Endoscopy 2019; 51(04): S114
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1681506
ESGE Days 2019 oral presentations
Saturday, April 6, 2019 11:00 – 13:00: Best abstract awards Congress Hall
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

METHYLENE BLUE-MMX FOR SCREENING COLONOSCOPY

A Repici
1   Humanitas University, Milan, Italy
,
C Hassan
2   ONRM Hospital, Rome, Italy
,
R Bisschops
3   Leuven University, Leuven, Belgium
,
P Bhandari
4   Solent Center, Portsmouth, United Kingdom
,
E Dekker
5   Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
,
M Rutter
6   North Tees Unversity Hospital, Stockton-on-Tees, United Kingdom
,
J East
7   John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom
,
R Kiesslich
8   St. Marienkrankenhaus, Frankfurt, Germany
,
P Siersema
9   Radboundumc University, Nijmegen, Netherlands
,
M Spaander
10   Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
,
F Radaelli
11   Valduce Hospital, Como, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
18 March 2019 (online)

 
 

    Aims:

    Topically applied methylene blue dye chromoendoscopy is effective in improving detection of colorectal neoplasia. When combined with a pH- and time-dependent multimatrix structure, a per-oral formulation methylene blue formulation (MB-MMX) is directly delivered to colorectal mucosa.

    Methods:

    In a Phase III study, 50-to75-year-old patients scheduled for colorectal cancer screening or surveillance colonoscopy were randomized between 200 mg MB-MMX, placebo, or 100 mg MB-MMX in a ratio of 2:2:1. The 100 mg MB-MMX arm was only for masking purposes. MB-MMX and placebo tablets were administered with a 4 liters polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with one adenoma or carcinoma (adenoma detection rate [ADR]) expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI between the 200 mg MB-MMX and placebo groups, while false-positive (resection rate for non-neoplastic polyps) and adverse event rates were secondary endpoints.

    Results:

    Across 1,205 randomized patients, ADR was higher with MB-MMX (273/485[56.29%]) than the placebo (229/479[47.81%]; OR: 1.46[1.09, 1.96]). The proportion of patients with nonpolypoid lesion was higher with MB-MMX than the placebo (213/485[43.92%] vs. 168/479 [35.07%]; OR: 1.66[1.21, 2.26]), as was that for ≤5 mm adenomas (180/485[37.11%] vs. 148/479 [30.90%]; OR: 1.36[1.01, 1.83]), while no difference for those with polypoid or larger lesions was observed. The false-positive rate was similar across the study arms (MB-MMX:83/356[23.31%] vs. placebo: 97/326[29.75%]). Overall, 0.7% of patients had severe adverse events with no difference between the two arms.

    Conclusions:

    MB-MMX led to an absolute 8.5% ADR improvement without increasing the removal of non-neoplastic lesions.


    #