Cap assisted colonoscopy for the detection of serrated polyps: a post-hoc analysis

Mucosal imaging in colon polyps: New advances and what the future may hold

An expanding range of advanced mucosal imaging technologies have been developed with the goal of improving the detection and characterization of lesions in the gastrointestinal tract. Many technologies have targeted colorectal neoplasia given the potential for intervention prior to the development of invasive cancer in the setting of widespread surveillance programs. Improvement in adenoma detection reduces miss rates and prevents interval cancer development. Advanced imaging technologies aim to enhance detection without significantly increasing procedural time. Accurate polyp characterisation guides resection techniques for larger polyps, as well as providing the platform for the “resect and discard” and “do not resect” strategies for small and diminutive polyps. This review aims to collate and summarise the evidence regarding these technologies to guide colonoscopic practice in both interventional and non-interventional endoscopists.

Sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate of water exchange, Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSA/P) may contribute to interval cancer. In a recent meta-analysis, water exchange (WE) was shown to be superior to Endocuff and cap colonoscopy at adenoma and advanced adenoma detection. The strong positive correlation between adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate (SSA/PDR) prompted us to hypothesize that WE could significantly improve SSA/PDR compared with Endocuff and cap colonoscopy.

METHODS

The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported SSA/PDR 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 SSA/PDR of each method using air insufflation as the control and reported the odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Performances were ranked based on P-score.

RESULTS

A total of 531 articles resulted from initial keywords search. Eleven RCTs were included in the analysis. A total of 7856 patients underwent air insufflation, WE, Endocuff, or cap colonoscopy. WE significantly increased SSA/PDR (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.33-3.13). Endocuff (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.94-1.41) and cap (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.42-2.74) did not significantly impact SSA/P detection. P-scores for WE (0.96), Endocuff (0.49), cap (0.37), and air insufflation (0.17) suggested that WE had the highest SSA/PDR. The results did not change after adjusting for mean withdrawal time and indication for colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Water exchange significantly increases SSA/PDR and is superior to Endocuff and cap colonoscopy at detecting SSA/P.

Prevalence and Clinical Features of Sessile Serrated Polyps: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) could account for a substantial proportion of colorectal cancers. We aimed to increase clarity on SSP prevalence and clinical features.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases for original studies published in English since 2000. We included studies of different populations (United States general or similar), interventions (colonoscopy, autopsy), comparisons (world regions, alternative polyp definitions, adenoma), outcomes (prevalence, clinical features), and study designs (cross-sectional). Random-effects regression was used for meta-analysis where possible.

RESULTS

We identified 74 relevant colonoscopy studies. SSP prevalence varied by world region, from 2.6% in Asia (95% confidence interval [CI], 0-5.9) to 10.5% in Australia (95% CI, 2.8-18.2). Prevalence values did not differ significantly between the United States and Europe (P = .51); the pooled prevalence was 4.6% (95% CI, 3.4-5.8), and SSPs accounted for 9.4% of polyps with malignant potential (95% CI, 6.6-12.3). The mean prevalence was higher when assessed through high-performance examinations (9.1%; 95% CI, 4.0-14.2; P = .04) and with an alternative definition of clinically relevant serrated polyps (12.3%; 95% CI, 9.3-15.4; P < .001). Increases in prevalence with age were not statistically significant, and prevalence did not differ significantly by sex. Compared with adenomas, a higher proportion of SSPs were solitary (69.0%; 95% CI, 45.9-92.1; P = .08), with diameters of 10 mm or more (19.3%; 95% CI, 12.4-26.2; P = .13) and were proximal (71.5%; 95% CI, 63.5-79.5; P = .008). The mean ages for detection of SSP without dysplasia, with any or low-grade dysplasia, and with high-grade dysplasia were 60.8 years, 65.6 years, and 70.2 years, respectively. The range for proportions of SSPs with dysplasia was 3.7%-42.9% across studies, possibly reflecting different study populations.

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review, we found that SSPs are relatively uncommon compared with adenoma. More research is needed on appropriate diagnostic criteria, variations in detection, and long-term risk.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic resection of nondiminutive nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a prospective randomized controlled trial (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Incomplete resection of colorectal neoplasia decreases the efficacy of colonoscopy. Conventional resection (CR) of polyps, performed in a gas-distended colon, is the current standard, but incomplete resection rates of approximately 2% to 30% for nondiminutive (>5 mm), nonpedunculated lesions are reported. Underwater resection (UR) is a novel technique. The aim of this study was to determine the incomplete resection rates of colorectal lesions removed by UR versus CR.

