Comparative Efficacy of Colonoscope Distal Attachment Devices in Increasing Rates of Adenoma Detection: A Network Meta-analysis

Relative Efficacies of Interventions to Improve the Quality of Screening-Related Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Significant variability exists in colonoscopy quality indicators, including adenoma detection rate (ADR). We synthesized evidence from randomized trials in a network meta-analysis on interventions to improve colonoscopy quality.

METHODS

We included trials from database inceptions to September 25, 2023, of patients undergoing screening-related colonoscopy and presented efficacies of interventions within domains (periprocedural parameters, endoscopist-directed interventions, intraprocedural techniques, endoscopic technologies, distal attachment devices, and additive substances) compared to standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was ADR. We used a Bayesian random-effects model using Markov-chain Monte Carlo simulation, with 10,000 burn-ins and 100,000 iterations. We calculated odds ratios with 95% credible intervals and present surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves.

RESULTS

We included 124 trials evaluating 37 interventions for the primary outcome. Nine interventions resulted in statistically significant improvements in ADR compared to standard colonoscopy (9-minute withdrawal time, dual observation, water exchange, i-SCAN [Pentax Ltd], linked color imaging, computer-aided detection, Endocuff [Olympus Corp], Endocuff Vision [Olympus Corp], and oral methylene blue). Dual observation (SUCRA, 0.84) and water exchange (SUCRA, 0.78) ranked highest among intraprocedural techniques; i-SCAN (SUCRA, 0.95), linked color imaging (SUCRA, 0.85), and computer-aided detection (SUCRA, 0.78) among endoscopic technologies; WingCap (A&A Medical Supply LLC) (SUCRA, 0.87) and Endocuff (SUCRA, 0.85) among distal attachment devices and oral methylene blue (SUCRA, 0.94) among additive substances. No interventions improved detection of advanced adenomas, and only narrow-band imaging improved detection of serrated lesions (odds ratio, 2.94; 95% credible interval, 1.46-6.25).

CONCLUSIONS

Several interventions are effective in improving adenoma detection and overall colonoscopy quality, many of which are cost-free. These results can inform endoscopists, unit managers, and endoscopy societies on relative efficacies.

Performing High-Quality, Safe, Cost-Effective, and Efficient Basic Colonoscopy in 2023: Advice From Two Experts

Based on published evidence and our expert experience, we provide recommendations to maximize the efficacy, safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of routine colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy begins with colon preparation using a split or same-day dose and preferably a low-volume regimen for optimal patient tolerance and compliance. Successful cecal intubation can be achieved by choosing the correct colonoscope and using techniques to facilitate navigation through challenges such as severe angulations and redundant colons. Safety is a primary goal, and complications such as perforation and splenic rupture can be prevented by avoiding pushing through fixed resistance and avoiding loops in proximal colon. Furthermore, barotrauma can be avoided by converting to water filling only (no gas insufflation) in every patient with a narrowed, angulated sigmoid. Optimal polyp detection relies primarily on compulsive attention to inspection as manifested by adequate inspection time, vigorous probing of the spaces between haustral folds, washing and removing residual debris, and achieving full distention. Achieving minimum recommended adenoma detection rate thresholds (30% in men and 20% in women) is mandatory, and colonoscopists should aspire to adenoma detection rate approaching 50% in screening patients. Distal attachments can improve mucosal exposure and increase detection while shortening withdrawal times. Complete resection of polyps complements polyp detection in preventing colorectal cancer. Cold resection is the preferred method for all polyps < 10 mm. For effective cold resection, an adequate rim of normal tissue should be captured in the snare. Finally, cost-effective high-quality colonoscopy requires the procedure not be overused, as demonstrated by following updated United States Multi Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer postpolypectomy surveillance recommendations.

Cap-assisted colonoscopy can increase the rate of sessile serrated lesion detection at the left lateral decubitus position: A retrospective case-control study

We investigated the effectiveness of cap-assisted colonoscopy conducted with the patient in the left lateral decubitus position at both the colonoscope's insertion and withdrawal timepoints compared to the effectiveness of colonoscopy without a cap conducted in the supine position at withdrawal. This was a case-control study, based on historical comparisons of patients over 2 time periods. The first group of patients underwent colonoscopies with a transparent cap and the patient was in the left lateral decubitus position at both the insertion and withdrawal timepoints from April to June 2019. The subsequent group underwent colonoscopies without a cap and with the patient in the supine position at withdrawal from July to September 2019. The rates of successful intubation, cecal intubation time, and number, size, shape, and location of the detected adenomas and sessile serrated lesions were compared between the 2 groups. Data from 644 colonoscopies (cap-assisted colonoscopy + left lateral decubitus position, n=320; other colonoscopies, n=324) were analyzed. The demographic characteristics and technical performances were similar. The SSL detection rate was significantly higher with cap-assisted colonoscopy and the left lateral decubitus position than with other colonoscopies (3.4% vs 0.93%, P=.029). The adenoma detection rates in the 2 groups were similar (31% and 28%, respectively, P=.43).Cap-assisted colonoscopy in the left lateral decubitus position may increase the detection rate of sessile serrated lesions compared to colonoscopy without a cap and supine position at withdrawal.

The impact of abdominal compression devices on colonoscopy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Colonoscopy is the gold standard method for colorectal cancer screening. Looping occurs in 91% of cases undergoing colonoscopy and can cause patient discomfort, prolonged cecal intubation time (CIT), and colon perforation. This meta-analysis investigates the impact of abdominal compression devices (ACD) on colonoscopy outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), retrieved by systematically searching: PubMed, EMBASE, WOS, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through February 2nd, 2023. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were pooled using mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) along with confidence interval (CI) using Revman. Our review protocol was prospectively published on PROSPERO with ID: CRD42023397344.

