Advanced Adenoma Detection Rate Research Articles

Improving trainee colonoscopy performance by investigating the withdrawal time from individual colonic segments: a single-center observational study.

The colonoscopy withdrawal time (WT) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) are widely used quality indicators for colonoscopy. However, no study has investigated the appropriate colonoscopy WTs of individual colonic segments that will allow trainees to achieve a higher ADR. Thus, we analyzed for the first time the relationship between colonoscopy WT and the ADR/polyp detection rate (PDR) in the proximal, left-sided and entire colon among trainees. This retrospective study involved 611 consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy from March 2018 to March 2019 performed by 6 trainees in the Endoscopy Center of Shanghai General Hospital. The WTs for the individual colonic segments and any significant findings of colonoscopies were retrospectively retrieved from the trainees' records and verified in the endoscopy center database. ADR/PDR was defined as the number of colonoscopies detecting at least 1 polyp/adenoma divided by the total number of colonoscopies. Comparisons of PDR and ADR between the 2 groups were conducted using chi-square test. Multilevel analysis was performed to consider individual differences among the 6 trainees. Multilevel binary logistic regression analysis was performed to analyze the factors that influenced the PDR, ADR and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR) for the entire colon, and trainee status was included as a random effect. The mean WTs were 4.20±1.09, 4.27±1.12, and 8.48±1.87 minutes for the proximal, left-sided, and entire colon, respectively. A longer WT [odds ratio (OR) 1.499, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.381-1.628, P<0.001; OR 1.409, 95% CI: 1.265-1.569, P<0.001, respectively] was significantly associated with a higher PDR and ADR. The PDR (P<0.001) and ADR (P<0.001) were significantly higher when the WT was >4 minutes than when the WT was ≤4 minutes in both the proximal and left-sided colon, while the PDR (P<0.001) and ADR (P<0.001) were significantly higher when the WT was >8 minutes in the entire colon. In order to improve trainee colonoscopy performance, trainees were recommended to have WTs of at least 4 minutes in the proximal colon, 4 minutes in the left-sided colon and 8 minutes in the entire colon during negative screening colonoscopies.

Colorectal Cancer Screening with Computed Tomography Colonography: Single Region Experience in Kazakhstan.

Background/AimsThe aim of our study was to determine the efficacy of computed tomography colonography (CTC) in screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). MethodsA total of 612 females and 588 males aged 45 to 75 years were enrolled in CTC screening. CTC was performed following standard bowel preparation and colonic insufflation with carbon dioxide. The main outcomes were the detection rate of CRC and advanced adenoma (AA), prevalence of colorectal lesions in relation to socio-demographic and health factors, and overall diagnostic performance of CTC. ResultsOverall, 56.5% of the 1,200 invited subjects underwent CTC screening. The sensitivity for CRC and AA was 0.89 and 0.97, respectively, while the specificity was 0.71 and 0.99, respectively. The prevalence of CRC and AA was 3.0% (18/593) and 7.1% (42/593), respectively, with the highest CRC prevalence in the 66-75 age group (≥12 times; odds ratio [OR], 12.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.45-32.92). CRC and AA prevalence were inversely correlated with Asian descent, physical activity, and negative fecal immunochemical test results (OR=0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.83; OR=0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.68; OR=0.5; 95% CI, 0.07-3.85, respectively). ConclusionsOur study revealed high accuracy of CTC in diagnosing colonic neoplasms, good compliance with CTC screening, and high detection rate of CRC.

