETECT study

BACKGROUND

Polyp detection and resection during colonoscopy significantly reduce long-term colorectal cancer risk. Computer-aided detection (CADe) may increase polyp identification but has undergone limited clinical evaluation. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of CADe at colonoscopy within a bowel cancer screening program (BCSP).

METHODS

This prospective, randomized controlled trial involved all eight screening-accredited colonoscopists at an English National Health Service (NHS) BCSP center (February 2020 to December 2021). Patients were randomized to CADe or standard colonoscopy. Patients meeting NHS criteria for bowel cancer screening were included. The primary outcome of interest was polyp detection rate (PDR).

RESULTS

658 patients were invited and 44 were excluded. A total of 614 patients were randomized to CADe (n = 308) or standard colonoscopy (n = 306); 35 cases were excluded from the per-protocol analysis due to poor bowel preparation (n = 10), an incomplete procedure (n = 24), or a data issue (n = 1). Endocuff Vision was frequently used and evenly distributed (71.7 % CADe and 69.2 % standard). On intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, there was a borderline significant difference in PDR (85.7 % vs. 79.7 %; P = 0.05) but no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (ADR; 71.4 % vs. 65.0 %; P = 0.09) for CADe vs. standard groups, respectively. On per-protocol analysis, no significant difference was observed in these rates. There was no significant difference in procedure times.

CONCLUSIONS

In high-performing colonoscopists in a BCSP who routinely used Endocuff Vision, CADe improved PDR but not ADR. CADe appeared to have limited benefit in a BCSP setting where procedures are performed by experienced colonoscopists.

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.

Adenoma Detection Rate and Risk for Interval Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer in Fecal Immunochemical Test-Based Screening : A Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an essential quality indicator for endoscopists performing colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as it is associated with postcolonoscopy CRCs (PCCRCs). Currently, data on ADRs of endoscopists performing colonoscopies in fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based screening, the most common screening method, are scarce. Also, the association between the ADR and PCCRC has not been demonstrated in this setting.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between the ADR and PCCRC risk in colonoscopies done after a positive FIT result.

DESIGN

Population-based cohort.

SETTING

Dutch, FIT-based, CRC screening program.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy, done by accredited endoscopists, after a positive FIT result.

MEASUREMENTS

Quality indicator performance and PCCRC incidence for colonoscopies in FIT-positive screenees were assessed. The PCCRCs were classified as interval, a cancer detected before recommended surveillance, or noninterval. The association between ADR and interval PCCRC was evaluated with a multivariable Cox regression model and PCCRC incidence was determined for different ADRs.

RESULTS

362 endoscopists performed 116 360 colonoscopies with a median ADR of 67%. In total, 209 interval PCCRCs were identified. The ADR was associated with interval PCCRC, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92 to 0.97) per 1% increase in ADR. For every 1000 patients undergoing colonoscopy, the expected number of interval PCCRC diagnoses after 5 years was approximately 2 for endoscopists with ADRs of 70%, compared with more than 2.5, almost 3.5, and more than 4.5 for endoscopists with ADRs of 65%, 60%, and 55%, respectively.

LIMITATION

The relative short duration of follow-up (median, 52 months) could be considered a limitation.

CONCLUSION

The ADR of endoscopists is inversely associated with the risk for interval PCCRC in FIT-positive colonoscopies. Endoscopists performing colonoscopy in FIT-based screening should aim for markedly higher ADRs compared with primary colonoscopy.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Key factors for improving adenoma detection rate

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is a fundamental tool in colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. Nevertheless, one-fourth of colorectal neoplasms are still missed during colonoscopy, potentially being the main reason for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is currently known as the best quality indicator correlating with PCCRC incidence.

AREAS COVERED

We performed a literature review in order to summarize evidences investigating key factors affecting ADR: endoscopists education and training, patient management, endoscopic techniques, improved navigation (exposition defect), and enhanced lesions recognition (vision defect) were considered.

