Endoscopic cuff-assisted colonoscopy versus cap-assisted colonoscopy in adenoma detection: randomized tandem study-DEtection in Tandem Endocuff Cap Trial (DETECT)

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.

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.).

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.

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.

Upskilling Pediatric Ileocolonoscopy

Upskilling in ileocolonoscopy is an important aspect of pediatric endoscopic practice as it enables endoscopists to learn additional skills through education and training to improve outcomes. With the advent of technologies, endoscopy is continuously evolving. Many devices can be applied to improve endoscopy quality and ergonomics. In addition, techniques such as dynamic position change can be employed to increase procedural efficiency and completeness. Key to upskilling is enhancing endoscopists' cognitive, technical and nontechnical skills and the concept of "training the trainer" to ensure trainers have the requisite skills to teach endoscopy effectively. This chapter details aspects of upskilling pediatric ileocolonoscopy.

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.).

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.

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).

Quality Indicators for the Detection and Removal of Colorectal Polyps and Interventions to Improve Them

Modifiable risk factors for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer include suboptimal lesion detection (missed neoplasms) and inadequate lesion removal (incomplete polypectomy) during colonoscopy. Competent detection and removal of colorectal polyps are thus fundamental to ensuring adequate colonoscopy quality. Several well-researched quality metrics for polyp detection have been implemented into clinical practice, chief among these the adenoma detection rate. Less data are available on quality indicators for polyp removal, which currently include complete resection rates and skills assessment tools. This review summarizes the available literature on quality indicators for the detection and removal of colorectal polyps, as well as interventions to improve them.

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.

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.

Standard versus Endocuff versus cap-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection: A randomised controlled clinical trial

Background and aims

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) in colon cancer screening is most important for cancer prophylaxis. This work is the first three‐armed randomised controlled clinical trial aimed at comparing a head‐to‐head setting standard colonoscopy (SC) with Endocuff‐assisted colonoscopy (EC) and cap‐assisted colonoscopy (CAC) for improvement of ADR.

Methods

Patients from Poland and Germany with independent indication for colonoscopy were randomised into three arms of this trial: EC, CAC and SC. Exclusion criteria were age <18 years, active Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis, known stenosis and post‐colonic resection status.

Results

A total of 585 patients (195 SC, 189 EC and 186 CAC) were enrolled in this study. Indications were not different between the groups (colorectal cancer screening 51%, diagnostic colonoscopy in 31% and post‐polypectomy follow‐up in 18%; p = 0.94). Withdrawal time was a mean of 7 min in all groups (p = 0.658), and bowel preparation did not differ between the groups. The time to reach the caecum was significantly reduced when using the cap (a mean of 6 min for CAC vs. 7 min for SC; p = 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of the ADR between the groups (EC 32%, CAC 30%, SC 30%; p = 0.815). EC proved to be superior (EC vs. SC) in the sigmoid colon and transverse colon for polyp detection.

Conclusion

The use of EC increased the total number of polyps seen during colonoscopy. In contrast to recent studies, no significant improvement of the ADR was detected.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Is artificial intelligence the final answer to missed polyps in colonoscopy?

Lesions missed by colonoscopy are one of the main reasons for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer, which is usually associated with a worse prognosis. Because the adenoma miss rate could be as high as 26%, it has been noted that endoscopists with higher adenoma detection rates are usually associated with lower adenoma miss rates. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly the deep learning model, is a promising innovation in colonoscopy. Recent studies have shown that AI is not only accurate in colorectal polyp detection but can also reduce the miss rate. Nevertheless, the application of AI in real-time detection has been hindered by heterogeneity of the AI models and study design as well as a lack of long-term outcomes. Herein, we discussed the principle of various AI models and systematically reviewed the current data on the use of AI on colorectal polyp detection and miss rates. The limitations and future prospects of AI on colorectal polyp detection are also discussed.

Polypectomy During Both Insertion and Withdrawal Phase Versus During Withdrawal Phase Only: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background: This study aimed to compare polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal phase versus during withdrawal phase only. Method: We performed literature searching in PubMed and Ovid for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal phase versus during withdrawal phase only on April 3, 2020. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Results: Five RCTs published between 2012 and 2020 with a total of 2694 individuals were included in this meta-analysis. No significant difference was observed between the two groups for ADR (P = .99, odds ratio = 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.19, I² = 0%), or average number of adenomas per individuals (P = .53, weighted mean difference [WMD] = 0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.17, I² = 30%). Besides, polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal group showed significantly longer time for insertion phase (P = .01, WMD = 2.16, 95% CI 0.47-3.84, I² = 95%), and shorter time for withdrawal phase (P = .010, WMD = -2.32, 95% CI -4.09 to -0.56, I² = 94%), although the total procedure time was not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion: No obvious advantages were observed for polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal phase. We are looking forward to the long-term outcomes of these studies. More studies are warranted in the future for further exploration, especially the detection rate of small lesions.

Impact of cuff-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have reported that cuff-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) can be used for detection of adenoma (DA). However, there are inconsistent results regarding the CAC for DA. Thus, this study will systematically explore the impact of CAC for DA.

METHODS

In order to retrieve potential eligible articles, this study will identify the following electronic databases from their inceptions to present: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PSYCINFO, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. All electronic databases will be searched without any language limitation. We will consider case-controlled studies that focused on exploring the impacts of CAC for DA. Two authors will perform study selection, information collection and risk of bias assessment, respectively. Any discrepancies between 2 authors will be resolved through discussion with a third author.

RESULTS

This study will summarize the most recent evidence to assess the impact of CAC for DA.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study will provide evidence of CAC for DA in clinical practice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

INPLASY202040042.