A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Two Bowel Cleansing Regimens for Colonoscopy After Failed Bowel Preparation

Failed bowel preparation for colonoscopy occurs commonly, but the optimal regimen for the subsequent attempt is unknown. High-volume preparations often are used but are not well studied. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of 2 regimens for use after failed bowel preparation. A multicenter, endoscopist-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted in patients who previously failed bowel preparation despite adequate compliance. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 split polyethylene glycol (PEG) regimens, preceded by 15 mg bisacodyl: PEG 2 L the evening before and 2 L the day of colonoscopy (PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl), or 4 L and 2 L (PEG 4+2L+bisacodyl). All patients followed a low-fiber diet on both the third and second day before the procedure, followed by a clear fluid diet the day before and the morning of the colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation, defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale total score of 6 or higher, with all segment scores of 2 or higher. Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated lesion detection, cecal intubation rate, tolerability, and adverse events. A total of 196 subjects were randomized at 4 academic centers in Canada (mean age, 60.7 y; SD, 11.4 y; 44.9% were women). There were no significant differences between the PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl and the PEG 4+2L+bisacodyl groups in achieving adequate bowel preparation (91.2% vs 87.6%; P= .44). There were no significant differences with regard to mean adenoma detection rate (37.4% vs 31.5%; P= .41), advanced adenoma detection rate (18.7% vs 11.2%; P= .16), sessile serrated lesion detection (8.8% vs 5.6%; P= .41), and cecal intubation rate (96.7% vs 92.1%; P= .19). The 2 regimens were similarly well tolerated, but PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl was associated with a higher willingness to repeat the bowel preparation (91.2% vs 66.2%; P < .001). Split-dose 4 L-PEG with 15 mg bisacodyl, along with dietary restrictions, has similar efficacy as a higher-volume preparation, and should be considered for patients who previously failed bowel preparation (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02976805).

Higher adenoma detection, sessile serrated lesion detection and proximal sessile serrated lesion detection are associated with physician specialty and performance on Direct Observation of Procedural Skills

ObjectiveAdenoma detection rate (ADR) and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR) vary among physicians. We sought to determine physician characteristics associated with ADR and SSLDR in a population-based colon screening...

Comparative Effectiveness of Fecal Immunochemical Tests versus Flexible Sigmoidoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) and flexible sigmoidoscopies are commonly used modalities for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of FIT and sigmoidoscopy in CRC screening. PRISMA statement and Cochrane guidelines were followed for this review. Digital dissertation databases were searched from inception till December 1st 2020 and randomized clinical trials comparing the detection rates of CRC for FIT and sigmoidoscopy were included. Outcomes for analysis included participation rates and detection rates of CRC, advanced adenomas and advanced colorectal neoplasia for both screening modalities. Five randomized clinical trials with a total of 261,755 patients were included for the analysis. The participation rate for FIT was significantly higher compared to flexible sigmoidoscopy (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.29-3.44, p=0.003). In intention-to-screen analysis, the detection rate for advanced colorectal neoplasia was significantly lower with FIT (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.84, p=0.002) as compared to flexible sigmoidoscopy but not statistically different for CRC (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.65-2.02, p=0.63). Despite lower participation amongst patients, CRC screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy leads to higher detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia, when compared to a single round of fecal immunochemical testing.

Adenoma and Serrated Lesion Detection by Colonoscopy Indication: The ADR-ESS (ADR Extended to all Screening/Surveillance) Score

The adenoma detection rate at screening (ADR) predicts interval colorectal cancer. Monitoring other lesion detection rates and colonoscopy indications has been proposed. We developed a comprehensive, automated colonoscopy audit program based on standardized clinical documentation, explored detection rates across indications, and developed the Adenoma Detection Rate - Extended to all Screening / Surveillance (ADR-ESS) score. In a prospective cohort study, we calculated overall and advanced adenoma and sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rates among 15,253 colonoscopies by 35 endoscopists from 4 endoscopy units across all colonoscopy indications. We explored correlations between detection rates, and the precision and stability of ADR-ESS versus ADR. The overall "screening, first" ADR was 36.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 34.5%-38.1%). The adenoma detection rate was lower for "screening, not first" (relative rate [RR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87) and "family history" (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.96), and higher for "surveillance" (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.15-1.31) and "follow-up, FIT" (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.07-1.37). For "screening, first," the detection rates for advanced adenoma, SSL, and advanced SSL were 6.7% (95% CI, 5.7%-7.7%), 7.2% (95% CI, 6.2%-8.2%), and 2.6% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.2%), respectively. Adenoma and SSL detection were correlated (r= 0.44; P= .008). ADR-ESS had substantially narrower confidence intervals and less period-to-period variability than ADR, and was not improved by weighting for indication volume and correction for detection by indication. Comprehensive, automated colonoscopy audit based on standardized clinical documentation is feasible. Adenoma detection is a fair but imperfect proxy for SSL detection. ADR-ESS increases the precision of adenoma detection assessments and emphasizes quality across colonoscopy indications.