EXPERT OPINION

'Traditional' factors, such as split dose bowel preparation, adequate withdrawal time, and right colon second view, held a significant impact on ADR. Several devices and technologies have been developed to promote high-quality colonoscopy, however artificial intelligence may be considered the most promising tool for ADR improvement, provided that endoscopists education and recording are guaranteed.

Endocuff Vision to Improve Adenoma Vision: A Brief Overview

Colorectal cancer (CRC)-related mortality can be reduced through screening and early detection. The aim of any CRC screening program is to detect as many adenomas/polyps in the early stage as possible and hence, adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key quality indicator of colonoscopy. Various methods and techniques have been studied and developed over the years to improve the quality of colonoscopy and thereby increase ADR. This ranges from use of various regimens to improve bowel preparation, defining an optimum colonoscope withdrawal time for the operator, distal attachment caps, use of different wavelength of light, colonoscope with increased degree of view to the use of modern-day artificial intelligence to improve ADR. Of all the various measures, use of distal attachment device seems an easy, cheap and readily usable technique to increase real-time ADR. A variety of such devices have been evaluated over time starting from simple transparent caps, EndoRings, Endocuff to Endocuff Vision for their effectiveness. In this review, we have provided a brief description of the various available distal attachment devices and a detailed technical overview of Endocuff and its modification the Endocuff Vision.

Improved adenoma detection by a novel distal attachment device-assisted colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

WingCap (A&A Medical Supply LLC, Seongnam, South Korea) is a novel distal attachment device for colonoscopy that combines a cap and an existing mucosal exposure device, such as Endocuff Vision (Arc Medical Design Ltd, Leeds, UK) and AmplifEYE (Medivators Inc, Minneapolis, Minn, USA). We aimed to investigate whether WingCap-assisted colonoscopy can improve the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) and simultaneously shorten cecal intubation time compared with standard colonoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial for outpatients aged ≥18 years undergoing colonoscopy. The primary outcome was ADR differences with the assistance of WingCap. Secondary outcomes were APC and other colonoscopy quality indicators, such as cecal intubation and withdrawal times.

RESULTS

In total, 537 patients were randomized for WingCap-assisted or standard colonoscopy. Their mean age was 59.3 years, and 48.5% were men. ADR was significantly higher in the WingCap group than in the control group (37.2% vs 26.6%, P = .012). APC was greater with WingCap than with standard colonoscopy (.72 ± 1.34 vs .45 ± 0.97, P = .008), prominently for nonpedunculated (.65 ± 1.25 vs .42 ± .95, P = .015) and diminutive (.42 ± .94 vs .20 ± .64, P = .002) adenomas. With WingCap, ADR and APC significantly increased for beginner endoscopists, whereas a modest increase was seen for experienced endoscopists. There were no differences in cecal intubation and withdrawal times between the 2 arms. No serious adverse event was associated with the use of WingCap.

CONCLUSIONS

WingCap-assisted colonoscopy was tolerable and efficacious for improving ADR and APC compared with standard colonoscopy, especially for nonpedunculated and diminutive adenomas and for beginner endoscopists. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0005214.).

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).

Deep Learning Computer-aided Polyp Detection Reduces Adenoma Miss Rate: A United States Multi-center Randomized Tandem Colonoscopy Study (CADeT-CS Trial)

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Artificial intelligence-based computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) systems are intended to address the issue of missed polyps during colonoscopy. The effect of CADe during screening and surveillance colonoscopy has not previously been studied in a United States (U.S.) population.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multi-center, single-blind randomized tandem colonoscopy study to evaluate a deep-learning based CADe system (EndoScreener, Shanghai Wision AI, China). Patients were enrolled across 4 U.S. academic medical centers from 2019 through 2020. Patients presenting for colorectal cancer screening or surveillance were randomized to CADe colonoscopy first or high-definition white light (HDWL) colonoscopy first, followed immediately by the other procedure in tandem fashion by the same endoscopist. The primary outcome was adenoma miss rate (AMR), and secondary outcomes included sessile serrated lesion (SSL) miss rate and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC).