METHODS

In a randomized controlled trial, patients with small (6-9 mm) and large (≥10 mm) nonpedunculated lesions were assigned to CR (gas-distended lumen) or UR (water-filled, gas-excluded lumen). Small lesions in both arms were removed with a dedicated cold snare. For CR, large lesions were removed with a hot snare after submucosal injection. For UR, large lesions were removed with a hot snare without submucosal injection. Four-quadrant biopsy samples around the resection sites were used to evaluate for incomplete resection.

RESULTS

Four hundred sixty-two eligible polyps (248 UR vs 214 CR) from 255 patients were removed. Incomplete resection rates for UR and CR were low and did not differ (2% vs 1.9%, P = .91). UR was performed significantly faster for lesions ≥10 mm in size (10-19 mm, 2.9 minutes vs 5.6 minutes, P < .0001); ≥20 mm, 7.3 minutes vs 9.5 minutes, P = .015).

CONCLUSIONS

Low incomplete resection rates are achievable with UR and CR. UR is effective and safe with the advantage of faster resection and potential cost savings for removal of larger (≥10 mm) lesions by avoiding submucosal injection. As an added approach, UR has potential to improve the cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy by increasing efficiency and reducing cost while maintaining quality. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02889679.).

Improving serrated adenoma detection rate in the colon by electronic chromoendoscopy and distal attachment: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The evidence for modification of conventional colonoscopy using either "distal attachments" (DAs; endocap, endocuff, and endoring) or "electronic chromoendoscopy" (EC; narrow-band imaging [NBI], iScan, blue-light imaging, autofluorescence imaging, and linked-color imaging) to improve the detection of serrated adenomas during colonoscopy has shown conflicting results.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed using Medline, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane Library based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any DA or EC with high-definition white-light colonoscopy for detection of serrated adenomas (sessile serrated adenoma/polyp and traditional serrated adenoma) were included. The primary outcome was serrated adenoma detection rate (SADR) defined as the number of patients with at least 1 serrated adenoma of total patients in that group. The secondary outcome was the number of serrated adenomas per subject. Pooled rates were reported using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies with 13,631 patients (56% men; age range, 50-66 years) met the inclusion criteria. The use of DAs (RR, 1.21; P = .45) and EC (RR, 1.29; P = .09) during colonoscopy did not show a significant improvement in SADR. The SADR using EC was 6.9% (4 studies) and that with NBI alone was 3.7% (3 studies).

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that, except for NBI, the use of DAs or EC during colonoscopy does not improve detection of serrated adenomas in the colon. More RCTs evaluating NBI are needed to explore the effect.

Standards of diagnostic colonoscopy for early-stage neoplasia: Recommendations by an Asian private group

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In recent years, the incidence of colorectal cancer has been increasing, and it is now becoming the major cause of cancer death in Asian countries. The aim of the present study was to develop Asian expert-based consensus to standardize the preparation, detection and characterization for the diagnosis of early-stage colorectal neoplasia.

METHODS

A professional group was formed by 36 experts of the Asian Novel Bio-Imaging and Intervention Group (ANBI² G) members. Representatives from 12 Asia-Pacific countries participated in the meeting. The group organized three consensus meetings focusing on diagnostic endoscopy for gastrointestinal neoplasia. The Delphi method was used to develop the consensus statements.

RESULTS

Through the three consensus meetings with debating, reviewing the literature and regional data, a consensus was reached at third meeting in 2016. The consensus was reached on a total of 10 statements. Summary of statements is as follows: (i) Adequate bowel preparation for high-quality colonoscopy; (ii) Antispasmodic agents for lesion detection; (iii) Image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) for polyp detection; (iv) Adenoma detection rate for quality indicators; (v) Good documentation of colonoscopy findings; (vi) Complication rates; (vii) Cecal intubation rate; (viii) Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) for polyp detection; (ix) Macroscopic classification using indigocarmine spray for characterization of colorectal lesions; and (x) IEE and/or magnifying endoscopy for prediction of histology.

