Year 2016 / Volume 108 / Number 5
Original
Enhanced flat adenoma detection rate with high definition colonoscopy plus i-scan for average-risk colorectal cancer screening

257-262

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2016.4008/2015

Antonio Rodríguez-D´Jesus, Esteban Saperas,

Abstract
Background and aim: The usefulness of high definition colonoscopy plus i-scan (HD+i-SCAN) for average-risk colorectal cancer screening has not been fully assessed. The detection rate of adenomas and other measurements such as the number of adenomas per colonoscopy and the flat adenoma detection rate have been recognized as markers of colonoscopy quality. The aim of the present study was to compare the diagnostic performance of an HD+i-SCAN with that of standard resolution white-light colonoscope. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected screening colonoscopy database. A comparative analysis of the diagnostic yield of an HD+i-SCAN or standard resolution colonoscopy for average-risk colorectal screening was conducted. Results: During the period of study, 155/163 (95.1%) patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 56.9 years. Sixty of 155 (39%) colonoscopies were performed using a HD+i-SCAN. Adenoma-detection-rates during the withdrawal of the standard resolution versus HD+i-SCAN colonoscopies were 29.5% and 30% (p = n.s.). Adenoma/colonoscopy values for standard resolution versus HD+i-SCAN colonoscopies were 0.46 (SD = 0.9) and 0.72 (SD = 1.3) (p = n.s.). A greater number of flat adenomas were detected in the HD+i-SCAN group (6/60 versus 2/95) (p < .05). Likewise, serrated adenomas/polyps per colonoscopy were also higher in the HD+i-SCAN group. Conclusions: A HD+i-SCAN colonoscopy increases the flat adenoma detection rate and serrated adenomas/polyps per colonoscopy compared to a standard colonoscopy in average-risk screening population. HD+i-SCAN is a simple, available procedure that can be helpful, even for experienced providers. The performance of HD+i-SCAN and substantial prevalence of flat lesions in our average-risk screening cohort support its usefulness in improving the efficacy of screening colonoscopies.
Share Button
New comment
Comments
No comments for this article
References
1. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, OʼBrien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012;366:687-96.
2. Leaper M, Johnston MJ, Barclay M, et al. Reasons for failure to diagnose colorectal carcinoma at colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2004;36:499–503.
3. Van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J, et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: A systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:343–50.
4. Xiang L, Zhan Q, Zhao XH, et al. Risk factors associated with missed colorectal flat adenoma: a multicenter retrospective tandem colonoscopy study. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:10927–37.
5. Hart AR, Kudo S, Mackay EH, et al. Flat adenomas exist in asymptomatic people: important implications for colorectal cancer screening programmes. Gut 1998;43:229–31.
6. le Clercq CM, Bouwens MW, Rondagh EJ et al. Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers are preventable: a population-based study. Gut 2014;63:957–63.
7. Lebwohl B, Kastrinos F, Glick M, et al. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:1207–14.
8. Chokshi R V, Hovis CE, Hollander T, et al. Prevalence of missed adenomas in patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:1197–203.
9. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1795–803.
10. Robertson DJ, Lieberman DA, Winawer SJ, et al. Colorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: a pooled multicohort analysis. Gut 2014;63:949–56.
11. Saini SD, Schoenfeld PS, Vijan S. Can the adenoma detection rate reliably identify low-performing endoscopists? Results of a modeling study. Dig Dis Sci 2013;58:1856-62.
12. Atia MA, Patel NC, Ratuapli SK, et al. Nonneoplastic polypectomy during screening colonoscopy: the impact on polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, and overall cost. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;82:370–5.
13. Abu Dayyeh BK, Thosani N, Konda V, et al. ASGE Technology Committee systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the ASGE PIVI thresholds for adopting real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:502.e1–16.
14. Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2533–41.
15. Lau PC, Sung JJ. Flat adenoma in colon: Two decades of debate. J Dig Dis 2010;11:201–7.
16. Rembacken BJ, Fujii T, Cairns A, et al. Flat and depressed colonic neoplasms: a prospective study of 1000 colonoscopies in the UK. Lancet 2000;355:1211–4.
17. Tsuda S, Veress B, Tóth E, et al. Flat and depressed colorectal tumours in a southern Swedish population: a prospective chromoendoscopic and histopathological study. Gut 2002;51:550–5.
18. Pellisé M, Fernández-Esparrach G, Cárdenas A, Sendino O, et al. Impact of Wide-Angle, High-Definition Endoscopy in the Diagnosis of Colorectal Neoplasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology 2008;135:1062–8.
19. Erim T, Rivas JM, Velis E, et al. Role of high definition colonoscopy in colorectal adenomatous polyp detection. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17:4001-6.
20. Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:482–6.
21. Hoffman A, Sar F, Goetz M, et al. High definition colonoscopy combined with I-Scan is superior in the detection of colorectal neoplasias compared with standard video colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2010;42:827–33.
22. Participants in the Paris Workshop. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58:S3–43.
23. Ross WA, Thirumurthi S, Lynch PM, et al. Detection rates of premalignant polyps during screening colonoscopy: Time to revise quality standards? Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:567–74.
24 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 2016. [Epub ahead of print] doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310587.
25. Le Rhun M, Coron E, Parlier D, et al. High resolution colonoscopy with chromoscopy versus standard colonoscopy for the detection of colonic neoplasia: A randomized study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;4:349–54.
26. Brown SR, Baraza W. Chromoscopy versus conventional endoscopy for the detection of polyps in the colon and rectum. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;10:CD006439.
27. Testoni PA, Notaristefano C, Vailati C, et al. High-definition colonoscopy with i-Scan: Better diagnosis for small polyps and flat adenomas. World J Gastroenterol 2012;18:5231–9.
28. Kim WJ, Park SY, Park I, et al. Increased Detection of Colorectal Polyps in Screening Colonoscopy Using High Definition i-SCAN Compared with Standard White Light. Clin Endosc. 2016;49:69-75
29. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:31–53.
30. Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau JM, et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance : European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ( ESGE ) Guideline. Endoscopy 2013;842–51.
31. Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ, et al. Guidelines for Colonoscopy Surveillance After Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. Gastroenterology 2012;143:844–57.
32. Tsiamoulos ZP, Misra R, Bourikas L, et al. Sa1423 Endocuff-Vision: Impact on Colonoscopist Performance During Screening. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:AB209.
33. Gralnek IM, Segol O, Suissa A, et al. A prospective cohort study evaluating a novel colonoscopy platform featuring full-spectrum endoscopy. Endoscopy 2013;45:697–702.
34. Gralnek IM. Emerging technological advancements in colonoscopy: Third Eye® Retroscope® and Third Eye® Panoramic TM , Fuse® Full Spectrum Endoscopy® colonoscopy platform, Extra-Wide-Angle-View colonoscope, and NaviAid TM G-EYE TM balloon colonoscope. Dig Endosc 2015;27:223–31.
35. Westwood D, Alexakis N, Connor SJ. Transparent cap-assisted colonoscopy versus standard adult colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 2012;55:218–25.
36. Dik VK, Moons LM, Siersema PD. Endoscopic innovations to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:2200–11.
Related articles