RESULTS

A total of 232 patients entered the study, with 116 patients randomized to undergo CADe colonoscopy first and 116 patients randomized to undergo HDWL colonoscopy first. After the exclusion of 9 patients, the study cohort included 223 patients. AMR was lower in the CADe-first group compared with the HDWL-first group (20.12% [34/169] vs 31.25% [45/144]; odds ratio [OR], 1.8048; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0780-3.0217; P = .0247). SSL miss rate was lower in the CADe-first group (7.14% [1/14]) vs the HDWL-first group (42.11% [8/19]; P = .0482). First-pass APC was higher in the CADe-first group (1.19 [standard deviation (SD), 2.03] vs 0.90 [SD, 1.55]; P = .0323). First-pass ADR was 50.44% in the CADe-first group and 43.64 % in the HDWL-first group (P = .3091).

CONCLUSION

In this U.S. multicenter tandem colonoscopy randomized controlled trial, we demonstrate a decrease in AMR and SSL miss rate and an increase in first-pass APC with the use of a CADe-system when compared with HDWL colonoscopy alone.

MiWEndo: Evaluation of a Microwave Colonoscopy Algorithm for Early Colorectal Cancer Detection in Ex Vivo Human Colon Models

This study assesses the efficacy of detecting colorectal cancer precursors or polyps in an ex vivo human colon model with a microwave colonoscopy algorithm. Nowadays, 22% of polyps go undetected with conventional colonoscopy, and the risk of cancer after a negative colonoscopy can be up to 7.9%. We developed a microwave colonoscopy device that consists of a cylindrical ring-shaped switchable microwave antenna array that can be attached to the tip of a conventional colonoscope as an accessory. The accessory is connected to an external unit that allows successive measurements of the colon and processes the measurements with a microwave imaging algorithm. An acoustic signal is generated when a polyp is detected. Fifteen ex vivo freshly excised human colons with cancer (n = 12) or polyps (n = 3) were examined with the microwave-assisted colonoscopy system simulating a real colonoscopy exploration. After the experiment, the dielectric properties of the specimens were measured with a coaxial probe and the samples underwent a pathology analysis. The results show that all the neoplasms were detected with a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 87.4%.

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.

Adenoma and serrated lesion detection with distal attachment in screening colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the single most important measure of quality in colonoscopy, but little is known about the detection rate of serrated lesions (SLDR). To improve ADR, Endocuff Vision (EV) can be used. Studies have shown differing results as to the effect on ADR; an effect on SLDR has not been shown. To investigate the effect of Endocuff Vision on ADR in a screening population, this randomized controlled open label trial with concealed allocation was performed. Randomization to trial group was carried out by the endoscopist using prepared numbered envelopes.

METHODS

Patients referred as part of the national bowel screening program at Regional Hospital Herning, Denmark were recruited and allocated to one of two groups: Endocuff Vision colonoscopy (EVC) and standard colonoscopy (SC). Outcomes were ADR, mean number, site, and size of lesions per procedure. SLDR as outcome was added after inclusion had begun.

RESULTS

A total of 1178 participants were included, with 1166 (EVC 583 and SC 583) available for analysis. There was no clinical relevant difference in ADR (59.2% [CI 55.1; 63.1] v 60.5% [CI 56.5; 64.4]) or SLDR (13.0% [CI 10.5; 16.0] v 10.3% [CI 8.0; 13.0]) between groups. More serrated lesions were found per procedure (MSP) (0.2 v 0.1, IRR 57% [CI 17; 109]. Removal rate of EV was similar in the two study groups.

CONCLUSION

We found no significant effects of the use of Endocuff Vision on ADR, when compared to standard colonoscopy, but more serrated lesions were detected in the Endocuff group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials NCT04651062.

Adenoma detection by Endocuff-assisted versus standard colonoscopy in an organized screening program: the "ItaVision" randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The Endocuff Vision device (Arc Medical Design Ltd., Leeds, UK) has been shown to increase mucosal exposure, and consequently adenoma detection rate (ADR), during colonoscopy. This nationwide multicenter study assessed possible benefits and harms of using Endocuff Vision in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program.

