New device to implement the adenoma detection rate

The impact of EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy on the polyp detection rate: A cross-over randomized back-to-back study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide, and most CRCs develop from polyps with malignant potential. We aimed to study the difference in polyp detection rate between EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopies (EAC) and standard colonoscopy (SC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study was conducted at Cairo University Hospitals on patients referred for screening or diagnostic colonoscopy from July 2018 to August 2020. All included patients underwent back-to-back standard colonoscopy (SC) and ENDOCUFF VISION-assisted colonoscopies (EAC).

RESULTS

214 patients were included in this study. In comparison between EAC and SC, EAC increased the polyp detection rate (69 (32.24 %) vs. 57(26.64 %) (p < 0.05), EAC increased the detection of diminutive polyps ≤ 5 mm (104 vs. 81) (p < 0.05), and small polyps 6-9 mm (12 vs. 10) while there was no difference in large polyps ≥ 10 mm. EAC increased the adenoma detection rate (ADR) (37 (17.2 %) vs. 32(14.9 %) (p < 0.05). The findings detected by EAC shortened the interval of surveillance determined by SC findings. EndoCuff caused six mucosal erosions (2.8 %) in patients.

CONCLUSION

EAC increases the number of detected colonic polyps, primarily small polyps on the left and right sides of the colon.

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.

Comparison in the development of colorectal cancer after screening colonoscopy between elderly and younger population

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in elderly participants aged ≥75 years and those <75 years who had previously undergone a colonoscopy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Center for Preventive Medicine at St. Luke's International Hospital in Japan. All participants who underwent screening colonoscopy between 2005 and 2015 were included and followed up until 2020. Our primary outcome was the identification of CRC as confirmed by pathology after screening colonoscopy. We compared the development of CRC between the two groups using survival analyses. A sub-analysis to evaluate the incidence of CRC among participants with and without neoplastic polyp resection at initial colonoscopy was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 8350 participants were enrolled; the median follow-up period was 2982 days (interquartile range:1932-4141), mean age was 52.5 years (SD: 11.5) and 5274 (61.3%) participants were men. The incidence of CRC during the follow-up period was 82 (0.95%) among all participants and 11 (4.31%) among the elderly participants. Elderly participants showed a significantly higher incidence of CRC than the other group [hazard ratio, 2.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14-5.75]. The sub-analysis showed that out of 2878 participants with a neoplastic polyp at the initial colonoscopy, 52 (1.81%) developed CRC (hazard ratio, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.16-6.98).

CONCLUSIONS

A repeat colonoscopy might be warranted in people with high activities of daily living and few comorbidities, especially if there is a history of neoplastic polypectomy at the first colonoscopy.

Will purposely seeking detect more colorectal polyps than routine performing during colonoscopy?

BACKGROUND & GOALS

We observed that the number of colorectal polyps found intraoperatively was often higher than that encountered preoperatively during elective colonoscopic polypectomy. To evaluate whether more polyps can be detected when they are purposely sought than when they are routinely examined during colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized into groups A and B. Before colonoscopy was performed, endoscopists were instructed to seek polyps for group A purposely but not for group B. Polypectomy was electively completed. In groups A and B, the cases of elective polypectomy were named groups AR and BR, including groups AR-1 and BR-1, during the first colonoscopy and groups AR-2 and BR-2 during the second colonoscopy for polypectomy, respectively. The following data were calculated: the number of polyps detected (NPD) and the polyp detection rate (PDR) in all cases and the number of polyps missed (NPM) and partial polyp miss rate (PPMR) in the cases of colorectal polyps.

RESULTS

A total of 419 cases were included in group A, 421 in group B, 43 in group AR, and 35 in group BR. No significant differences in PDR were found between groups A and B and in PPMR between groups AR-1 and BR-1 (P > .05), although PPMR in group AR-1 was higher than in group AR-2 (P < .05), similar results were found in PPMR between groups BR-1 and BR-2 (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Purposely seeking for colorectal polyps did not result in more polyps detected compared with routine colonoscopy.

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.

EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy could improve adenoma detection rate: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) could improve adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared with standard colonoscopy (SC).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were searched for articles published up to March 2019. All pure randomized controlled trials comparing ADR between EAC and SC groups were included. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain the odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval (CI), whereas continuous data were pooled using a mean difference with 95% CI. Review Manager Version 5.3 was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized controlled trials consisting of 9038 patients (EAC: 4574; SC: 4464) were included. The EAC group showed significant superiority over the SC group in ADR (odds ratio 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.62). However, there were no differences between the EAC and SC groups in adverse events, cecal intubation rate, and cecal intubation time.

CONCLUSIONS

EAC could significantly improve ADR without increasing adverse events, especially for operators with low ADRs. In addition, no significant difference was observed in cecal intubation time and cecal intubation rate between EAC and SC.