Adenoma detection by Endocuff-assisted versus standard colonoscopy in an organized screening program: the “ItaVision” randomized controlled trial

The Endocuff Vision device (Arc Medical Design Ltd., Leeds, UK) has been shown to increase mucosal exposure, and consequently adenoma detection rate (ADR), during colonoscopy. This nationwide multicenter study assessed possible benefits and harms of using Endocuff Vision in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program. Patients undergoing colonoscopy after a FIT-positive test were randomized 1:1 to undergo Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy or standard colonoscopy, stratified by sex, age, and screening history. Primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were ADR stratified by endoscopists' ADR, advanced ADR (AADR), adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), withdrawal time, and adverse events. 1866 patients were enrolled across 13 centers. After exclusions, 1813 (mean age 60.1 years; male 53.8 %) were randomized (908 Endocuff Vision, 905 standard colonoscopy). ADR was significantly higher in the Endocuff Vision arm (47.8 % vs. 40.8 %; relative risk [RR] 1.17, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.30), with no differences between arms regarding size or morphology. When stratifying for endoscopists' ADR, only low detectors (ADR < 33.3 %) showed a statistically significant ADR increase (Endocuff Vision 41.1 % [95 %CI 35.7-46.7] vs. standard colonoscopy 26.0 % [95 %CI 21.3-31.4]). AADR (24.8 % vs. 20.5 %, RR 1.21, 95 %CI 1.02-1.43) and APC (0.94 vs. 0.77; P = 0.001) were higher in the Endocuff Vision arm. Withdrawal time and adverse events were similar between arms. Endocuff Vision increased ADR in a FIT-based screening program by improving examination of the whole colonic mucosa. Utility was highest among endoscopists with a low ADR.

Impact of Fellow Participation During Colonoscopy on Adenoma Detection Rates.

An endoscopist's adenoma detection rate (ADR) is inversely related to interval colorectal cancer risk and cancer mortality. Previous studies evaluating the impact of gastroenterology fellow participation in colonoscopy on ADR have generated conflicting results. We aimed to determine the impact of fellow participation, duration of fellowship training, and physician sex on ADR and advanced ADR (AADR). We retrospectively analyzed average-risk patients undergoing screening colonoscopy at Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System Brooklyn Campus and Kings County Hospital Center. Review of colonoscopy and pathology reports were performed to obtain adenoma-specific details, including the presence of advanced adenoma and adenoma location (right vs. left colon). There were 893 colonoscopies performed by attending only and 502 performed with fellow participation. Fellow participation improved overall ADR (44.6% vs. 35.4%, p < 0.001), right-sided ADR (34.1% vs. 25.2%, p < 0.001), and AADR (15.3% vs. 8.3%, p < 0.001); however, these findings were institution-specific. Year of fellowship training did not impact overall ADR or overall AADR, but did significantly improve right-sided AADR (p-value for trend 0.03). Female attending physicians were associated with increased ADR (47.1% vs. 37.0%, p = 0.0037). Fellow sex did not impact ADR. Fellow participation in colonoscopy improved overall ADR and AADR, and female attending physicians were associated with improved ADR. Year of fellowship training did not impact overall ADR or AADR.