RESULTS

We included eight RCTs with a total of 1,889 patients. ACD was effective to decrease CIT (MD: -2.15 with a 95% CI [-3.49, -0.80], p = .002), postural change (RR: 0.57 with 95% CI [0.49, 0.66], p = .00001), and VAS pain score (MD: -1.49 with 95% CI [-1.81, -1.17], p = .0001). However, there was no difference between ACD and control groups regarding manual compression (RR: 0.65 with 95% CI [0.42, 1.00], p = .05), complete colonoscopy rate (CCR) (RR: 1.01 with 95% CI [0.99, 1.04], p = .31), and cecal intubation length (CIL) (MD: -2.25 with 95% CI [-7.64, 3.14], p = .41).

CONCLUSION

ACD during colonoscopy may enhance patient comfort by reducing CIT, pain, and postural changes. Nevertheless, additional RCTs are necessary to validate these results and determine the most suitable approach to utilize ACD for colonoscopy.

Effectiveness and application of artificial intelligence for endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer: the future is now

INTRODUCTION

Artificial intelligence (AI) in gastrointestinal endoscopy includes systems designed to interpret medical images and increase sensitivity during examination. This may be a promising solution to human biases and may provide support during diagnostic endoscopy.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to summarize and evaluate data supporting AI technologies in lower endoscopy, addressing their effectiveness, limitations, and future perspectives.

EXPERT OPINION

Computer-aided detection (CADe) systems have been studied with promising results, allowing for an increase in adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenoma per colonoscopy (APC), and a reduction in adenoma miss rate (AMR). This may lead to an increase in the sensitivity of endoscopic examinations and a reduction in the risk of interval-colorectal cancer. In addition, computer-aided characterization (CADx) has also been implemented, aiming to distinguish adenomatous and non-adenomatous lesions through real-time assessment using advanced endoscopic imaging techniques. Moreover, computer-aided quality (CADq) systems have been developed with the aim of standardizing quality measures in colonoscopy (e.g. withdrawal time and adequacy of bowel cleansing) both to improve the quality of examinations and set a reference standard for randomized controlled trials.

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.

Combination of Mucosa-Exposure Device and Computer-Aided Detection for Adenoma Detection During Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Both computer-aided detection (CADe)-assisted and Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy have been found to increase adenoma detection. We investigated the performance of the combination of the 2 tools compared with CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone to detect colorectal neoplasias during colonoscopy in a multicenter randomized trial.

METHODS

Men and women undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, polyp surveillance, or clincial indications at 6 centers in Italy and Switzerland were enrolled. Patients were assigned (1:1) to colonoscopy with the combinations of CADe (GI-Genius; Medtronic) and a mucosal exposure device (Endocuff Vision [ECV]; Olympus) or to CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone (control group). All detected lesions were removed and sent to histopathology for diagnosis. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenomas and serrated lesions detection rate, the rate of unnecessary polypectomies (polyp resection without histologically proven adenomas), and withdrawal time.

RESULTS

From July 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022, there were 1316 subjects randomized and eligible for analysis; 660 to the ECV group, 656 to the control group). The adenoma detection rate was significantly higher in the ECV group (49.6%) than in the control group (44.0%) (relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26; P = .04). Adenomas detected per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the ECV group (mean ± SD, 0.94 ± 0.54) than in the control group (0.74 ± 0.21) (incidence rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.54; P = .02). The 2 groups did not differ in term of detection of advanced adenomas and serrated lesions. There was no significant difference between groups in mean ± SD withdrawal time (9.01 ± 2.48 seconds for the ECV group vs 8.96 ± 2.24 seconds for controls; P = .69) or proportion of subjects undergoing unnecessary polypectomies (relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.14; P = .38).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of CADe and ECV during colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate and adenomas detected per colonoscopy without increasing withdrawal time compared with CADe alone.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, Number: NCT04676308.

Improving polyp detection at colonoscopy: Non-technological techniques

Colonoscopy and polypectomy remain the gold standard investigation for the detection and prevention of colorectal cancer. Halting the progression of colonic adenoma through adequate detection of pre-cancerous lesions interrupts the progression to carcinoma. The adenoma detection rate is a key performance indicator. Increasing adenoma detection rates are associated with reducing rates of interval colorectal cancer. Endoscopists with high baseline adenoma detection rate have a meticulous technique during colonoscopy withdrawal that improves their adenoma detection. This minireview article summarizes the evidence on the following simple operator techniques and their effects on the adenoma detection rate; minimum withdrawal times, dynamic patient position change and proximal colon retroflexion.

Endoscopic management of patients with high-risk colorectal colitis-associated neoplasia: a Delphi study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current guidelines recommend endoscopic resection of visible and endoscopically resectable colorectal colitis-associated neoplasia (CAN) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, patients with high-risk CAN (HR-CAN) are often not amenable to conventional resection techniques, and a consensus approach for the endoscopic management of these lesions is presently lacking. This Delphi study aims to reach consensus among experts on the endoscopic management of these lesions.

