Prevalence of non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms in southern Brazil

COLD SNARE POLYPECTOMY: A SAFE PROCEDURE FOR REMOVING SMALL NON-PEDUNCULATED COLORECTAL LESIONS

BACKGROUND

Polypectomy is an important treatment option for preventing colorectal cancer. Incomplete polyp resection (IPR) is re-cognized as a risk factor for interval cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to evaluate the complete polyp resection (CPR) rate for cold snare polypectomy (CSP) in small non-pedunculated polyps and, secondarily, specimen retrieval and complication rates.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated 479 polyps <10 mm removed by CSP in 276 patients by an inexperienced endoscopist.

RESULTS

A total of 476 polyps (99.4%) were resected en bloc. A negative margin (classified as CPR) was observed in 435 polyps (90.8%). An unclear or positive margin (classified as IPR) was observed in 43 cases (9.0%) and 1 case (0.2%), respectively, for an overall IPR rate of 9.2% (44/479). The IPR rate was 12.2% in the first half of cases and 5.9% in the second half (P=0.02). Dividing into tertiles, the IPR rate was 15.0% in the first tertile, 6.9% in the second tertile, and 5.7% in the third tertile (P=0.01). Dividing into quartiles, the IPR rate was 15.8% in the first quartile and 5.9% in the fourth quartile (P=0.03). The IPR rate was 6.3% for type 0-IIa lesions and 14.1% for type 0-Is lesions (P=0.01). For serrated and adenomatous lesions, the IPR rate was 9.2%. Specimen retrieval failed in 3.6% of cases. Immediate bleeding (>30 s) occurred in 1 case (0.2%), treated with argon plasma coagulation. No delayed bleeding or perforation occurred.

CONCLUSION

CSP is a safe technique that provides good results for the resection of small non-pedunculated polyps, with a short learning curve.

Development and validation of an artificial intelligence-based system for predicting colorectal cancer invasion depth using multi-modal data

OBJECTIVES

Accurate endoscopic optical prediction of the depth of cancer invasion is critical for guiding an optimal treatment approach of large sessile colorectal polyps but was hindered by insufficient endoscopists expertise and inter-observer variability. We aimed to construct a clinically applicable artificial intelligence (AI) system for the identification of presence of cancer invasion in large sessile colorectal polyps.

METHODS

A deep learning-based colorectal cancer invasion calculation (CCIC) system was constructed. Multi-modal data including clinical information, white light (WL) and image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) were included for training. The system was trained using 339 lesions and tested on 198 lesions across three hospitals. Man-machine contest, reader study and video validation were further conducted to evaluate the performance of CCIC.

RESULTS

The overall accuracy of CCIC system using image and video validation was 90.4% and 89.7%, respectively. In comparison with 14 endoscopists, the accuracy of CCIC was comparable with expert endoscopists but superior to all the participating senior and junior endoscopists in both image and video validation set. With CCIC augmentation, the average accuracy of junior endoscopists improved significantly from 75.4% to 85.3% (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

This deep learning-based CCIC system may play an important role in predicting the depth of cancer invasion in colorectal polyps, thus determining treatment strategies for these large sessile colorectal polyps.

Comparing right colon adenoma detection rate during water exchange and air insufflation: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported that water exchange (WE) produced the highest adenoma detection rate (ADR) but did not evaluate right colon adenoma detection rate (rADR) as a primary outcome and only one of the trials employed blinded colonoscopists. The aim of our study was to determine whether, compared with air insufflation, WE significantly increases rADR and right colon serrated lesion detection rate (rSLDR) and decreases adenoma miss rate (rAMR).

METHODS

This prospective, double-blind RCT was conducted at a regional hospital in Taiwan between December 2015 and February 2020. Standard WE and air insufflation were performed. After cecal intubation, the second blinded endoscopist examined the right colon and obtained rADR (primary outcome) and rSLDR. Then, the primary colonoscopist reinserted the scope to the cecum with WE in both groups and performed a tandem examination of the right colon to obtain rAMR.

RESULTS

There were 284 patients (50.9% male, mean age 58.9 ± 9.4 years) who were randomized to WE (n = 144) or air insufflation (n = 140). The baseline characteristics were similar. The rADR (34.7% vs. 22.3%, p = 0.025), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores (mean, 2.6 ± 0.6vs. 2.2 ± 0.6, p < 0.001), rSLDR (18.1% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.007), and rAMR (31.5% vs. 45.2%, p = 0.038) were significantly different between WE and air insufflation.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study demonstrated a significantly higher rADR and rSLDR with the WE method performed by blinded colonoscopists. The impact of the significant findings in this report on the occurrence of interval cancers deserves to be studied.

