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

Analysis of the Characteristics of Coexisting Lesions in Colorectal Cancer Patients in an International Study: A Subgroup Analysis of the ATLAS Trial

INTRODUCTION

We investigated coexisting lesion types in patients with invasive colorectal cancer (CRC) in a multinational study for comprehending the adenoma-carcinoma and serrated pathway about the development of CRC.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 3,050 patients enrolled in the international randomized controlled trial (ATLAS study) to evaluate the colorectal polyp detection performance of image-enhanced endoscopy in 11 institutions in four Asian countries/regions. In the current study, as a subgroup analysis of the ATLAS study, 92 CRC patients were extracted and compared to 2,958 patients without CRC to examine the effects of age, sex, and coexisting lesion types (high-grade adenoma [HGA], low-grade adenoma with villous component [LGAV], 10 adenomas, adenoma ≥10 mm, sessile serrated lesions [SSLs], and SSLs with dysplasia [SSLD]). Additional analyses of coexisting lesion types were performed according to sex and location of CRC (right- or left-sided).

RESULTS

A multivariate analysis showed that HGA (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 4.29 [2.16-8.18]; p < 0.01), LGAV (3.02 [1.16-7.83], p = 0.02), and age (1.04 [1.01-1.06], p = 0.01) were independently associated with CRC. According to sex, the coexisting lesion types significantly associated with CRC were LGAV (5.58 [1.94-16.0], p < 0.01) and HGA (4.46 [1.95-10.20], p < 0.01) in males and HGA (4.82 [1.47-15.80], p < 0.01) in females. Regarding the location of CRC, SSLD (21.9 [1.31-365.0], p = 0.03) was significant for right-sided CRC, and HGA (5.22 [2.39-11.4], p < 0.01) and LGAV (3.46 [1.13-10.6], p = 0.02) were significant for left-sided CRC.

CONCLUSIONS

The significant coexisting lesions in CRC differed according to sex and location. These findings may contribute to comprehending the pathogenesis of CRC.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Thai Clinical Trials Registry TCTR20220507004.

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Comparison of LED and LASER Colonoscopy About Linked Color Imaging and Blue Laser/Light Imaging of Colorectal Tumors in a Multinational Study

INTRODUCTION

In light-emitting diode (LED) and LASER colonoscopy, linked color imaging (LCI) and blue light/laser imaging (BLI) are used for lesion detection and characterization worldwide. We analyzed the difference of LCI and BLI images of colorectal lesions between LED and LASER in a multinational study.

METHODS

We prospectively observed lesions with white light imaging (WLI), LCI, and BLI using both LED and LASER colonoscopies from January 2020 to August 2021. Images were graded by 27 endoscopists from nine countries using the polyp visibility score: 4 (excellent), 3 (good), 2 (fair), and 1 (poor) and the comparison score (LED better/similar/LASER better) for WLI/LCI/BLI images of each lesion.

RESULTS

Finally, 32 lesions (polyp size: 20.0 ± 15.2 mm) including 9 serrated lesions, 13 adenomas, and 10 T1 cancers were evaluated. The polyp visibility scores of LCI/WLI for international and Japan-expert endoscopists were 3.17 ± 0.73/3.17 ± 0.79 (p = 0.92) and 3.34 ± 0.78/2.84 ± 1.22 (p < 0.01) for LED and 3.30 ± 0.71/3.12 ± 0.77 (p < 0.01) and 3.31 ± 0.82/2.78 ± 1.23 (p < 0.01) for LASER. Regarding the comparison of lesion visibility about between LED and LASER colonoscopy in international endoscopists, a significant difference was achieved not for WLI, but for LCI. The rates of LED better/similar/LASER better for brightness under WLI were 54.5%/31.6%/13.9% (International) and 75.0%/21.9%/3.1% (Japan expert). Those under LCI were 39.2%/35.4%/25.3% (International) and 31.3%/53.1%/15.6% (Japan expert). There were no significant differences in the diagnostic accuracy and the comparison score of BLI images between LED and LASER.

CONCLUSIONS

The differences of lesion visibility for WLI/LCI/BLI between LED and LASER in international endoscopists could be compared to those in Japanese endoscopists.

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.

Linked-Color Imaging Detects More Colorectal Adenoma and Serrated Lesions: An International Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Effects of linked-color imaging (LCI) on colorectal lesion detection and colonoscopy quality remain controversial. This study compared the detection rates of adenoma and other precursor lesions using LCI vs white-light imaging (WLI) during screening, diagnostic, and surveillance colonoscopies.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial was performed at 11 institutions in 4 Asian countries/regions. Patients with abdominal symptoms, a primary screening colonoscopy, positive fecal immunochemical test results, or undergoing postpolypectomy surveillance were recruited and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the LCI or high-definition WLI group. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes were polyp detection rate, advanced ADR, sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rate, and the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy. The recommended surveillance schedule distribution after trial colonoscopy was analyzed.

RESULTS

Between November 2020 and January 2022, there were 3050 participants (LCI, n = 1527; WLI, n = 1523) recruited. The LCI group ADR was significantly higher than the WLI group ADR using intention-to-treat (58.7% vs 46.7%; P < .01) and per-protocol analyses (59.6% vs 46.4%; P < .01). The LCI group polyp detection rates (68.6% vs 59.5%; P < .01), SSL detection rates (4.8% vs 2.8%; P < .01), and adenomas per colonoscopy (1.48 vs 1.02; P < .01) also were significantly higher. However, the advanced ADR was not significantly different (13.2% vs 11.0%; P = .06). Significantly more patients in the LCI group had shorter recommended surveillance schedules than the WLI group (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with WLI, LCI improved adenoma and other polyp detection rates, including SSLs, resulting in alteration of the recommended surveillance schedule after screening, diagnostic, and postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000042432 (https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm).

