Download PDF
Endoscopy 2017; 49(03): 243-250
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-122013
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Efficacy of segmental re-examination of proximal colon for adenoma detection during colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Chuan-Guo Guo
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Laboratory of Translational Gastroenterology, Shandong University, Qilu Hospital, Jinan, Shandong Province, China
,
Feifei Zhang
2   Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, China
,
Rui Ji
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Laboratory of Translational Gastroenterology, Shandong University, Qilu Hospital, Jinan, Shandong Province, China
,
Yueyue Li
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Laboratory of Translational Gastroenterology, Shandong University, Qilu Hospital, Jinan, Shandong Province, China
,
Lixiang Li
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Laboratory of Translational Gastroenterology, Shandong University, Qilu Hospital, Jinan, Shandong Province, China
,
Xiu-Li Zuo
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Laboratory of Translational Gastroenterology, Shandong University, Qilu Hospital, Jinan, Shandong Province, China
,
Yan-Qing Li
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Laboratory of Translational Gastroenterology, Shandong University, Qilu Hospital, Jinan, Shandong Province, China
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 23 June 2016

accepted after revision 27 October 2016

Publication Date:
27 January 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Interval colorectal cancers detected after screening colonoscopy are more likely to be associated with missed lesions in the proximal colon. The aim of this study was to determine whether segmental re-examination of the proximal colon could increase the proximal adenoma detection rate (ADR) and to evaluate the time-effectiveness of this approach.

Patients and methods Patients undergoing colonoscopy were recruited into the prospective randomized controlled study. They were randomly assigned to the segmental re-examination group, in which the proximal colon was examined twice segmentally, and a control group in which the withdrawal time was extended (EWT). Detection rates were calculated and compared for all polyps and adenomas in both the proximal colon and the whole colon. Withdrawal times were recorded and compared.

Results A total of 360 patients were included in the study (re-examination 178 vs. EWT 182). The proximal ADR in the re-examination group was higher than that in the EWT group (33.1 % vs. 23.6 %; P = 0.045). More proximal adenomas were detected per patient in the re-examination group (0.54 vs. 0.36; P = 0.048). The ADR of the whole colon was similar in the two groups. Proximal withdrawal time was also similar (re-examination 4.29 ± 1.23 minutes vs. EWT 4.34 ± 1.36 minutes; P = 0.74). In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in the total duration of the colonoscopy between the two groups.

Conclusions Segmental re-examination of the proximal colon increased the proximal ADR and the number of proximal adenomas detected, and was accomplished easily and safely without increasing the overall examination time.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02581475)

 

  • References

  • 1 Siegel RL, Ward EM, Jemal A. Trends in colorectal cancer incidence rates in the United States by tumor location and stage, 1992–2008. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012; 21: 411-416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Pohl H, Robertson DJ. Colorectal cancers detected after colonoscopy frequently result from missed lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 858-864
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT. et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 24-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Leufkens AM, van Oijen MG, Vleggaar FP. et al. Factors influencing the miss rate of polyps in a back-to-back colonoscopy study. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 470-475
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Harford WV. et al. Five-year colon surveillance after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2007; 133: 1077-1085
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 72-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM. et al. Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case-control study. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 22-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA. et al. The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer. Gastroenterology 2010; 139: 1128-1137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Arndt V. et al. Protection from right- and left-sided colorectal neoplasms after colonoscopy: population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 89-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Martinez ME, Baron JA, Lieberman DA. et al. A pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 832-841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Weinberg DS. Colonoscopy: what does it take to get it “right”?. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 68-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Snover DC. Update on the serrated pathway to colorectal carcinoma. Hum Pathol 2011; 42: 1-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ramirez FC, Leung FW. A head-to-head comparison of the water vs. air method in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. J Interv Gastroenterol 2011; 1: 130-135
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kushnir VM, Oh YS, Hollander T. et al. Impact of retroflexion vs. second forward view examination of the right colon on adenoma detection: a comparison study. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 415-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Shaukat A, Rector TS, Church TR. et al. Longer withdrawal time is associated with a reduced incidence of interval cancer after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 952-957
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lee TJ, Blanks RG, Rees CJ. et al. Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 20-26
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Yeoh KG, Ho KY, Chiu HM. et al. The Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening score: a validated tool that stratifies risk for colorectal advanced neoplasia in asymptomatic Asian subjects. Gut 2011; 60: 1236-1241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM. Randomization in clinical trials – theory and practice. New York: Wiley; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 834-840
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S. et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1296-1308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Endoscopic Classification Review Group. Update on the Paris classification of superficial neoplastic lesions in the digestive tract. Endoscopy; 2005 37. 570-578
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Schlemper RJ, Riddell RH, Kato Y. et al. The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Gut 2000; 47: 251-255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Strum WB. Colorectal adenomas. N Engl J Med 2016; 374: 1065-1075
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Klare P, Ascher S, Hapfelmeier A. et al. Patient age and duration of colonoscopy are predictors for adenoma detection in both proximal and distal colon. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 525-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ahn SB, Han DS, Bae JH. et al. The miss rate for colorectal adenoma determined by quality-adjusted, back-to-back colonoscopies. Gut Liver 2012; 6: 64-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Lieberman D, Moravec M, Holub J. et al. Polyp size and advanced histology in patients undergoing colonoscopy screening: implications for CT colonography. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1100-1105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Snover DC, Ahnen DJ, Burt RW. et al. Serrated polyps of the colon and rectum and serrated polyposis. In: Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH, Theise ND. , eds. WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Berlin: Springer; 2010: 160-165
    Google Scholar