Impact of Hyoscine Bromide Use on Polyp Detection Rate During Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of death worldwide. Polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) are key focus in endoscopic research for CRC screening and prevention. Use of anti-spasmodic agents during colonoscopy to help identify adenomas and polyps has remained a controversial topic. Hyoscine butyl bromide (HBB) is the most commonly used anti-spasmodic agent in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have questioned the clinical efficacy and safety of routine use of HBB for polyp and adenoma detection rates.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search in PubMed and MEDLINE from inception until February 10, 2018, for studies which compared HBB with placebo. We used RevMan version 5.3 for analysis. Procedural end-points were polyps, adenomas, and advanced adenoma detection rates, mean number of polyps detected and cecal intubation time.

Results

We included seven RCTs with 2,588 patients in our analysis. A total of 1,301 patients were randomized to HBB arm and 1,287 to the placebo arm. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of polyp detection rate, 654 in HBB group vs. 616 in the placebo group, (odds ratio (OR) = 1.11, confidence interval (CI) = 0.93 - 1.34, P = 0.25). There was no difference in secondary outcomes of adenoma detection rate, 430 in HBB group vs. 396 in the placebo group, (OR = 1.06, CI = 0.89 - 1.26, P = 0.51), advanced adenoma detection rate, 92 in HBB vs. 95 in placebo group (OR = 0.95, CI = 0.70 - 1.30, P = 0.76), mean number of polyps detected (point estimate = 0.12, CI = 0.00 - 0.23, P = 0.05), adenomatous polyps (OR = 0.84, CI = 0.39 - 1.81, P = 0.65) and cecal intubation time (point estimate = 0.73, CI = -1.98 - 0.52, P = 0.25) between the two groups.

Conclusions

The use of HBB in patients undergoing colonoscopy does not appear to improve polyp or adenoma detection rates. It showed a non-significant trend of increased mean number of polyps detected with HBB.

Hyoscine butylbromide for colorectal polyp detection: prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES:

The removal of pre-malignant colorectal lesions prevents cancer. Hyoscine has been proposed as a means of improving diagnosis by reducing colonic movements. The aim of this study was to analyze whether this anti-spasmodic enhances the detection of pre-malignant colorectal lesions.

METHODS:

In a randomized, double-blinded fashion patients received hyoscine or a saline solution in all consecutive colonoscopies in which the cecum was reached. Lesions were analysed with respect to number, size, location, histology and capillary pattern.

RESULTS:

A total of 440 colonoscopies were randomized. The overall polyp detection rate (PDR) and the adenoma detection rate (ADR) were 65.2% and 49.3%, respectively. In the hyoscine group, non-polypoid lesions were detected significantly more often (p=0.01). In the placebo group 281 lesions were diagnosed (202 adenomas) and in the hyoscine group 282 lesions were detected (189 adenomas) (p=0.23). The PDR and ADR were similar between the placebo and hyoscine groups (64% vs 66% and 50% vs 47%, respectively). No differences were observed between the two groups in the advanced-ADR or advanced neoplasia detection rate, as well the mean numbers of polyps, adenomas, advanced adenomas and advanced neoplasias detected per patient. The administration of hyoscine also did not improve the diagnostic accuracy of digital chromoendoscopy. The presence of adenomatous polyps in the right colon was detected significantly more frequently in the hyoscine group (OR 5.41 95% CI 2.7 - 11; p<0.01 vs OR 2.3 95% CI 1.1 - 4.6; p=0.02).

CONCLUSION:

The use of hyoscine before beginning the withdrawal of the colonoscope does not seem to enhance the PDR and the ADR.

Large Colorectal Lesions: Evaluation and Management

In the last years, a distinctive interest has been raised on large polypoid and non-polypoid colorectal tumors, and specially on flat neoplastic lesions ≥20 mm tending to grow laterally, the so called laterally spreading tumors (LST). Real or virtual chromoendoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance should be considered for the estimation of submucosal invasion of these neoplasms. Lesions suitable for endoscopic resection are those confined to the mucosa or selected cases with submucosal invasion ≤1000 μm. Polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection remain a first-line therapy for large colorectal neoplasms, whereas endoscopic submucosal dissection in high-volume centers or surgery should be considered for large LSTs for which en bloc resection is mandatory.