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.).

Variability in adenoma detection rate in control groups of randomized colonoscopy trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is still the main surrogate outcome parameter of screening colonoscopy, but most studies include mixed indications, and basic ADR is quite variable. We therefore looked at the control groups in randomized ADR trials using advanced imaging or mechanical methods to find out whether indications or other factors influence ADR levels.

METHODS

Patients in the control groups of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ADR increase using various methods were collected based on a systematic review; this control group had to use high-definition white-light endoscopy performed between 2008 and 2021. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool ADR in control groups and its 95% confidence interval (CI) according to clinical (indication and demographic), study setting (tandem/parallel, number of centers, sample size), and technical (type of intervention, withdrawal time) parameters. Interstudy heterogeneity was reported with the I² statistic. Multivariable mixed-effects meta-regression was performed for potentially relevant variables.

RESULTS

From 80 studies, 25,304 patients in the respective control groups were included. ADR in control arms varied between 8.2% and 68.1% with a high degree of heterogeneity (I² = 95.1%; random-effect pooled value, 37.5%; 95% CI, 34.6‒40.5). There was no difference in ADR levels between primary colonoscopy screening (12 RCTs, 15%) and mixed indications including screening/surveillance and diagnostic colonoscopy; however, fecal immunochemical testing as an indication for colonoscopy was an independent predictor of ADR (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4). Other well-known parameters were confirmed by our analysis such as age (OR, 1.038; 95% CI, 1.004-1.074), sex (male sex: OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03), and withdrawal time (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1). The type of intervention (imaging vs mechanical) had no influence, but methodologic factors did: More recent year of publication and smaller sample size were associated with higher ADR.

CONCLUSIONS

A high level of variability was found in the level of ADR in the control groups of RCTs. With regards to indications, only fecal immunochemical test-based colonoscopy studies influenced basic ADR, and primary colonoscopy screening appeared to be similar to other indications. Standardization for variables related to clinical, methodologic, and technical parameters is required to achieve generalizability and reproducibility.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Using texture and colour enhancement imaging to evaluate gastrointestinal diseases in clinical practice: a review

White light imaging (WLI) is the most common endoscopic technique used for screening of gastrointestinal diseases. However, despite the advent of a new processor that offers sufficient clear illumination and other advanced developments in endoscopic instrumentation, WLI alone is inadequate for detecting all gastrointestinal diseases with abnormalities in mucosal discoloration and morphological changes to the mucosal surface. The recent development of image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) has dramatically improved the detection of gastrointestinal diseases. Texture and colour enhancement imaging (TXI) is a new type of IEE that enhances brightness, surface irregularities, such as elevations or depressions, and subtle colour changes. TXI with two modes, namely modes 1 and 2, can selectively enhance brightness in dark areas of an endoscopic image and subtle tissue differences such as slight morphological or colour changes while simultaneously preventing over-enhancement. Several clinical studies have investigated the efficacy of TXI for detecting and visualizing gastrointestinal diseases, including oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), Barret's epithelium, gastric cancer, gastric mucosal atrophy and intestinal metaplasia. Although TXI is often more useful for detecting and visualizing gastrointestinal diseases than WLI, it remains unclear whether TXI outperforms other IEEs, such as narrow-band imaging (NBI), in similar functions, and whether the performance of TXI modes 1 and 2 are comparable. Therefore, large-scale prospective studies are needed to compare the efficacy of TXI to WLI and other IEEs for endoscopic evaluation of patients undergoing screening endoscopy. Here, we review the characteristics and efficacy of TXI for the detection and visualization of gastrointestinal diseases.Key MessagesTXI mode 1 can improve the visibility of gastrointestinal diseases and qualitative diagnosis, especially for diseases associated with colour changes.The enhancement of texture and brightness with TXI mode 2 enables the detection of diseases, and is ideal for use in the first screening of gastrointestinal tract.

Images of laser and light-emitting diode colonoscopy for comparing large colorectal lesion visibility with linked color imaging and white-light imaging

OBJECTIVES

In light-emitting diode (LED) and laser colonoscopy, linked color imaging (LCI) superiority to white-light imaging (WLI) for polyp detection is shown separately. We analyzed the noninferiority of LCI between LED and laser colonoscopy and that of WLI (LECOL study).

METHODS

We prospectively collected nonpolypoid lesions with WLI and LCI using LED and laser colonoscopy from January 2021 to August 2021. All images were evaluated randomly by 12 endoscopists (six nonexperts and six experts in three institutions) using the polyp visibility score: 4, excellent; 3, good; 2, fair; and 1, poor. The comparison score (LED better/similar/laser better) for redness and brightness was evaluated for WLI and LCI pictures of each lesion.

RESULTS

Finally, 63 nonpolypoid lesions were evaluated, and the mean polyp size was 24.5 ± 13.4 mm. Histopathology revealed 13 serrated lesions and 50 adenomatous/cancerous lesions. The mean polyp visibility scores of LCI pictures were significantly higher than those of WLI in the LED (3.35 ± 0.85 vs. 3.08 ± 0.91, P < 0.001) and the laser (3.40 ± 1.71 vs. 3.05 ± 0.97, P < 0.001) group, and the noninferiority of LCI pictures between LED and laser was significant (P < 0.001). The comparison scores revealed that the evaluation of redness and brightness (LED better/similar/laser better) were 26.8%/40.1%/33.1% and 43.5%/43.5%/13.0% for LCI pictures (P < 0.001) and 20.6%/44.3%/35.1% and 60.3%/31.7%/8.0% for WLI pictures (P < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The noninferiority of polyp visibility with WLI and LCI in LED and laser colonoscopy was shown. WLI and LCI of LED tended to be brighter and less reddish than those of laser.