Study designs to compare new colonoscopic techniques: clinical considerations, data analysis, and sample size calculations

Background and study aims: Novel imaging techniques need to be evaluated for their ability to improve the detection of polyps. Critical appraisal of reported studies reveals remarkable differences in study designs, despite their similar objectives. The aim of the current study was to compare frequently used study designs for their required sample size to detect relevant differences in polyp detection rates.

Patients and methods: Three commonly reported study designs were compared: design 1, the parallel randomized design; design 2, the randomized cross-over design with direct removal of polyps; and design 3, the randomized cross-over design without direct removal of polyps. A total of five different scenarios were analyzed per study design, representing a variety of clinical settings. Each scenario was repeated 1000 times for each study design and the sample size that produced a significant result per study design in each scenario was recorded.

Results: In many scenarios, study design 1 required 10 – 15 times more patients to reach the same statistical power of 80 % compared with study design 2. Further reductions in sample size could be achieved when study design 3 was used, although this design is limited by its impracticality.

Conclusions: The randomized parallel design requires a larger sample size to achieve equivalent power to the cross-over design. Researchers should carefully consider whether the latter design could be used instead, as it requires a lower number of subjects, although it may be more cumbersome for patients, endoscopists, and researchers.

• References

• 1 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH 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 2006; 130: 1872-1885
• 2 van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 343-350
• 3 van den Broek FJ, Fockens P, Dekker E. Review article: new developments in colonic imaging. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007; 26 (Suppl. 02) 91-99
• 4 Monkemuller K, Fry LC, Zimmermann L et al. Advanced endoscopic imaging methods for colon neoplasia. Dig Dis 2010; 28: 629-640
• 5 Tischendorf JJ, Wasmuth HE, Koch A et al. Value of magnifying chromoendoscopy and narrow band imaging (NBI) in classifying colorectal polyps: a prospective controlled study. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 1092-1096
• 6 Su MY, Hsu CM, Ho YP et al. Comparative study of conventional colonoscopy, chromoendoscopy, and narrow-band imaging systems in differential diagnosis of neoplastic and nonneoplastic colonic polyps. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 2711-2716
• 7 Sikka S, Ringold DA, Jonnalagadda S et al. Comparison of white light and narrow band high definition images in predicting colon polyp histology, using standard colonoscopes without optical magnification. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 818-822
• 8 Chiu HM, Chang CY, Chen CC et al. A prospective comparative study of narrow-band imaging, chromoendoscopy, and conventional colonoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Gut 2007; 56: 373-379
• 9 Knottnerus JA, Muris JW. Assessment of the accuracy of diagnostic tests: the cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 1118-1128
• 10 Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 40-44
• 11 Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 3: 25
• 12 Adler A, Aschenbeck J, Yenerim T et al. Narrow-band versus white-light high definition television endoscopic imaging for screening colonoscopy: a prospective randomized trial. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 410-416
• 13 East JE, Suzuki N, Stavrinidis M et al. Narrow band imaging for colonoscopic surveillance in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Gut 2008; 57: 65-70
• 14 Kaltenbach T, Friedland S, Soetikno R. A randomised tandem colonoscopy trial of narrow band imaging versus white light examination to compare neoplasia miss rates. Gut 2008; 57: 1406-1412
• 15 van den Broek FJ, Fockens P, van Eeden S et al. Narrow-band imaging versus high-definition endoscopy for the diagnosis of neoplasia in ulcerative colitis. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 108-115
• 16 Brooker JC, Saunders BP, Shah SG et al. Total colonic dye-spray increases the detection of diminutive adenomas during routine colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 333-338
• 17 East JE, Stavrindis M, Thomas-Gibson S et al. A comparative study of standard vs. high definition colonoscopy for adenoma and hyperplastic polyp detection with optimized withdrawal technique. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008; 28: 768-776
• 18 Inoue T, Murano M, Murano N et al. Comparative study of conventional colonoscopy and pan-colonic narrow-band imaging system in the detection of neoplastic colonic polyps: a randomized, controlled trial. J Gastroenterol 2008; 43: 45-50
• 19 Kiesslich R, Goetz M, Lammersdorf K et al. Chromoscopy-guided endomicroscopy increases the diagnostic yield of intraepithelial neoplasia in ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 2007; 132: 874-882
• 20 Marion JF, Waye JD, Present DH et al. Chromoendoscopy-targeted biopsies are superior to standard colonoscopic surveillance for detecting dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease patients: a prospective endoscopic trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 2342-2349
• 21 Paggi S, Radaelli F, Amato A et al. The impact of narrow band imaging in screening colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 1049-1054
• 22 Pellise M, Fernandez-Esparrach G, Cardenas A et al. Impact of wide-angle, high-definition endoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1062-1068
• 23 Rastogi A, Early DS, Gupta N et al. Randomized, controlled trial of standard-definition white-light, high-definition white-light, and narrow-band imaging colonoscopy for the detection of colon polyps and prediction of polyp histology. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 593-602
• 24 Dekker E, Van den Broek FJ, Reitsma JB et al. Narrow-band imaging compared with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of dysplasia in patients with longstanding ulcerative colitis. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 216-221
• 25 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
• 26 Matsuda T, Saito Y, Fu KI et al. Does autofluorescence imaging videoendoscopy system improve the colonoscopic polyp detection rate? A pilot study. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 1926-1932
• 27 van den Broek FJ, Fockens P, van Eeden S et al. Clinical evaluation of endoscopic trimodal imaging for the detection and differentiation of colonic polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 288-295
• 28 Gross SA, Buchner AM, Crook JE et al. A comparison of high definition-image enhanced colonoscopy and standard white-light colonoscopy for colorectal polyp detection. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 1045-1051
• 29 Ramsoekh D, Haringsma J, Poley JW et al. A back-to-back comparison of white light video endoscopy with autofluorescence endoscopy for adenoma detection in high-risk subjects. Gut 2010; 59: 785-793
• 30 Rex DK, Overhiser AJ, Chen SC et al. Estimation of impact of American College of Radiology recommendations on CT colonography reporting for resection of high-risk adenoma findings. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 149-153
• 31 van den Broek FJ, Reitsma JB, Curvers WL et al. Systematic review of narrow-band imaging for the detection and differentiation of neoplastic and nonneoplastic lesions in the colon (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 124-135
• 32 Bombi JA. Polyps of the colon in Barcelona, Spain. An autopsy study. Cancer 1988; 61: 1472-1476
• 33 Williams AR, Balasooriya BA, Day DW. Polyps and cancer of the large bowel: a necropsy study in Liverpool. Gut 1982; 23: 835-842
• 34 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. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58: 130-160
• 35 Regula J, Rupinski M, Kraszewska E et al. Colonoscopy in colorectal-cancer screening for detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 1863-1872
• 36 Lecomte T, Cellier C, Meatchi T et al. Chromoendoscopic colonoscopy for detecting preneoplastic lesions in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 3: 897-902
• 37 Rutter MD, Saunders BP, Schofield G et al. Pancolonic indigo carmine dye spraying for the detection of dysplasia in ulcerative colitis. Gut 2004; 53: 256-260
• 38 Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 620-625
• 39 Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 482-486
• 40 Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR et al. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1696-1700
• 41 Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 378-384
• 42 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
• 43 Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Harford WV et al. Five-year colon surveillance after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2007; 133: 1077-1085