Top

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

Published in:

01-08-2021 | Endoscopy | Original Article

Latest Generation High-Definition Colonoscopy Increases Adenoma Detection Rate by Trainee Endoscopists

Authors: Jong Yoon Lee, Myeongseok Koh, Jong Hoon Lee

Published in: Digestive Diseases and Sciences | Issue 8/2021

Abstract

Background

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality indicator of colonoscopy. High-definition (HD) colonoscopy has been reported to increase ADR compared to standard-definition (SD) colonoscopy. Although there are few reports comparing the latest generation and the previous generation of HD colonoscopy equipment, there are reports that the latest generation colonoscopy equipment improves ADR. However, there are no reports on the impact of the latest generation HD colonoscopy on the ADR of trainee endoscopists.

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the latest generation HD colonoscopy increases the ADR of trainee endoscopists compared with the previous generation HD colonoscopy.

Method

We conducted a retrospective review of medical records of patients aged 40–79 years old, who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopy performed by nine gastroenterology fellows at Dong-A University Hospital from March 2019 to February 2020. We calculated the overall ratios of the ADR: the ADRs of the group using the older generation HD colonoscopy equipment and the group using the latest HD colonoscopy equipment. Polyp detection rate (PDR), sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR), and advanced neoplasia detection rate (ANDR) were calculated for each group. Factors related to adenoma detection were identified using logistic regression analysis.

Results

Altogether, 2189 patients were included in the study (the older HD colonoscopy group comprising 1183 and the latest HD colonoscopy group comprising 1006). We found that PDR (45.98 vs. 51.69%, p = 0.008) and ADR (35.67 vs. 40.85%, p = 0.013) were significantly higher in the latest generation HD colonoscopy group. The generational differences were not statistically significant for SSPDR (1.94 vs. 2.78%, p = 0.195) or ANDR (4.65 vs. 4.97%, p = 0.726). In the multivariate regression analysis, age, male sex, the latest generation HD colonoscopy, and long withdrawal time were the most significant factors affecting adenoma detection.

Conclusions

The latest generation HD colonoscopy improved PDR and ADR by trainee endoscopists. These findings suggest that latest generation, higher-resolution colonoscopy equipment can improve the quality of colonoscopy for less experienced endoscopists.

Available only for authorised users

Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin.. 2018;68:394–424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492.CrossRefPubMed

Schoenfeld P, Cash B, Flood A, et al. Colonoscopic screening of average-risk women for colorectal neoplasia. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2061–2068. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa042990.CrossRefPubMed

Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008;134:1570–1595. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2008.02.002.CrossRefPubMed

Jacob BJ, Moineddin R, Sutradhar R, Baxter NN, Urbach DR. Effect of colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: an instrumental variable analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:355.e1–364.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2012.03.247.CrossRef

Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:687–696. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1100370.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Citarda F, Tomaselli G, Capocaccia R, Barcherini S, Crespi M. Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence. Gut. 2001;48:812–815. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.48.6.812.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy: The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1977–1981. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199312303292701.CrossRefPubMed

Doubeni CA, Corley DA, Quinn VP, et al. Effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in reducing the risk of death from right and left colon cancer: a large community-based study. Gut. 2018;67:291–298. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312712.CrossRefPubMed

Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, Saskin R, Stukel TA. Association between colonoscopy rates and colorectal cancer mortality. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1627–1632. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2010.83.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Adler J, Robertson DJ. Interval colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: exploring explanations and solutions. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:1657–1664. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2015.365.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1298–1306. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1309086.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1795–1803. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0907667.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Rutter MD, Beintaris I, Valori R, et al. World endoscopy organization consensus statements on post-colonoscopy and post-imaging colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2018;155:909.e3–925.e3. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2018.05.038.CrossRef

14.

Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M, et al. Increased rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:98–105. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.04.006.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Zorzi M, Senore C, Da Re F, et al. Detection rate and predictive factors of sessile serrated polyps in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme with immunochemical faecal occult blood test: the EQuIPE study (evaluating quality indicators of the performance of endoscopy). Gut. 2017;66:1233–1240. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310587.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Leufkens AM, DeMarco DC, Rastogi A, et al. Effect of a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: the TERRACE study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:480–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2010.09.004.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Gralnek IM, Siersema PD, Halpern Z, et al. Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy versus full-spectrum endoscopy: an international, multicentre, randomised, tandem colonoscopy trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:353–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70020-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Dik VK, Gralnek IM, Segol O, et al. Multicenter, randomized, tandem evaluation of EndoRings colonoscopy–results of the CLEVER study. Endoscopy. 2015;47:1151–1158. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1392421.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Wang P, Berzin TM, Glissen Brown JR, et al. Real-time automatic detection system increases colonoscopic polyp and adenoma detection rates: a prospective randomised controlled study. Gut. 2019;68:1813–1819. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317500.CrossRefPubMed

20.

DeWitt J, Van Dam J. Development of endoscopy- gastroenterology diamond jubilee review. Gastroenterology. 2018;155:237–240. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2018.04.002.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Yasser MBKAD, Chauhan SS, Gottlieb KT, et al. High-definition and high-magnification endoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80:919–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2014.06.019.CrossRef

22.