METHODS

A 3-round modified Delphi process was conducted to reach consensus among worldwide IBD and/or endoscopy experts (n = 18) from 3 continents. Consensus was considered if ≥75% agreed or disagreed. Quality of evidence was assessed by the criteria of the Cochrane Collaboration group.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on all statements (n = 14). Experts agreed on a definition for CAN and HR-CAN. Consensus was reached on the examination of the colon with enhanced endoscopic imaging before resection, the endoscopic resectability of an HR-CAN lesion, and endoscopic assessment and standard report of CAN lesions. In addition, experts agreed on type of resections of HR-CAN (< 20 mm, >20 mm, with or without good lifting), endoscopic success (technical success and outcomes), histologic assessment, and follow-up in HR-CAN.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first step in developing international consensus-based recommendations for endoscopic management of CAN and HR-CAN. Although the quality of available evidence was considered low, consensus was reached on several aspects of the management of CAN and HR-CAN. The present work and proposed standardization might benefit future studies.

Factors affecting the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in hard-to-prepare patients: Evidence from the literature

Adequate bowel cleansing is critical for a high-quality colonoscopy because it affects diagnostic accuracy and adenoma detection. Nevertheless, almost a quarter of procedures are still carried out with suboptimal preparation, resulting in longer procedure times, higher risk of complications, and higher likelihood of missing lesions. Current guidelines recommend high-volume or low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG)/non-PEG-based split-dose regimens. In patients who have had insufficient bowel cleansing, the colonoscopy should be repeated the same day or the next day with additional bowel cleansing as a salvage option. A strategy that includes a prolonged low-fiber diet, a split preparation regimen, and a colonoscopy within 5 h of the end of preparation may increase cleansing success rates in the elderly. Furthermore, even though no specific product is specifically recommended in the other cases for difficult-to-prepare patients, clinical evidence suggests that 1-L PEG plus ascorbic acid preparation are associated with higher cleansing success in hospitalized and inflammatory bowel disease patients. Patients with severe renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min) should be prepared with isotonic high volume PEG solutions. Few data on cirrhotic patients are currently available, and no trials have been conducted in this population. An accurate characterization of procedural and patient variables may lead to a more personalized approach to bowel preparation, especially in patients undergoing resection of left colon lesions, where intestinal preparation has a poor outcome. The purpose of this review was to summarize the evidence on the risk factors influencing the quality of bowel cleansing in difficult-to-prepare patients, as well as strategies to improve colonoscopy preparation in these patients.

Computer-aided detection, mucosal exposure device, their combination, and standard colonoscopy for adenoma detection: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Computer-aided detection (CADe) and a mucosal exposure device can improve adenoma detection rate (ADR). Potential benefits of combining the 2 modalities have never been studied. This study aimed to compare ADR differences among CADe alone, endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) alone, and the combination of CADe and EAC (CADe+EAC) with standard colonoscopy.

METHODS

This prospective randomized controlled study included 1245 participants who underwent screening colonoscopy. Participants were randomized to CADe, EAC, CADe+EAC, and standard colonoscopy as a control. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were proximal ADR (pADR), advanced ADR (AADR), and the number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APCs).

RESULTS

ADRs from the control, CADe, EAC, and CADe+EAC groups were 41.9%, 52.2%, 54.0%, and 58.8%, respectively; pADRs were 25.2%, 33.3%, 34.9%, and 37.0%, respectively; AADRs were 7.7%, 8.3%, 8.3%, and 13.6%, respectively; and APCs were .76, 1.11, 1.18, and 1.31, respectively. Significant increases in ADR and pADR were observed between the intervention and control groups (P < .05 in all comparisons). The AADR was significantly higher only in the CADe+EAC group than in the control group (P = .02). The adjusted incidence rate ratios of APCs were significantly higher in the intervention groups versus the control group (P < .01 in all comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

CADe+EAC significantly improve ADR and AADR over standard colonoscopy. However, although CADe or EAC alone can substantially increase the detection of adenomas, they do not lead to increased detection of advanced adenomas unless used in combination. (Clinical trial registration number: TCTR20200929003.).

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.).

The effect of the endoscopic device Endocuff™/Endocuff vision™ on quality standards in colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

AIM

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality measure, with a high ADR reflecting high-quality colonoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of Endocuff™/Endocuff Vision™-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) versus standard colonoscopy (SC) on ADR and other clinical, patient and resource-use outcomes.

METHOD

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for full papers reporting randomized studies comparing EAC with SC. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes comprised key polyp/adenoma detection, procedure-related, patient-related and health economic measures. Random effects meta-analyses provided pooled estimates of outcomes [risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI)].

RESULTS

Twelve parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and three crossover RCTs with data on 9140 patients were included. EAC significantly increased the ADR (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09-1.29), mean adenomas per procedure (MAP) (MD 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.33), polyp detection rate (PDR) (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10-1.30) and mean polyps per procedure (MPP) (MD 0.39, 95% CI 0.14-0.63) versus SC. EAC significantly increased segmental PDR versus SC in the sigmoid (RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.64-2.49), transverse (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.09-2.42), ascending (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.26-2.41) and caecal segments (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.29-2.82). Procedure-related variables did not differ between arms. There were insufficient data for meta-analysis of health economic or patient-centred outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

EAC increased ADR, MAP, PDR and MPP versus SC without detrimental effects on procedure measures. Cost-effectiveness and patient experience data are lacking and would be valuable to inform practice recommendations.

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.

Incidence of colorectal cancer at different screening intervals after index colonoscopy and post-polypectomy: a meta-analysis of 811,181 participants

OBJECTIVES

To examine the evidence on the incidence of colorectal cancers (CRCs) at a follow-up screening colonoscopy (after index colonoscopy and post-polypectomy) in individuals with no adenoma, low-risk adenomas, and high-risk adenomas.