Diagnostic yield of colonoscopy surveillance in testicular cancer survivors treated with platinum-based chemotherapy: study protocol of a prospective cross-sectional cohort study

BackgroundTesticular cancer (TC) survivors have an increased risk of various second primary malignancies. A recent cohort study detected an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in TC survivors treated with platinum-based chemotherapy with a hazard ratio of 3.9. CRC risk increased with higher cisplatin-dose. We know that colonoscopy surveillance in high-risk populations results in reduced incidence and mortality of CRC. TC survivors treated with platinum-based chemotherapy can potentially benefit from colonoscopy surveillance; however, to which extent is unknown. Furthermore, the pathogenesis of these secondary CRCs is unknown, and better insights into the carcinogenesis may affect surveillance decisions.MethodsThis prospective multicenter study will be performed in four Dutch hospitals. TC survivors are eligible if treated with ≥ 3 cycles of cisplatin before age 50. Colonoscopy will be performed ≥ 8 years after initial treatment (minimum and maximum ages at colonoscopy, 35 and 75 years, respectively). The primary aim of the study is the diagnostic yield of advanced neoplasia detected during colonoscopy. As secondary aim, we will evaluate the molecular profile of advanced colorectal neoplasia and will assess current platinum levels in blood and urine and correlate blood-platinum levels with prevalence of colorectal lesions. Furthermore, we will investigate effectiveness of fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and burden of colonoscopy by two questionnaires. Demographic data, previous history, results of colonoscopy, hemoglobin level of FIT and results of molecular and platinum levels will be obtained. Yield of colonoscopy will be determined by detection rate of adenoma and serrated lesions, advanced adenoma detection rate and CRC detection rate. The MISCAN model will be used for cost-effectiveness analyses of CRC surveillance. With 234 participants undergoing colonoscopy, we can detect an absolute difference of 6% of advanced neoplasia with 80% power.DiscussionTC survivors treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy can benefit from CRC surveillance. Evaluation of the diagnostic performance and patient acceptance of CRC surveillance is of importance to develop surveillance recommendations. Insight into the carcinogenesis of cisplatin-related advanced colorectal lesions will contribute to CRC prevention in the increasing number of TC survivors. The results may also be important for the many other cancer survivors treated with platinum-based chemotherapy.Trial registrationClinical Trials: NCT04180033, November 27, 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04180033.

Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test Strongly Predicts Adenomas in Younger Adults With Fatty Liver and Metabolic Syndrome.

INTRODUCTION:The incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer is increasing. This study explored the feasibility of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and risk factors for predicting colorectal neoplasm in younger adults.METHODS:This single-center study included 6,457 participants who underwent health examination from 2013 to 2016 including index colonoscopy (3,307 individuals aged 30–49 years as the younger adult group and 3,150 aged ≥50 years as the average-risk group). Primary outcomes were adenoma detection rate (ADR) and advanced ADR (AADR). Findings of younger participants were stratified by the results of FIT and clinical risk factors and were compared with those of the average-risk group.RESULTS:Among participants aged 30–49 years, a positive FIT was associated with significantly higher ADR (28.5% vs 15.5, P < 0.001) and AADR (14.5% vs 3.7%, P < 0.001) than a negative FIT. Moreover, a positive FIT was associated with higher AADR in younger participants than in average-risk counterparts (14.5% vs 9.8%, P = 0.028). Although no single risk factor predicted FIT positivity in younger participants, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease was independently associated with higher ADR (odds ratio = 2.60, 95% confidence interval = 1.27–5.34, P = 0.001), and metabolic syndrome was independently predictive of higher AADR in younger participants than in average-risk participants (odds ratio = 3.46, 95% confidence interval = 1.66–7.21, P = 0.001).DISCUSSION:A positive FIT in people aged 30–49 years implies a higher risk of colorectal neoplasm, particularly among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and metabolic syndrome.

