Role of Full-spectrum Endoscopy in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Randomized Trial

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.

Optimizing adenoma detection in screening-related colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Screening-related colonoscopy is a vital component of screening initiatives to both diagnose and prevent colorectal cancer (CRC), with prevention being reliant upon early and accurate detection of pre-malignant lesions. Several strategies, techniques, and interventions exist to optimize endoscopists' adenoma detection rates (ADR).

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review provides an overview of the importance of ADR and other colonoscopy quality indicators. It then summarizes the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of the following domains in terms of improving ADR: endoscopist factors, pre-procedural parameters, peri-procedural parameters, intra-procedural strategies and techniques, antispasmodics, distal attachment devices, enhanced colonoscopy technologies, enhanced optics, and artificial intelligence. These summaries are based on an electronic search of the databases Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane performed on December 12, 2022.

EXPERT OPINION

Given the prevalence and associated morbidity and mortality of CRC, the quality of screening-related colonoscopy quality is appropriately prioritized by patients, endoscopists, units, and payers alike. Endoscopists performing colonoscopy should be up to date regarding available strategies, techniques, and interventions to optimize their performance.

Factors affecting cecal intubation time during colonoscopy

In recent years, the morbidity and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) have increased significantly in China, and it has become one of the major malignancies that threaten the health of residents. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of CRC. High-quality colonoscopy can effectively reduce the mortality of CRC. Cecal intubation time (CIT) is one of the indicators to reflect the quality of colonoscopy. Studies have found that many factors can affect CIT. This paper reviews the literature to identify the factors that affect CIT, such as those related to doctors, patients, assistive technologies, and equipment, in order to improve the quality of colonoscopy performed by endoscopists.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

None.

Panoramic colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening - a randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening. Panoramic colonoscopy offers better visualization to decrease the adenoma miss rate.

Aim

To assess the influence of 330° panoramic view colonoscopy on adenoma and polyp detection rate, cecal intubation time, and examiner’s comfort.

Material and methods

The study enrolled 421 patients aged 18–80 years who were eligible for colonoscopy screening. Patients with prior abdominal surgery, inflammatory bowel disease or after colorectal resections were excluded from the study. Patients were randomized to either standard frontal view (SFV) (Olympus Evis Exera III 190 CF-HQ190L) or the panoramic view colonoscopy (PVC) (FUSE CDVL slim c38). The study was approved by the local bioethics committee and registered at ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT02929381).

Results

There were 214 patients examined with SFV and 207 with PVC. The mean age of patients was 64 ±12.26 years. The two groups were comparable. The median cecal intubation time was 234 s with SFV vs. 311 s with PVC (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in CIR or withdrawal time. PVC made it possible to discover more diverticula in the ascending colon (p = 0.009). PDR with SFV was 34.6% and 40.1% with PVC (p = 0.242). A higher number of polyps was found in the transverse colon in the PVC group (p = 0.006). ADR and advanced ADR (aADR) in both groups were similar (26.4% vs. 27.1% and 14, 2% vs. 13.9%).

Conclusions

Colonoscopy with wide-angle endoscopes lasts longer and allows for the detection of more polyps and diverticula without affecting ADR and aADR. Our study did not reveal the superiority of wide-angle colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening

Frontiers of Robotic Colonoscopy: A Comprehensive Review of Robotic Colonoscopes and Technologies

Flexible colonoscopy remains the prime mean of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) and the gold standard of all population-based screening pathways around the world. Almost 60% of CRC deaths could be prevented with screening. However, colonoscopy attendance rates are affected by discomfort, fear of pain and embarrassment or loss of control during the procedure. Moreover, the emergence and global thread of new communicable diseases might seriously affect the functioning of contemporary centres performing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Innovative solutions are needed: artificial intelligence (AI) and physical robotics will drastically contribute for the future of the healthcare services. The translation of robotic technologies from traditional surgery to minimally invasive endoscopic interventions is an emerging field, mainly challenged by the tough requirements for miniaturization. Pioneering approaches for robotic colonoscopy have been reported in the nineties, with the appearance of inchworm-like devices. Since then, robotic colonoscopes with assistive functionalities have become commercially available. Research prototypes promise enhanced accessibility and flexibility for future therapeutic interventions, even via autonomous or robotic-assisted agents, such as robotic capsules. Furthermore, the pairing of such endoscopic systems with AI-enabled image analysis and recognition methods promises enhanced diagnostic yield. By assembling a multidisciplinary team of engineers and endoscopists, the paper aims to provide a contemporary and highly-pictorial critical review for robotic colonoscopes, hence providing clinicians and researchers with a glimpse of the major changes and challenges that lie ahead.

Proximal retroflexion versus second forward view of the right colon during screening colonoscopy: A multicentre randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation for the detection of colorectal cancer, but the right colon is more difficult to examine than the left colon. A second examination of the proximal colon has the potential to reduce rates of missed pathology.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether proximal retroflexion improves the adenoma detection rate or other outcomes in the right colon compared with the forward view.

METHODS

We performed a multicentre randomized controlled trial of patients from the colorectal cancer screening programme with a positive faecal immunochemical test. Patients were randomized to a second right colon examination using proximal retroflexion or forward view.

RESULTS

A total of 692 patients were included. A second examination of the right colon, with an average additional procedure time of 1.62 min, increased the adenoma detection rate by 11%, regardless of the method used (9% proximal retroflexion vs. 12% second forward view, p = 0.21). The adenoma miss rate was 19% (17% proximal retroflexion vs. 20% forward view, p = 0.28) The success rate of retroflexion was 83%, without secondary complications. In the 15.6% of patients in whom lesions were detected during the second pass, endoscopic follow-up was modified by reducing the time of the next colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

A second examination of the right colon, either from retroflexion or second forward view, can increase adenoma detection rate and shorten surveillance intervals in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. This should be emphasized during colonoscopy training and integrated into diagnostic colonoscopy practice.

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.

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.