METHODS

We included studies reporting the incidence of CRCs at different screening intervals after index colonoscopy and post-polypectomy. The main outcome was pooled cumulative incidence rate of CRCs stratified by intervals of 3, 5, 10, and >10 years.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with 811,181 participants were analyzed, including 10 multicenter studies and 3 national CRC screening programs. The cumulative incidence of CRCs was 0.63% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30, 0.97) in the high-risk-adenoma group at 3 years, 0.37% (95% CI: 0.13, 0.61) and 0.67% (95% CI: 0.36, 0.99) in the low-risk-adenoma group at 5 and 10 years, respectively, and 0.32% (95% CI: 0.20, 0.45) and 0.50% (95% CI: 0.30, 0.69) in the no-adenoma-group at 10 and >10 years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis summarizes the results of colonoscopy surveillance programs with detailed data support for different screening intervals. The data on date suggest that reasonable surveillance intervals are within 3 years for the high-risk-adenoma group, 5-10 years for the low-risk-adenoma group, and ≥10 years for the no-adenoma group.

A Machine Learning-Based System for Real-Time Polyp Detection (DeFrame): A Retrospective Study

Background and Aims

Recent studies have shown that artificial intelligence-based computer-aided detection systems possess great potential in reducing the heterogeneous performance of doctors during endoscopy. However, most existing studies are based on high-quality static images available in open-source databases with relatively small data volumes, and, hence, are not applicable for routine clinical practice. This research aims to integrate multiple deep learning algorithms and develop a system (DeFrame) that can be used to accurately detect intestinal polyps in real time during clinical endoscopy.

Methods

A total of 681 colonoscopy videos were collected for retrospective analysis at Xiangya Hospital of Central South University from June 2019 to June 2020. To train the machine learning (ML)-based system, 6,833 images were extracted from 48 collected videos, and 1,544 images were collected from public datasets. The DeFrame system was further validated with two datasets, consisting of 24,486 images extracted from 176 collected videos and 12,283 images extracted from 259 collected videos. The remaining 198 collected full-length videos were used for the final test of the system. The measurement metrics were sensitivity and specificity in validation dataset 1, precision, recall and F1 score in validation dataset 2, and the overall performance when tested in the complete video perspective.

Results

A sensitivity and specificity of 79.54 and 95.83%, respectively, was obtained for the DeFrame system for detecting intestinal polyps. The recall and precision of the system for polyp detection were determined to be 95.43 and 92.12%, respectively. When tested using full colonoscopy videos, the system achieved a recall of 100% and precision of 80.80%.

Conclusion

We have developed a fast, accurate, and reliable DeFrame system for detecting polyps, which, to some extent, is feasible for use in routine clinical practice.

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.

Visibility evaluation of colorectal lesion using texture and color enhancement imaging with video

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Artificial Intelligence-Aid Colonoscopy Vs. Conventional Colonoscopy for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Systematic Review of 7 Discordant Meta-Analyses

Objectives: Multiple meta-analyses which investigated the comparative efficacy and safety of artificial intelligence (AI)-aid colonoscopy (AIC) vs. conventional colonoscopy (CC) in the detection of polyp and adenoma have been published. However, a definitive conclusion has not yet been generated. This systematic review selected from discordant meta-analyses to draw a definitive conclusion about whether AIC is better than CC for the detection of polyp and adenoma. Methods: We comprehensively searched potentially eligible literature in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and China National Knowledgement Infrastructure (CNKI) databases from their inceptions until to April 2021. Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument was used to assess the methodological quality. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality. Two investigators independently used the Jadad decision algorithm to select high-quality meta-analyses which summarized the best available evidence. Results: Seven meta-analyses met our selection criteria finally. AMSTAR score ranged from 8 to 10, and PRISMA score ranged from 23 to 26. According to the Jadad decision algorithm, two high-quality meta-analyses were selected. These two meta-analyses suggested that AIC was superior to CC for colonoscopy outcomes, especially for polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). Conclusion: Based on the best available evidence, we conclude that AIC should be preferentially selected for the route screening of colorectal lesions because it has potential value of increasing the polyp and adenoma detection. However, the continued improvement of AIC in differentiating the shape and pathology of colorectal lesions is needed.

Enhancing polyp detection: technological advances in colonoscopy imaging

The detection and removal of polyps at colonoscopy is core to the current colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention strategy. However, colonoscopy is flawed with a well described miss rate and variability in detection rates associated with incomplete protection from CRC. Consequently, there is significant interest in techniques and technologies which increase polyp detection with the aim to remedy colonoscopy's ills. Technologic advances in colonoscope imaging are numerous and include; increased definition of imaging, widening field of view, virtual technologies to supplant conventional chromocolonoscopy (CC) and now computer assisted detection. However, despite nearly two decades of technologic advances, data on gains in detection from individual technologies have been modest at best and heterogenous and conflicted as a rule. This state of detection technology science is exacerbated by use of relatively blunt metrics of improvement without consensus, the myopic search for gains over single generations of technology improvement and an unhealthy focus on adenomatous lesions. Yet there remains cause for optimism as detection gains from new technology, while small, may still improve CRC prevention. The technologies are also readily available in current generation colonoscopes and have roles beyond simply detection such as lesion characterization, further improving their worth. Coupled with the imminent expansion of computer assisted detection the detection future from colonoscope imaging advances looks bright. This review aims to cover the major imaging advances and evidence for improvement in polyp detection.