Divergent detection rates of fecal immunochemical test and questionnaire-based risk assessment for detecting proximal and distal advanced colorectal adenomas

Divergent detection rates of fecal immunochemical test and questionnaire-based risk assessment for detecting proximal and distal advanced colorectal adenomas

Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundAdenoma detection rate (ADR) is one of the most important quality indicators of colonoscopy. Monitoring endoscopists and providing feedback has shown to improve ADR. We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to determine the effect of any form of feedback on ADR.MethodsA literature search for comparative studies that employed any form of feedback to assess the impact on ADR before and after the feedback was done on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database. The primary outcome of interest was ADR. Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, and cecal intubation rate. Cochrane Revman 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis.ResultsA total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of primary outcomes. There were 78,355 subjects (45.42% male) with a mean age of 59.52 years. There was a significant improvement in ADR after any form of feedback compared to no feedback: 36.18% vs. 26.75%; pooled odds ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.37-1.66; P<0.001. There was a substantial heterogeneity (I2=82%). ADR improved in both active or passive feedback, irrespective of whether endoscopists knew about being monitored for their performance or not.ConclusionsMonitoring and providing feedback to endoscopists in any form leads to improvement in ADR. Feedback is an easy and effective way of improving the ADR of endoscopists, especially in those not achieving the recommended benchmarks.

Panoramic colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening - a randomized controlled trial.

IntroductionColonoscopy is considered the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening. Panoramic colonoscopy offers better visualization to decrease the adenoma miss rate.AimTo assess the influence of 330° panoramic view colonoscopy on adenoma and polyp detection rate, cecal intubation time, and examiner’s comfort.Material and methodsThe study enrolled 421 patients aged 18–80 years who were eligible for colonoscopy screening. Patients with prior abdominal surgery, inflammatory bowel disease or after colorectal resections were excluded from the study. Patients were randomized to either standard frontal view (SFV) (Olympus Evis Exera III 190 CF-HQ190L) or the panoramic view colonoscopy (PVC) (FUSE CDVL slim c38). The study was approved by the local bioethics committee and registered at ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT02929381).ResultsThere were 214 patients examined with SFV and 207 with PVC. The mean age of patients was 64 ±12.26 years. The two groups were comparable. The median cecal intubation time was 234 s with SFV vs. 311 s with PVC (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in CIR or withdrawal time. PVC made it possible to discover more diverticula in the ascending colon (p = 0.009). PDR with SFV was 34.6% and 40.1% with PVC (p = 0.242). A higher number of polyps was found in the transverse colon in the PVC group (p = 0.006). ADR and advanced ADR (aADR) in both groups were similar (26.4% vs. 27.1% and 14, 2% vs. 13.9%).ConclusionsColonoscopy with wide-angle endoscopes lasts longer and allows for the detection of more polyps and diverticula without affecting ADR and aADR. Our study did not reveal the superiority of wide-angle colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening

Colorectal Cancer Screening With Repeated Fecal Immunochemical Test Versus Sigmoidoscopy: Baseline Results From a Randomized Trial

The comparative effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is unknown. Individuals aged 50-74 years living in Southeast Norway were randomly invited between 2012 and 2019 to either once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy or FIT screening every second year. Colonoscopy was recommended after sigmoidoscopy if any polyp of ≥10 mm, ≥3 adenomas, any advanced adenomas, or CRC was found or, subsequent to, FIT >15 μg hemoglobin/g feces. Data for this report were obtained after complete recruitment in both groups and included 2 full FIT rounds and part of the third round. Outcome measures were participation, neoplasia detection, and adverse events. Age-standardized detection rates and age-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. We included 139,291 individuals: 69,195 randomized to sigmoidoscopy and 70,096 to FIT. The participation rate was 52% for sigmoidoscopy, 58% in the first FIT round, and 68% for 3 cumulative FIT rounds. Compared to sigmoidoscopy, the detection rate for CRC was similar in the first FIT round (0.25% vs 0.27%; OR, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.13) but higher after 3 FIT rounds (0.49% vs 0.27%; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.54-2.27). Advanced adenoma detection rate was lower in the first FIT round compared to sigmoidoscopy at 1.4% vs 2.4% (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.62) but higher after 3 cumulative FIT rounds at 2.7% vs 2.4% (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.23). There were 33 (0.05%) serious adverse events in the sigmoidoscopy group compared to 47 (0.07%) in the FIT group (P = .13). Participation was higher and more CRC and advanced adenomas were detected with repeated FIT compared to sigmoidoscopy. The risk of perforation and bleeding was comparable. Clinicaltrials.gov, Number: NCT01538550.