Longcroft-Wheaton G, Brown J, Cowlishaw D, Higgins B, Bhandari P. High-definition vs standard-definition colonoscopy in the characterization of small colonic polyps: results from a randomized trial. Endoscopy. 2012;44:905–910. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1310004.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Roelandt P, Demedts I, Willekens H, et al. Impact of endoscopy system, high definition, and virtual chromoendoscopy in daily routine colonoscopy: a randomized trial. Endoscopy. 2019;51:237–243. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0755-7471.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Zimmermann-Fraedrich K, Groth S, Sehner S, et al. Effects of two instrument-generation changes on adenoma detection rate during screening colonoscopy: results from a prospective randomized comparative study. Endoscopy. 2018;50:878–885. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0607-2636.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Bond A, O’Toole P, Fisher G, et al. New-generation high-definition colonoscopes increase adenoma detection when screening a moderate-risk population for colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2017;16:44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clcc.2016.07.006.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Park SK, Park SH, Yang HJ, et al. Simple proxies for detection of clinically significant serrated polyps and data for their benchmarks. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.14977.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Adler A, Aminalai A, Aschenbeck J, et al. Latest generation, wide-angle, high-definition colonoscopes increase adenoma detection rate. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:155–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2011.10.026.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Jrebi NY, Hefty M, Jalouta T, et al. High-definition colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:78–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4986-7.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Pioche M, Denis A, Allescher HD, et al. Impact of 2 generational improvements in colonoscopes on adenoma miss rates: results of a prospective randomized multicenter tandem study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;88:107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.01.025.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, et al. Systematic review: distribution of advanced neoplasia according to polyp size at screening colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010;31:210–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04160.x.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Paggi S, Radaelli F, Repici A, Hassan C. Advances in the removal of diminutive colorectal polyps. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;9(2):237–244. https://doi.org/10.1586/17474124.2014.950955.CrossRefPubMed

32.

van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J, Bossuyt PM, van Deventer SJ, Dekker E. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:343–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00390.x.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Heresbach D, Barrioz T, Lapalus MG, et al. Miss rate for colorectal neoplastic polyps: a prospective multicenter study of back-to-back video colonoscopies. Endoscopy. 2008;40:284–290. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-995618.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Zhao S, Wang S, Pan P, et al. Magnitude, risk factors, and factors associated with adenoma miss rate of tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2019;156:1661.e3–1674.e11. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.260.CrossRef

35.

Kudo S, Hirota S, Nakajima T, et al. Colorectal tumours and pit pattern. J Clin Pathol. 1994;47:880–885. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.47.10.880.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Hurlstone DP, Cross SS, Adam I, et al. Endoscopic morphological anticipation of submucosal invasion in flat and depressed colorectal lesions: clinical implications and subtype analysis of the kudo type V pit pattern using high-magnification-chromoscopic colonoscopy. Colorectal Dis. 2004;6:369–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2004.00667.x.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Tobaru T, Mitsuyama K, Tsuruta O, Kawano H, Sata M. Sub-classification of type VI pit patterns in colorectal tumors: relation to the depth of tumor invasion. Int J Oncol. 2008;33:503–508.PubMed

38.

Li M, Ali SM, Umm-a-OmarahGilani S, Liu J, Li YQ, Zuo XL. Kudo’s pit pattern classification for colorectal neoplasms: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:12649–12656. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i35.12649.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Iacucci M, Kiesslich R, Gui X, et al. Beyond white light: optical enhancement in conjunction with magnification colonoscopy for the assessment of mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis. Endoscopy. 2017;49:553–559. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-124363.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Klenske E, Zopf S, Neufert C, et al. I-scan optical enhancement for the in vivo prediction of diminutive colorectal polyp histology: results from a prospective three-phased multicentre trial. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0197520. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197520.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Iacucci M, Trovato C, Daperno M, et al. Development and validation of the SIMPLE endoscopic classification of diminutive and small colorectal polyps. Endoscopy. 2018;50:779–789. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-100791.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Latest Generation High-Definition Colonoscopy Increases Adenoma Detection Rate by Trainee Endoscopists
Authors: Jong Yoon Lee
Myeongseok Koh
Jong Hoon Lee
Publication date: 01-08-2021
Publisher: Springer US
Keywords: Endoscopy
Colonoscopy
Published in: Digestive Diseases and Sciences / Issue 8/2021
Print ISSN: 0163-2116
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2568
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-020-06543-5

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin

Prof. Florian Limbourg

Prof. Anoop Chauhan

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Aims

Method

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2021

Comprehensive Analysis of Barrett’s Esophagus: Focused on Carcinogenic Potential for Barrett’s Cancer in Japanese Patients

Measurement of Pyloric Pressures in Gastroparesis: Stiff Competition from EndoFLIP™

Association of Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Human Immunodeficiency Virus

Femoral Vein Wall Thickness Measurement May Be a Distinctive Diagnostic Tool to Differentiate Behçet’s Disease with Intestinal Involvement and Crohn’s Disease

The Risk of Acute and Chronic Pancreatitis in Celiac Disease

Correction to: Gastroparesis Following Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: A Case Series

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

At a glance: The STEP trials