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.).

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.

Impact of EndoRings on colon adenoma detection rate: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Evidence of a superior efficacy of EndoRings over standard colonoscopy in improving colon adenoma detection rate is lacking. We aimed to compare EndoRings and standard colonoscopy through a pairwise meta-analysis of randomized trials.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed/Medline and Embase database through July 2020 and identified five randomized controlled trials (recruiting 2751 patients). The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate; secondary outcomes included advanced and sessile serrated adenoma detection rate, mean adenoma per colonoscopy, cecal intubation rate, and time. We performed pairwise meta-analysis through a random-effects model and expressed data as risk ratio and 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Overall, pooled adenoma detection rate was 53.9% (49-58.8%) with EndoRings and 49.1% (42-56.1%) with standard colonoscopy (risk ratio 1.05, 0.95-1.17). Advanced adenoma detection (risk ratio 0.91, 0.74-1.12), sessile serrated detection rate (risk ratio 1.10, 0.81-1.50), and polyp detection rate (risk ratio 1.06, 0.98-1.15) were similar between the two groups. Likewise, mean adenoma per colonoscopy (mean difference 0.17, -0.09 to 0.43), cecal intubation rate (risk ratio 1.00, 0.99-1.01), and cecal intubation time (mean difference 0.20 min, -0.34 to 0.74) did not differ between the two add-on devices. No serious adverse event was observed.

CONCLUSION

EndoRings did not seem to significantly improve the diagnostic performance of colonoscopy. Further trials are needed to confirm these results.

Effect of dynamic position changes on adenoma detection rate during colonoscope withdrawal: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality metric of colonoscopy. Higher ADR correlates with lower incidence of interval colorectal cancer. ADR is variable between endoscopists and depends upon the withdrawal technique amongst other factors. Dynamic position change (lateral rotation of patients with a view to keep the portion of the colon being inspected at a higher level) helps with luminal distension during the withdrawal phase. However, impact of this on ADR is not known in a pooled sample. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the impact of dynamic position changes during withdrawal phase of colonoscopy on ADR Methods  A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database was conducted from each database's inception to search for studies comparing dynamic position changes during colonoscope withdrawal with static left lateral position (control). The primary outcome of interest was ADR. Other studied outcomes were polyp detection rate (PDR) and withdrawal time. Outcomes were reported as pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) with statistical significance ( P  < 0.05). RevMan 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis. Results  Six studies were included in our analysis with 2860 patients. Of these, dynamic position change was implemented in 1177 patients while 1183 patients served as the controls. ADR was significantly higher in the dynamic position change group with pooled OR 1.36 (95 % CI, 1.15-1.61; P  < 0.01). There was low heterogeneity in inclusion studies (I ²  = 0 %). PDR was numerically higher in position change group (53.4 % vs 49.6 %) but not statistically significant ( P  = 0.16). Mean withdrawal time did not significantly change with dynamic position change (12.43 min vs 11.46 min, P  = 0.27). Conclusion  Position change during the withdrawal phase of colonoscopy can increase the ADR compared to static left lateral position. This is an easy and practical technique that can be implemented to improve ADR.

Impact of fellow participation on colon adenoma detection rates: a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There are limited and conflicting data on the impact of fellow participation in improving the colon adenoma detection rate. We performed a multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether fellow involvement might have a beneficial effect on adenoma detection rate.

METHODS

The trial was conducted at 4 tertiary hospitals between April and December 2019. Eight hundred twelve patients were randomized to undergo colonoscopy performed by a fellow under the supervision of a staff endoscopist or by an attending physician alone.

RESULTS

No significant differences in demographic or adenoma risk factors were detected between the 2 groups. The adenoma detection rate in the intervention group was 44.8% versus 37.1% in the control arm (P = .02). The mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy was significantly higher in the intervention group (0.65 ± 0.3 vs 0.53 ± 0.2 in the control arm, P < .001). The polyp detection rate was 69.7% in the intervention group and 62.5% in the control arm (P = .03), whereas rates of advanced and sessile/serrated adenoma detection were not different between the trial arms (P = .50 and .42, respectively). In the subgroup of more experienced fellows, the adenoma detection rate and polyp detection rate were 49.5% and 75.7%, respectively. No difference was observed between less-experienced fellows and attending physicians alone (P = .53 and 0.86, respectively). The level of bowel preparation and fellow involvement were significant predictors of increased adenoma detection rate in a multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our multicenter trial represents the first prospective validation of the beneficial role of fellow involvement in colonoscopy procedures. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03908229.).

Impact of new techniques on adenoma detection rate based on meta-analysis data

The high incidence of colorectal cancer and the occurrence of interval cancers after screening colonoscopy support the need to develop methods to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR). This review focuses on the importance of ADR and the impact of new techniques on ADR based on meta-analysis data. The low-cost interventions (such as water-aided colonoscopy, second observation, and dynamic position change) were effective in increasing ADR. So were enhanced imaging techniques and add-on devices. Increase with higher cost interventions such as newer scopes is uncertain. Water exchange (WE) has the highest ADR compared with water immersion, air insufflation, and carbon dioxide insufflation. Second observation with forward or retroflexed views improved the right colon ADR. Add-on devices result in only modest improvement in ADR, of particular help in low performing endoscopists. The second-generation narrow-band imaging (NBI) provided a two-fold brighter image than the previous system. The improvement in ADR with NBI required the “best” quality bowel preparation. New endoscopic techniques incur various additional costs, nil for WE, small for tip attachments but large for the newer scopes. In conclusion, one or more of the above methods to improve ADR may be applicable in Taiwan. A comparison of these approaches to determine which is the most cost-effective is warranted.