CONCLUSION

This consensus provides guidance for carrying out endoscopic diagnosis and characterization for early-stage colorectal neoplasia based on the evidence. This will enhance the quality of endoscopic diagnosis and improve detection of early-stage colorectal neoplasia.

An Additional 30-s Observation of the Right-Sided Colon with Narrow Band Imaging Decreases Missed Polyps: A Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

Previous narrow-band imaging (NBI) was dark and reported not to be useful for polyp detection. In this study, we analyzed the efficacy of an additional 30-s observation of the right-sided colon with the recent bright high-resolution NBI.

METHODS

We enrolled patients undergoing colonoscopy from February 2015 to May 2017 in two institutions. All procedures were performed with the latest system (EVIS LUCERA ELITE, Olympus). The cecum and ascending colon were first observed with white light imaging (WLI) in both the NBI and WLI group. Then, the colonoscope was re-inserted, and the cecum and ascending colon were observed for an additional 30 s. In this second observation, NBI was performed for the first 130 patients in the NBI group and WLI for the next 130 in the WLI group. The number of adenoma and sessile serrated polyps (ASPs) in the second observation were examined in both groups. According to our initial pilot study, the sample size was estimated at 126.

RESULTS

In the first observation, the number of ASPs was 72 in the NBI group and 72 in the WLI group (p = 1.0). In the second observation, the number of ASPs was 23 in the NBI group and 10 in the WLI group (p = 0.02). The polyp and adenoma detection rates in the second observation were 16.2% and 12.3% in the NBI group and 7.7% (p = 0.03) and 6.2% (p = 0.09) in the WLI group.

CONCLUSIONS

The additional 30-s observation with recent NBI decreased missed polyps in the right-sided colon.

Management of Serrated Polyps of the Colon

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to summarize the management of serrated colorectal polyps (SPs), with a particular focus on the most common premalignant SP, sessile serrated adenoma or polyp (SSA/P). These lesions present a challenge for endoscopists with respect to detection and resection, and are also susceptible to pathologic misdiagnosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with SSA/Ps are at an increased risk of future colorectal neoplasia, including advanced polyps and cancer. Reasonable benchmarks for SP detection rates are 5-7% for SSA/Ps and 10-12% for proximal SPs. Certain endoscopic techniques such as chromoendoscopy, narrow band imaging, water immersion, and wide-angle viewing may improve SSA/P detection. Emerging endoscopic techniques such as underwater polypectomy, suction pseudopolyp technique, and piecemeal cold snare polypectomy are helpful tools for the endoscopist's armamentarium for removing SSA/Ps. Proper orientation of SSA/P specimens can improve the accuracy of pathology readings. Patients with confirmed SSA/Ps and proximal HPs should undergo surveillance at intervals similar to what is recommended for patients with conventional adenomas. Patients with SSA/Ps may also be able to lower their risk of future polyps by targeting modifiable risk factors including tobacco and alcohol use and high-fat diets. NSAIDs and aspirin appear to be protective agents. SPs and SSA/Ps in particular are important colorectal cancer precursors that merit special attention to ensure adequate detection, resection, and surveillance.

Impact of cap-assisted colonoscopy on detection of proximal colon adenomas: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Proximal colon adenomas can be missed during routine colonoscopy. Use of a cap or hood on the tip of the colonoscope has been shown to improve overall adenoma detection with variable rates. However, it has not been systematically evaluated for detection of proximal colon or right-sided adenomas where the cap may have maximum impact on adenoma detection rate (ADR). Our aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of cap-assisted colonoscopy (CC) on right-sided ADRs (r-ADRs) compared with standard colonoscopy (SC).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases as well as secondary sources (bibliographic review of selected articles and major GI proceedings) were searched through October 1, 2016. Primary outcome was the pooled rate of r-ADR. Detection of flat adenoma, sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSA/P), and number of right-sided adenomas per patient were also assessed. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effect models.