METHODS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy after a FIT-positive test were randomized 1:1 to undergo Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy or standard colonoscopy, stratified by sex, age, and screening history. Primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were ADR stratified by endoscopists' ADR, advanced ADR (AADR), adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), withdrawal time, and adverse events.

RESULTS

1866 patients were enrolled across 13 centers. After exclusions, 1813 (mean age 60.1 years; male 53.8 %) were randomized (908 Endocuff Vision, 905 standard colonoscopy). ADR was significantly higher in the Endocuff Vision arm (47.8 % vs. 40.8 %; relative risk [RR] 1.17, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.30), with no differences between arms regarding size or morphology. When stratifying for endoscopists' ADR, only low detectors (ADR < 33.3 %) showed a statistically significant ADR increase (Endocuff Vision 41.1 % [95 %CI 35.7-46.7] vs. standard colonoscopy 26.0 % [95 %CI 21.3-31.4]). AADR (24.8 % vs. 20.5 %, RR 1.21, 95 %CI 1.02-1.43) and APC (0.94 vs. 0.77; P  = 0.001) were higher in the Endocuff Vision arm. Withdrawal time and adverse events were similar between arms.

CONCLUSION

Endocuff Vision increased ADR in a FIT-based screening program by improving examination of the whole colonic mucosa. Utility was highest among endoscopists with a low ADR.

Sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate of water exchange, Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSA/P) may contribute to interval cancer. In a recent meta-analysis, water exchange (WE) was shown to be superior to Endocuff and cap colonoscopy at adenoma and advanced adenoma detection. The strong positive correlation between adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate (SSA/PDR) prompted us to hypothesize that WE could significantly improve SSA/PDR compared with Endocuff and cap colonoscopy.

METHODS

The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported SSA/PDR as an outcome and included the keywords colonoscopy, and water exchange, Endocuff, or cap. We performed traditional network meta-analyses with random effect models comparing SSA/PDR of each method using air insufflation as the control and reported the odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Performances were ranked based on P-score.

RESULTS

A total of 531 articles resulted from initial keywords search. Eleven RCTs were included in the analysis. A total of 7856 patients underwent air insufflation, WE, Endocuff, or cap colonoscopy. WE significantly increased SSA/PDR (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.33-3.13). Endocuff (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.94-1.41) and cap (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.42-2.74) did not significantly impact SSA/P detection. P-scores for WE (0.96), Endocuff (0.49), cap (0.37), and air insufflation (0.17) suggested that WE had the highest SSA/PDR. The results did not change after adjusting for mean withdrawal time and indication for colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Water exchange significantly increases SSA/PDR and is superior to Endocuff and cap colonoscopy at detecting SSA/P.

Linked color imaging, mucosal exposure device, their combination, and standard colonoscopy for adenoma detection: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

By different mechanisms, image-enhancement techniques (linked color imaging [LCI]) and mucosal exposure devices (Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy [EAC]) can improve the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during screening colonoscopy. The impact of the combination of the 2 techniques has never been studied. This study aimed to compare the ADR between the combination of LCI and EAC (LCI+EAC), LCI alone, EAC alone, and standard high-definition (HD) colonoscopy.

METHODS

This prospective randomized controlled trial included participants who underwent screening colonoscopy. Participants were randomized to LCI+EAC, LCI, EAC, and standard HD colonoscopy. All colonoscopies were performed by endoscopists with a recorded ADR ≥35%. The primary outcome was the ADR. Secondary outcomes were proximal ADR (pADR) and the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC).

RESULTS

One thousand participants were included in the study. The LCI+EAC group provided the highest ADR and pADR. The ADRs in the LCI+EAC, LCI, EAC, and standard HD colonoscopy groups were 57.2%, 52.8%, 51.6%, and 47.6%, respectively, with pADRs of 38.4%, 34.8%, 33.6%, and 28.0%, respectively. The mean numbers of APC were 1.28, 1.20, 1.16, and .89, respectively. After a multiple comparison adjustment, a significant difference in pADR was only observed between the LCI+EAC and standard HD colonoscopy groups (difference, 10.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, .02%-17.4%; P = .05). The incidence rate ratios of the adenoma numbers were significantly higher in the LCI+EAC (1.43), LCI (1.34), and EAC (1.30) groups relative to the standard HD colonoscopy group (.89) (P < .009 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of LCI and EAC can significantly improve the detection of pADR and APC but not ADR by high-ADR performers. (Clinical trial registration number: TCTR20190319001.).