Prevalence of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma in patients with acute diverticulitis: implications for follow-up colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Guidelines recommend colonoscopy after an episode of diverticulitis to exclude neoplasia but the effectiveness of testing is uncertain. Patients with complicated diverticulitis may be at higher risk for neoplasia, but most patients have uncomplicated disease. We examined the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced adenoma (AA) in patients with diverticulitis compared with patients undergoing screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

CT scans from January 1, 2008, to May 1, 2013, at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) were reviewed to identify those with confirmed acute diverticulitis. Subsequent surgical, colonoscopy, and pathology reports were abstracted to identify those with a diagnosis of AA and CRC. The incidence of neoplasia was compared with that reported for screening colonoscopy from a meta-analysis (n = 68,324), and from colonoscopy examinations at UPMC between 2013 and 2015 (n = 28,573).

RESULTS

A total of 5167 abdominal/pelvic CT scan reports identified 978 patients with acute diverticulitis, among which 474 (48.5%) patients had undergone at least 1 colonoscopy or gastrointestinal surgery to April 2015. The CRC rate in patients with diverticulitis (13/474, 2.7%) was significantly higher (P < .0001) compared with both the meta-analysis (0.8%) and UPMC (0.3%). The AA rate (19/474, 4.0%) was similar to the rate in the meta-analysis (5.0%, P = .39) but significantly lower than at UPMC (7.7%, P = .003). The incidence of AA or CRC in complicated diverticulitis (10/141, 7.1%) did not differ significantly (P = .85) from the incidence of AA or CRC in uncomplicated diverticulitis (22/332, 6.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

CRC after diverticulitis was significantly higher than that observed at screening colonoscopy and was not limited to complicated disease. Colonoscopy is advisable after the diagnosis of diverticulitis.

Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing worldwide. CRC has high mortality when detected at advanced stages, yet it is also highly preventable. Given the difficulties in implementing major lifestyle changes or widespread primary prevention strategies to decrease CRC risk, screening is the most powerful public health tool to reduce mortality. Screening methods are effective but have limitations. Furthermore, many screen-eligible people remain unscreened. We discuss established and emerging screening methods, and potential strategies to address current limitations in CRC screening. A quantum step in CRC prevention might come with the development of new screening strategies, but great gains can be made by deploying the available CRC screening modalities in ways that optimize outcomes while making judicious use of resources.

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

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

EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy could improve adenoma detection rate: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) could improve adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared with standard colonoscopy (SC).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were searched for articles published up to March 2019. All pure randomized controlled trials comparing ADR between EAC and SC groups were included. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain the odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval (CI), whereas continuous data were pooled using a mean difference with 95% CI. Review Manager Version 5.3 was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized controlled trials consisting of 9038 patients (EAC: 4574; SC: 4464) were included. The EAC group showed significant superiority over the SC group in ADR (odds ratio 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.62). However, there were no differences between the EAC and SC groups in adverse events, cecal intubation rate, and cecal intubation time.

CONCLUSIONS

EAC could significantly improve ADR without increasing adverse events, especially for operators with low ADRs. In addition, no significant difference was observed in cecal intubation time and cecal intubation rate between EAC and SC.

Compared Abilities of Endoscopic Techniques to Increase Colon Adenoma Detection Rates: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality metric for colorectal cancer screening. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the overall and comparative efficacies of different endoscopic techniques in adenoma detection.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of published articles and abstracts, through March 15, 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing colonoscopy that compared the efficacy of different devices in detection of adenomas. Our final analysis included 74 2-arm trials that comprised 44948 patients. These studies compared efficacies of add-on devices (cap, endocuff, endo-rings, G-EYE), enhanced imaging techniques (chromoendoscopy, narrow-band imaging, flexible spectral imaging color enhancement, blue laser imaging), new scopes (full-spectrum endoscopy, extra-wide-angle-view colonoscopy, dual focus), and low-cost optimizing existing resources (water-aided colonoscopy, second observer, dynamic position change), alone or in combination with high-definition colonoscopy or each other. Primary outcome was increase in ADR. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, and appraised quality of evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

Low-cost optimizing existing resources (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI,1.17-1.43), enhanced imaging techniques (OR,1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.35), and add-on devices (OR,1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29) were associated with a moderate increase in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy; there was low to moderate confidence in estimates. Use of newer scopes was not associated with significant increases in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.21). In our comparative efficacy analysis, no specific technology for increasing ADR was superior to others. We did not find significant differences between technologies in detection of advanced ADR, polyp detection rate, or mean number of adenomas/patient.

CONCLUSIONS

In a network meta-analysis of published trials, we found that low-cost optimization of existing resources to be as effective as enhanced endoscopic imaging, or add-on devices, in increasing ADR during high-definition colonoscopy.

High-Definition Chromoendoscopy Versus High-Definition White Light Colonoscopy for Neoplasia Surveillance in Ulcerative Colitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

Although chromoendoscopy is currently the recommended mode of surveillance in patients with long-standing ulcerative colitis, it is technically challenging and requires a long procedure time. The aim of this study was to compare the dysplasia detection rate of high-definition white light endoscopy with random biopsy (HDWL-R) vs high-definition chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsy (HDCE-T).