RESULTS

We screened 686 records and analyzed data from 4 studies (CC group, 2546 patients; SC group, 2547 patients) that met criteria for determination of r-ADRs, whereas 6 studies (CC group, 3159 patients; SC group, 3137 patients) were analyzed to estimate right-sided adenomas per patient. r-ADR was significantly higher with CC compared with SC (23% vs 17%; OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.08-2.05; I² = 79%; P = .01). CC also improved detection rates of flat adenoma (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.35-3.20; P < .01) and SSA/P (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.74; P = .04). The total number of right-sided adenomas (CC: 1428 [60%] vs SC: 1127 [58%]) and number of right-sided adenomas per patient (CC, .71 ± .5, vs SC, .65 ± .62 [mean ± standard deviation]) were numerically higher for CC but were not statistically significant (P = .43). Approximately 17 CCs would be required to detect an additional patient with right-sided adenoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of CC significantly improves the proximal colon ADR. In addition, flat adenoma and serrated colonic lesion detection rates are also significantly higher as compared with SC.

Endocuff assisted colonoscopy significantly increases sessile serrated adenoma detection in veterans

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer related deaths in the United States. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the detection of CRC. There are many colonoscopy quality measures and among these the adenoma detection rate (ADR) has demonstrated a significant impact in reducing mortality from CRC. The primary aim of our study was to compare ADR and distribution of polyp type in patients undergoing Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) versus standard colonoscopy (SC) in a VA system.

METHODS

Retrospective data was collected from 496 patients who underwent routine screening, surveillance and diagnostic colonoscopies either via SC from January 6, 2014 through March 12, 2014 or EAC from September 24, 2014 through February 19, 2015. A total of 54 patients were excluded based on a personal history of CRC and prior resection, incomplete colonoscopy due to poor bowel preparation, and removal or loss of Endocuff (EC). Primary outcomes measured and compared were ADR and types of polyps found.

RESULTS

The overall ADR in the EAC group was higher at 59.91% versus 50.66% for SC, accounting for a 9% increase (P=0.0508). EAC was able to detect a total of 59 sessile serrated adenoma/polyps (SSA/Ps) compared to SC only detecting 8 (P≤0.0001). There was a significant increase in the SSA/P detection rate with EAC at 15% versus 3% in the SC group (P≤0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

EAC significantly increases the detection of SSA/P and has shown a trend in improving ADR in our veteran population.

Technological advances for improving adenoma detection rates: The changing face of colonoscopy

Worldwide, colorectal cancer is the third commonest cancer. Over 90% follow an adenoma-to-cancer sequence over many years. Colonoscopy is the gold standard method for cancer screening and early adenoma detection. However, considerable variation exists between endoscopists' detection rates. This review considers the effects of different endoscopic techniques on adenoma detection. Two areas of technological interest were considered: (1) optical technologies and (2) mechanical technologies. Optical solutions, including FICE, NBI, i-SCAN and high definition colonoscopy showed mixed results. In contrast, mechanical advances, such as cap-assisted colonoscopy, FUSE, EndoCuff and G-EYE™, showed promise, with reported detections rates of up to 69%. However, before definitive recommendations can be made for their incorporation into daily practice, further studies and comparison trials are required.

Endoscopic Improvement of the Adenoma Detection Rate during Colonoscopy - Where Do We Stand in 2015?

BACKGROUND

The presence of colorectal adenomas is considered a major risk factor for colorectal cancer development. The implementation of screening colonoscopy programs in the Western world has led to a substantial reduction of colorectal cancer death. Many efforts have been made to reduce the adenoma miss rates by the application of new endoscopic devices and techniques for better adenoma visualization.

SUMMARY

This special review gives the readership an overview of current endoscopic innovations that can aid in the increase of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy. These innovations include the use of devices like EndoCuff® and EndoRings® as well as new technical equipment like third-eye endoscope® and full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE®).

KEY MESSAGE

Technical improvements and newly developed accessories are able to improve the ADR. However, additional costs and a willingness to invest into potentially expensive equipment might be necessary. Investigator-dependent skills remain the backbone in the ADR detection.

Can Technology Improve the Quality of Colonoscopy?

In order for screening colonoscopy to be an effective tool in reducing colon cancer incidence, exams must be performed in a high-quality manner. Quality metrics have been presented by gastroenterology societies and now include higher adenoma detection rate targets than in the past. In many cases, the quality of colonoscopy can often be improved with simple low-cost interventions such as improved procedure technique, implementing split-dose bowel prep, and monitoring individuals' performances. Emerging technology has expanded our field of view and image quality during colonoscopy. We will critically review several technological advances in the context of quality metrics and discuss if technology can really improve the quality of colonoscopy.