Letter

An uncommon colonic polyp

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9160/2022

Digestive Diseases Image

Intestinal obstruction due to bariolith impaction

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9084/2022

Letter

Anorectal malignant melanoma, a diagnostic challenge

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9068/2022

Letter

Lead ingestion, medical emergency and action plan

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9048/2022

Letter

Endoscopic findings of radiation ileitis

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9036/2022

Letter

Endoscopic imaging of pneumatosis intestinalis

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8972/2022

Editorial

Colonoscopy — When quality matters

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8942/2022

Digestive Diseases Image

Colonic Kaposi’s sarcoma as the first clinical manifestation of undiagnosed HIV

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8717/2022

Letter

Gastrointestinal lymphoma, a rare endoscopic lesion

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8555/2021

Letter

Cecal MALT lymphoma: a challenging diagnosis

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2021.8526/2021

Letter

Surprises in cecal intubation: foreign bodies in the colon

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2021.8155/2021

Editorial

Screening guide for hepatitis C virus infection in Spain

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2020.7728/2020

Digestive Diseases Image

Phlebosclerotic colitis: an unusual cause of abdominal pain and hematochezia

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2020.7358/2020

Review

New non-invasive biomarkers for colorectal cancer screening

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2020.7233/2020

Special Article

Strategy for the Elimination of Hepatitis C in Cantabria

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2020.7108/2020

Case Report

Primary colon mantle lymphoma: a misleading macroscopic appearance!

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2019.6405/2019

Digestive Diseases Image

Colorectal penetration by two intrauterine devices

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2019.5974/2018

Editorial

Colorectal cancer screening and survival

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5870/2018

Letter

Why anal cytology is not enough in a dysplasia screening program

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5678/2018

Letter

Bacterial endogenous endophthalmitis after colonoscopy

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5658/2018

Review

Quality indicators in colonoscopy. The colonoscopy procedure

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5408/2017

Letter to the Editor

A rare complication after colonoscopy: a splenic rupture

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5362/2017

Letter to the Editor

Acute appendicitis after a colonic endoscopic submucosal resection

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5307/2017

Digestive Diseases Image

Contribution of the virtual colonoscopy in a case of intestinal intussusception

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.5261/2017

Digestive Diseases Image

A bull horn fragment found on colonoscopy

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.5020/2017

Editorial

Issue pending: minimizing anxiety before colonoscopy

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2016.4756/2016

Digestive Diseases Image

Intrauterine device in the rectal cavity

Letter to the Editor

Primary chancre in the rectum: an underdiagnosed cause of rectal ulcer

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.4457/2016

Digestive Diseases Image

Pneumatosis cystoides intestinalis

Letter to the Editor

Splenic rupture after colorectal cancer screening

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2015.3714/2015

Citation tools
Rodríguez-D´Jesus A, Saperas E. Enhanced flat adenoma detection rate with high definition colonoscopy plus i-scan for average-risk colorectal cancer screening. 4008/2015


Download to a citation manager

Download the citation for this article by clicking on one of the following citation managers:

Metrics
This article has received 148 visits.
This article has been downloaded 77 times.

Statistics from Dimensions


Statistics from Plum Analytics

Publication history

Received: 17/09/2015

Accepted: 17/03/2016

Online First: 29/03/2016

Published: 29/04/2016

Article revision time: 179 days

Article Online First time: 194 days

Article editing time: 225 days


Share
This article hasn't been rated yet.
Reader rating:
Valora este artículo:




Asociación Española de Ecografía Digestiva Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva
The Spanish Journal of Gastroenterology is the official organ of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva and the Asociación Española de Ecografía Digestiva
Cookie policy Privacy Policy Legal Notice © Copyright 2023 y Creative Commons. The Spanish Journal of Gastroenterology