Comparative evaluation of two colorectal cancer screening campaigns using different faecal occult blood tests in a French area

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare quality performance of the first colorectal cancer (CRC) screening campaigns (C) with the OC Sensor® Faecal Immunological Test (FIT) (C7 from 2016 to 2017) and the Hemoccult® guaiac-based test (C1 from 2004 to 2006). MethodsThe participation rate of the eligible population, screening fecal occult blood test (FOBT) performance indices, CRC and adenoma detection rate and time interval between test positivity and colonoscopy were studied. ResultsIn C7, 35.9 % of the eligible population completed the screening process versus 47.6 % in C1 (p < 0.0001). The positivity rate was of 4.3 % for OC Sensor® FIT and 2.3 % for Hemoccult® test (p < 0.0001). A total of 3,252 colonoscopies were performed in C7 versus 2,005 in C1; 246 CRCs and 1,160 advanced adenomas (AA) were detected in C7 compared to 140 CRCs and 491 AA in C1 (p < 0.0001). The FOBT cancer detection rate increased significantly from 1.4 ‰ to 2.9 ‰ between the two campaigns, as did the FOBT AA detection rate, from 5.7 ‰ to 13.7 ‰. During C7, the mean time for colonoscopy after a positive FIT result was 84.3 days [95 % CI: 77.9–90.7]. There was no significant difference between the stages at diagnosis according to the time for colonoscopy within the first 6 months. ConclusionsCRC and AA detection rates increased significantly between the two campaigns. Longer follow-up will be required to show a potential decrease in the incidence of invasive CRCs.

S0312 Increased Incidence of Sessile Serrated Adenoma/Polyp and Colorectal Cancer Detection in Veterans With Elevated Charlson Comorbidity Index and Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test

INTRODUCTION: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is widely used as a screening method for colorectal cancer (CRC). The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) is the most widely comorbidity index used by researchers. There have been no studies to date correlating colonoscopy findings after positive FIT based on CCI. The primary aim of our study was to determine if CCI influences colonoscopy findings (adenoma or cancer) in patients with a positive FIT from a Veterans Affairs hospital in the Inland Empire of Southern California. METHODS: The VA Loma Linda Healthcare System electronic medical record was queried for all patients having FIT between October 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015. Inclusion criteria were positive FIT and completion of colonoscopy. Data collected included demographic information, endoscopist performing colonoscopy, type and quality of preparation, withdrawal time, Endocuff use, adenoma size and location along with calculated CCI score. Primary outcome measures were adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), sessile serrated adenoma/polyps (SSA/P), CRC, preparation quality and duration of colonoscopy based on CCI. Statistical analysis was performed with R software with Mann-Whitney test, chi-square, Fisher’s exact test, logistic regression and linear regression analysis as indicated. RESULTS: During the study period, 7778 FIT tests were distributed. Of those distributed, 638 patients (8%) were positive and met the study criteria. 380 (59.5%) underwent diagnostic colonoscopy, comprising the study group. The average age was 66 years old. The overall prevalence of ADR, AADR, SSA/P, ASSA/P and CRC was 64.4%, 25%, 13.95%, 2.6% and 3.42% respectively. Multivariate analysis showed higher CCI score was associated with higher CRC (OR = 1.2, P = 0.05) and SSAP incidence (OR = 1.16, P = 0.01) respectively. There was no significant difference in CCI observed in any other parameter assessed. CONCLUSION: For every one-unit elevation, CCI score increased the frequency of diagnosis with either a sessile serrated adenoma/polyp or CRC by a minimum of 16%. CCI may be predictive in FIT outcomes at colonoscopy among veteran patients.Table 1Table 2

DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF ONE SAMPLE OR TWO SAMPLES QUANTITATIVE FECAL IMMUNOCHEMICAL TESTS FOR INTESTINAL NEOPLASIA DETECTION.

Rectal bleeding is the most important symptom of intestinal neoplasia; thus, tests of occult blood detection in stools are widely used for pre neoplastic lesions and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Evaluate the accuracy of OC-Sensor quantitative test (Eiken Chemical, Tokyo, Japan) at cut-off 10 µg Hb/g feces (50 ng/mL) in a cohort of subjects that had to undergo diagnostic colonoscopy, and if more than one sample collected in consecutive days would improve the diagnostic accuracy of the test. Patients (mean age 56.3±9.7 years) that underwent colonoscopy prospectively randomly received one (1-sample FIT, FIT 1) or two (2-sample FIT, FIT 2) collection tubes. They collected the stool sample before starting colonoscopy preparation. Samples were analyzed by the OC-Auto Micro 80 (Eiken Chemical, Tokyo, Japan). The performance of FIT 1 and FIT 2 were compared to the colonoscopy findings. Among 289 patients, CRC was diagnosed in 14 (4.8%), advanced adenoma in 37 (12.8%), early adenoma in 71 (24.6%) and no abnormalities in 141 (48.8%). For FIT 1, the sensitivity for CRC was 83.3% (95%CI 36.5-99.1%), for advanced adenoma was 24% (95%CI 10.1-45.5%), with specificity of 86.9% (95%CI 77.3-92.9%). For FIT 2, the sensitivity for CRC was 75% (95%CI 35.6-95.5%), for advanced adenoma was 50% (95%CI 22.3-77.7%), with specificity of 92.9% (95%CI 82.2-97.7%). The positive likelihood ratios were 1.8 (95%CI 0.7-4.4 for FIT 1) and 7.1 (95%CI 2.4-21.4 for FIT 2) for advanced adenoma, and 6.4 (95%CI 3.3-12.3, for FIT 1) and 10.7 (95%CI 3.8-29.8, for FIT 2) for CRC. The negative likelihood ratio were 0.9 (95%CI 0.7-1, for FIT 1) and 0.5 (95%CI 0.3-0.9, for FIT 2) for advanced adenoma, and 0.2 (0.03-1.1, for FIT 1) and 0.3 (0.08-0.9, for FIT 2) for CRC. The differences between FIT 1 and FIT 2 performances were not significant. However, the comparison of the levels of hemoglobin in feces of patients of FIT 1 and FIT 2 showed that the differences between no polyp group and advanced adenoma and CRC were significant. The accuracy of OCR Sensor with 10 µg Hb/g feces cut-off was comparable to other reports and two-sample collection improved the detection rate of advanced adenoma, a pre neoplastic condition to prevent CRC incidence.

Inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal or only during withdrawal of colonoscopy?: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis.

Current evidence supporting additional inspection and polypectomy during insertion of colonoscopy is limited. We plan to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the yield of inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal versus the traditional practice of inspection and polypectomy during withdrawal only. Randomised controlled trials evaluating inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal versus inspection and polypectomy during withdrawal only will be searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar, from database inception to 31 May 2020. Data on study design, participant characteristics, and outcomes will be extracted. Primary outcomes to be assessed are adenoma detection rate. Secondary outcomes include polyp detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, the mean number of adenomas per patient, polyp miss rate, the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy, procedure duration, cecal intubation rate, procedure difficulty, patient discomfort, sedation dose, and adverse events. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan V.5.3 statistical software. Data will be combined with random effect model. The results will be presented as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, and weighted/standard mean difference for continuous data. Publication bias will be visualized using funnel plots. This study will not use primary data, and therefore formal ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and committee conferences. INPLASY202050051.