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective randomized controlled trial involving 9 tertiary teaching hospitals in South Korea. A total of 210 patients with long-standing ulcerative colitis were randomized to undergo either the HDWL-R group (n = 102) or HDCE-T group (n = 108). The detection rates of colitis-associated dysplasia (CAD) or all colorectal neoplasia from each trial arm were compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the CAD detection rate between HDCE-T and HDWL-R groups (4/102, 3.9% vs 6/108, 5.6%, P = 0.749). However, HDCE-T showed a trend toward improved colorectal neoplasia detection compared with HDWL-R (21/102, 20.6% vs 13/108, 12.0%, P = 0.093). The median (range) time for colonoscopy withdrawal between the 2 groups was similar (17.6 [7.0-43.3] minutes vs 16.5 [6.3-38.1] minutes; P=0.212; for HDWL-R and HDCE-T, respectively). The total number of biopsies was significantly larger in the HDWL-R group (34 [12-72]) compared with the HDCE-T group (9 [1-20]; P < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

On the basis of our prospective randomized controlled trial, HDCE-T was not superior to HDWL-R for detecting CADs.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Transparent hood-assisted colonoscopy (TAC) has been reported to improve the cecal insertion rate and adenoma detection rate (ADR). An endoscopic cap (Endocuff) with two rows of soft wings was recently developed to improve ADR, by flattening the mucosal folds during withdrawal. This randomized prospective control study aimed to compare ADR between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and TAC.

METHODS

A total of 513 patients undergoing colon adenoma screening were included. EAC was performed in 256 patients and TAC in 260 patients. Cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, ADR, and mean adenoma number per patient (MAP) were investigated in both groups (clinical trial registration: UMIN000016278).

RESULTS

We excluded six patients in the EAC group and two patients in the TAC group because of colonic stenosis due to colonic adenocarcinomas. Finally, 250 patients (151 men/99 women, median age 62.1 years) were assigned to EAC and 258 patients (165 men/93 women, median age 64.3 years) were assigned to TAC. There were no significant differences in cecal intubation rate, intubation time, withdrawal time, and cleanliness score between groups. The ADR was 50.8% in EAC and 52.7% in TAC, with no significant difference (P = 0.666). The MAP was 1.35 in EAC and 1.20 in TAC, with no significant difference (P = 0.126). However, The MAP of diminutive adenomas (< 5 mm) tended to be higher in EAC than in TAC (P = 0.077). There was no significant difference in MAP in each segment between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy might be equivalent to TAC in cecal intubation time, ADR, and MAP.

Comparative efficacy of long-term antibiotic treatments in the primary prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Several antibiotic treatments aiming to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in cirrhotic patients with low-protein content in ascitic fluid have been tested; however, there are limited data on the comparative efficacy of these regimens. We assessed their comparative efficacy through a network meta-analysis and using GRADE criteria to appraise quality of evidence.

METHODS

Through literature review through October 2018, we identified 10 randomized controlled trials comparing antibiotic treatments (norfloxacin, ciprofloxacin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifaximin) with each other or placebo. Primary outcome was SBP occurrence, with mortality rate and rate of other infections as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

In comparison with placebo, moderate quality evidence supports the use of norfloxacin and ciprofloxacin in primary prophylaxis of SBP (risk ratio 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09-0.56; P = 0.001 and 0.23; 0.07-0.79; P = 0.02 respectively) while only low quality evidence suggests superiority of rifaximin (risk ratio 0.15; 0.05-0.42). When antimicrobial agents were compared to each other, no significant difference was found. With regard to mortality, moderate quality supports the superiority of norfloxacin over placebo (risk ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.99; P = 0.04), while ciprofloxacin and rifaximin showed only a non-significant benefit and no significant difference was found in the other comparisons. None of the tested antibiotics proved to significantly decrease the rate of other infections.

CONCLUSIONS

Norfloxacin appears to have significant benefit both in terms of SBP prevention and mortality; ciprofloxacin represents a valuable option although without a clear survival benefit. Rifaximin shows interesting results but needs to be tested in further trials.

Effect of fellow involvement on colonoscopy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The effect of fellow involvement on colonoscopy outcomes is controversial. Thus, we evaluated this effect on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and on other colonoscopy quality indicators.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched up to September 2018 for studies evaluating fellow-involved colonoscopies vs. attending physicians-only examinations in terms of colonoscopy outcomes. Primary outcome was ADR, while advanced ADR (AADR), mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (MAC), cecum intubation rate (CIR) and adverse events rate comprised the secondary outcomes. The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using random-effects model and it is presented as Odds Ratio (OR) or Mean Difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Nineteen observational studies involving 34,059 patients (fellow-involved 16,875, attending physician-only 17,184) were included. Compared to the attending physician-only group, fellow involvement marginally increased ADR [OR (95%CI) = 1.12 (1.00-1.26); p = 0.06, I² = 76%]. Attending physicians with low-to-moderate ADR (<35%) benefited most from fellow's participation [OR (95%CI): 1.26 (1.13-1.40) vs. 1.12 (1.00-1.26); p = 0.03 when ADR < 35% and OR (95%CI): 1.29 (1.13-1.46) vs. 0.95 (0.78-1.16); p = 0.01 when ADR < 30%, respectively]. Moreover, fellow-involved group had higher MAC compared to attending-only group [MD (95%CI) = 0.12 (0.04-0.20); p = 0.002, I² = 53%]. No benefit from fellow involvement was detected either for AADR, CIR or adverse events rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Fellow involvement during colonoscopy is associated with more adenomas detected per procedure and with higher ADR when the attending physician-only group ADR is less than 35%.