Endocuff Vision improves adenoma detection rate in a large screening-related cohort

Background and study aims  Endocuff Vision (ECV) increases adenoma detection rate (ADR) in randomized clinical trials; however, observational effectiveness data are lacking. We evaluated the effectiveness, safety, and practical aspects of ECV use in a large screening-related real-world cohort. Patients and methods  In this observational study, patients undergoing screening-related colonoscopy from November 2018 to April 2019 comprised the baseline period, and those undergoing it from June to November 2019 comprised the ECV period, where ECV use was discretionary. The primary outcome was ADR, compared: 1) between ECV use and standard colonoscopy across both periods; and 2) between time periods. Secondary outcomes included indication-specific ADR, sessile serrated ADR (SSADR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), procedure times, patient comfort scores, and sedation use. Multilevel logistic regression was performed, yielding adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Results  In 15,814 colonoscopies across both time periods, ADR was 46.7 % with standard colonoscopy and 54.6 % when ECV was used ( P  < 0.001). Endoscopists used ECV in 77.6 % of procedures in the ECV period, during which overall ADR rose to 53.2 % compared to 46.3 % in the baseline period ( P  < 0.001). ECV use was significantly associated with higher ADR (AOR 1.24, 95 % CI 1.10 to 1.40) after adjusting for relevant covariates including time period. ECV use did not result in lower CIR, longer procedure time, increased sedation use, or poorer comfort scores. Conclusions  ECV use is associated with improved ADR without negatively impacting other key procedure and patient-related factors. Future studies should evaluate the cost-effectiveness of incorporating ECV into routine screening-related practice.

Participation in clinical trials increases the detection of pre-malignant lesions during colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colorectal adenoma detection has been associated with cancer prevention effectiveness. Clinical trials have been conceived to determine the role of several interventions to increase the detection of pre-malignant lesions. We hypothesized that colonoscopy in the setting of such trials have higher pre-malignant lesion detection rates.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study comparing the detection of pre-malignant lesions in 147 randomly sampled non-research colonoscopies and 294 from the control groups of two prospective trials. We included outpatients aged 40-79 who had no personal history of CRC.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The pre-malignant lesion detection rate in the trial vs control group was 65.6% vs 44.2% (OR 2.411; 95% CI 1.608-3.614; p<0.001), the polyp detection rate was 73.8% vs 59.9% (OR 1.889; 95% CI 1.242-2.876; p=0.003), the adenoma detection rate was 62.6% vs 44.2% (OR 2.110; 95% CI 1.411-3.155; p<0.001) and the sessile serrated lesion detection rate was 17% vs 4.1% (OR 4.816; 95% CI 2.014-11.515; p<0.001). The mean number of pre-malignant and sessile serrated lesions was 1.70 vs 1.06 (p=0.002) and 0.32 vs 0.06 (p=0.001) lesions per colonoscopy. In a multivariate analysis with each single potential confounder, there was no significant change in any of the study outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients involved in colonoscopy trials may benefit from higher quality examinations, as shown by the higher detection rates. Institutions should consider supporting clinical research in colonoscopy as a simple means to improve colonoscopy quality and colorectal cancer prevention.

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.

Adoption of New Technologies: Artificial Intelligence

Over the past decade, artificial intelligence (AI) has been broadly applied to many aspects of human life, with recent groundbreaking successes in facial recognition, natural language processing, autonomous driving, and medical imaging. Gastroenterology has applied AI to a vast array of clinical problems, and some of the earliest prospective trials examining AI in medicine have been in computer vision applied to endoscopy. Evidence is mounting for 2 broad areas of AI as applied to gastroenterology: computer-aided detection and computer-aided diagnosis.