Diagnostic yield of early repeat colonoscopy after suboptimal bowel preparation in a fecal immunochemical test-based screening program.

Current guidelines regarding surveillance after screening colonoscopy assume adequate bowel preparation. However, follow-up intervals after suboptimal cleansing are highly heterogeneous. We aimed to determine the diagnostic yield of early repeat colonoscopy in patients with suboptimal bowel preparation in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening colonoscopy. An observational study including patients who underwent colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation after positive FIT screening and then repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Suboptimal preparation was defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score of 1 in any segment. Patients with a BBPS score of 0 in any segment or incomplete examination were excluded. The adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR), and colorectal cancer rate were calculated for the index and repeat colonoscopies. Of the 2474 patients with FIT-positive colonoscopy at our center during this period, 314 (12.7 %) had suboptimal preparation. Of the 259 (82.5 %) patients who underwent repeat colonoscopy, suboptimal cleansing persisted in 22 (9 %). On repeat colonoscopy, the ADR was 38.7 % (95 %CI 32.6 % to 44.8 %) and the AADR was 14.9 % (95 %CI 10.5 % to 19.4 %). The per-adenoma miss rate was 27.7 % (95 %CI 24.0 % to 31.6 %), and the per-advanced adenoma miss rate was 17.6 % (95 %CI 13.3 % to 22.7 %). After repeat colonoscopy, the post-polypectomy surveillance recommendation changed from 10 to 3 years in 14.7 % of the patients with previous 10-year surveillance recommendation. Patients with suboptimal bowel preparation on FIT-positive colonoscopy present a high rate of advanced adenomas in repeat colonoscopy, with major changes in post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations.

Endoscopic technological innovations for neoplasia detection in organized colorectal cancer screening programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Many endoscopic technological innovations have claimed to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR), but their role in population-based organized screening programs is debated. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases through January 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of technological innovations in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)/fecal occult blood test+ subjects. The primary outcome was ADR, and secondary outcomes were advanced ADR, proximal colon ADR, mean adenoma per procedure (MAP), and cancer detection rate. We calculated pooled proportion rates (%) or risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) and degree of heterogeneity (I2). Overall, 8 high quality RCTs met inclusion criteria with 3645 patients, 1813 (49.7%) in the intervention arm (advanced imaging, 3 studies; mechanical, 5 studies) and 1832 (50.3%) in the standard colonoscopy arm (mean age, 63.6 years). Pooled ADR was 56.5% (95% CI, 49.9%-62.9%) in the intervention arm and 55.9% (95% CI, 48.6%-63%) in the standard colonoscopy arm (relative risk [RR], 1.01; 95% CI, .93-1.10; I2= 50.4%). Similarly, no difference was observed for advanced imaging studies (RR, .95; 95% CI, .85-1.07; I2= 50.4%) or those with mechanical innovations (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, .92-1.17; I2= 69.49%). The pooled MAP was 1.5 in the intervention arm (95% CI, 1.2-1.8) and 1.5 in the standard colonoscopy (95% CI, 1.1-1.8), with no significant difference (unstandardized mean difference, .04; 95% CI, -.13 to .20; I2= 53.6%). No difference in advanced ADR, proximal colon ADR, or cancer detection was found. No significant publication bias was found. In our systematic review and meta-analysis, no technological improvement significantly increased detection rate of colorectal neoplasia in FIT+ subjects undergoing high-quality colonoscopy by high detectors, arguing against their implementation in organized programs.