Cost-effectiveness of adding Endocuff® to standard colonoscopies for interval colorectal cancer screening

Background and aims: Higher screening colonoscopy adenoma detection rates (ADRs) correlate with reduced risk of interval colorectal cancer (CRC). The Endocuff® device has been shown to improve ADRs compared to standard colonoscopy (SC). This cost-effectiveness analysis compared interval CRC screening using Endocuff®-assisted colonoscopy (EC) vs SC. Methods: A decision-analytic Markov model followed patients through screening, CRC diagnosis, progression, remission, and death. ADRs, CRC progression, and utilities were from literature. CRC incidence, stage distribution, and mortality were from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and SEER-Medicare linked databases. Screening and annual patient costs were from public databases and literature. Endocuff® device average sales price was applied. Lifetime device and medical costs were evaluated separately for device purchaser, health plan, and accountable care organization (ACO) perspectives. Results: Consistent use of EC instead of SC was expected to reduce lifetime risks of interval CRC and related death by 0.98% and 0.19%, respectively, preventing one case per 102 patients and one death per 526 patients. Survival and quality-of-life (QoL) improved by 0.025 life-years and 0.011 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient on average. EC instead of SC led to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to the device purchaser of $4,421 per life-year gained and $9,843 per QALY gained, and $199 or $87 average cost-savings per patient to the health plan or ACO, respectively. Conclusion: Endocuff® for screening colonoscopies was expected to reduce interval CRC incidence and death, improve QoL, and be cost-effective to the device purchaser and cost-saving to a health plan or ACO.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Editorial Board top 10 topics: advances in GI endoscopy in 2018

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Editorial Board reviewed original endoscopy-related articles published during 2018 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 adenoma detection, bariatric endoscopy, EMR/submucosal dissection/full-thickness resection, artificial intelligence, expandable metal stents for palliation of biliary obstruction, pancreatic therapy with lumen-apposing metal stents, endoscope reprocessing, Barrett's esophagus, interventional EUS, and GI bleeding. This document summarizes these "Top 10" endoscopic advances of 2018.

Effect of Endocuff use on colonoscopy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endocuff - a plastic device with flexible projections - mounted on the distal tip of the colonoscope, promises improved colonic mucosa inspection.

AIM

To elucidate the effect of Endocuff on adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR) and mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (MAC).

METHODS

Literature searches identified randomized-controlled trials evaluating Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) vs conventional colonoscopy (CC) in terms of ADR, AADR and MAC. The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using fixed or random effect model, as appropriate, and it is shown as relative risk (RR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] and mean difference (MD) (95%CI). The rate of device removal in EAC arms was also calculated.

RESULTS

We identified nine studies enrolling 6038 patients. All studies included mixed population (screening, surveillance and diagnostic examinations). Seven and two studies evaluated the first and the second-generation device, respectively. EAC was associated with increased ADR compared to CC [RR (95%CI): 1.18 (1.05-1.32); Ι² = 71%]; EAC benefits more endoscopists with ADR ≤ 35% compared to those with ADR > 35% [RR (95%CI): 1.37 (1.08-1.74); Ι² = 49% vs 1.10 (0.99-1.24); Ι² = 71%]. In terms of AADR and MAC, no difference was detected between EAC and CC [RR (95%CI): 1.03 (0.85-1.25); Ι² = 15% and MD (95%CI): 0.30 (-0.17-0.78); Ι² = 99%]. Subgroup analysis did not show any difference between the two device generations regarding all three endpoints. In EAC arms, the device had to be removed in 3% (95%CI: 2%-5%) of the cases mainly due to tortuous sigmoid or presence of diverticula along it.

CONCLUSION

EAC increases ADR compared to CC, especially for endoscopists with lower ADR. On the other hand, no significant effect on AADR and MAC was detected.

To cap/cuff or ring: do distal attachment devices improve the adenoma detection?

Colonoscopy reduces the risk of colorectal cancer, by interrupting the adenoma-carcinoma sequence enabling the detection and removal of adenomas before they turn into colorectal cancer. Colonoscopy has its limitations as adenoma miss rates as high as 25% have been reported. The reasons for missed pathology are complicated and multi-factorial. The recent drive to improve adenoma detection rates has led to a plethora of new technologies. Areas covered: An increasing number of advanced endoscopes and distal attachment devices have appeared in the market. Advanced endoscopes aim to improve mucosal visualization by widening the field of view. Distal attachment devices aim to increase adenoma detection behind folds by flattening folds on withdrawal. In this review article, we discuss the three following distal attachment devices: the transparent cap, the Endocuff, and the Endoring. Expert commentary: The authors believe that the distal attachment devices will have a greater benefit for endoscopists with low baseline adenoma detection rates.

Artificial intelligence and computer-aided diagnosis in colonoscopy: current evidence and future directions

Computer-aided diagnosis offers a promising solution to reduce variation in colonoscopy performance. Pooled miss rates for polyps are as high as 22%, and associated interval colorectal cancers after colonoscopy are of concern. Optical biopsy, whereby in-vivo classification of polyps based on enhanced imaging replaces histopathology, has not been incorporated into routine practice because it is limited by interobserver variability and generally only meets accepted standards in expert settings. Real-time decision-support software has been developed to detect and characterise polyps, and also to offer feedback on the technical quality of inspection. Some of the current algorithms, particularly with recent advances in artificial intelligence techniques, match human expert performance for optical biopsy. In this Review, we summarise the evidence for clinical applications of computer-aided diagnosis and artificial intelligence in colonoscopy.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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