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.

The use of endocuff for the facilitation of endoscopic mucosal resection in defiant colonic polyps. A case series

BACKGROUND

Endocuff has been suggested as a safe and useful device facilitating complex endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in the sigmoid colon; however, the existing data are sparse. In this case series, we report our experience with endocuff in facilitating EMR in defiant polyps throughout the colon.

CASE SERIES

In colonoscopies where sufficient stability and, thus, reliable visualization of the lesion was not possible (defiant polyp), the endoscope was removed, and subsequently, an ENDOCUFF VISIONTM was mounted on its tip. Thereafter, the colonic area of interest underwent endoscopic re-examination. The study prospectively included fifteen patients with 16 sessile/flat polyps. Fifteen of the 16 EMRs were considered successful.

CONCLUSIONS

This case series indicates the use of endocuff as an auxiliary device for facilitating EMR in defiant colonic polyps. HIPPOKRATIA 2021, 25 (3):134-137.

Adenoma and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rates of Water Exchange, Endocuff, and Cap Colonoscopy: A Network Meta-Analysis with Pooled Data of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A network meta-analysis showed that low-cost optimization of existing resources was as effective as distal add-on devices in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR). We assessed the impacts of water exchange (WE), Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy on ADR and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). We hypothesized that WE may be superior at improving ADR and AADR.

METHODS

The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported ADR as an outcome and included the keywords colonoscopy, and water exchange, Endocuff, or cap. We performed traditional network meta-analyses with random effect models comparing ADR and AADR of each method using air insufflation (AI) as the control and reported the odds ratios with 95% confidence interval. Performances were ranked based on P-score.

RESULTS

Twenty-one RCTs met inclusion criteria. Fourteen RCTs also reported AADR. Both WE [1.46 (1.20-1.76)] and Endocuff [1.39 (1.17-1.66)] significantly increase ADR, while cap has no impact on ADR [1.00 (0.82-1.22)]. P-scores for WE (0.88), Endocuff (0.79), cap (0.17), and AI (0.17) suggest WE has the highest ADR. WE [1.38 (1.12-1.70)], but not Endocuff [0.96 (0.76-1.21)] or cap [1.06 (0.85-1.32)], significantly increases AADR. P-scores for WE (0.98), cap (0.50), AI (0.31), and Endocuff (0.21) suggest WE is more effective at increasing AADR. The results did not change after adjusting for age, proportion of males, and withdrawal time.

CONCLUSION

WE may be the modality of choice to maximally improve ADR and AADR.

EndoCuff-Assisted Colonoscopy Versus Standard Colonoscopy in Colonic Polyp Detection-Experience from a Single Tertiary Centre

Background. Standard colonoscopy fails to visualize the entire colon mucosa and consequently a significant amount of polyps are still being missed. New device, such as EndoCuff, have been developed to improve mucosal visualisation, hence the quality in colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic yield of EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy in comparison with standard colonoscopy by taking into consideration several quality indicators. Methods. In this study, 965 adults ≥ 18 years referred for colonoscopy were randomly divided into two groups. The main statistical investigation compared the difference between EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy (EC) vs. standard colonoscopy (SC) in the detection of colonic polyps and adenoma detection rate (ADR). The second inquiry sought to compare experienced vs. recently trained and female vs. male operators. Results. The ADR was higher for EC than for SC (37.50% vs. 26.64%). Regarding the mean number of detected polyps per procedure (MPP), the result was statistically significant when generally comparing the EC vs. SC (p=0.0009). There were no differences in MPP between EC and SC for recently trained endoscopists (p=0.7446), while a significant difference for experienced doctors (p=0,0020) was noted. A significant difference was observed between female doctors and male doctors only when using SC. EC was more helpful for female doctors when assessing MPP (p=0.0118). No serious adverse events related to EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy was noted. Conclusions. EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy seems to be safe and may bring benefits for improving the polyp/adenoma detection rates in regard to missed lesions, usually located in blind areas.