Longer observation time increases adenoma detection in the proximal colon – a prospective study

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Longer observation times are associated with increased adenoma detection rates (ADR) in the entire colon. However, adenomas in the proximal colon are at risk of being missed during colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of observation time on detection of adenomatous polyps in the proximal colon.

Patients and methods This was a prospective study at a university hospital in Germany. Colonoscopies were conducted using magnetic endoscope imaging (MEI) in order to determine the exact position of the scope. Exact observation times spent for the detection of polyps in the proximal and distal colon segments were assessed. The primary outcome was adenoma detection in the proximal colon. ROC curves were generated in order to test the correlation between observation time and adenoma detection. Logistic regression analysis was used to check for interfering factors.

Results A total 480 procedures with 538 polyps were available for analysis. The overall adenoma detection rate was 38.5 %. ADR in the proximal colon was 28.0 %. There was a significant association between observation time in the proximal colon and the detection of proximal adenomas (P < 0.001). The impact of the time factor on ADR was stronger in the proximal compared to the distal colon (P = 0.030). A net period of 4 min 7 sec was found to be the minimum time span for sufficient adenoma detection in the proximal colon.

Conclusion Observation time is significant in terms of adenoma detection in the proximal colon. The impact of observation time on ADR is stronger in the proximal compared to the distal colon. In the proximal colon a minimum time span of 4 minutes should be spent in order to ensure adequate adenoma detection.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02819492

• References

• 1 Ryerson AB, Eheman CR, Altekruse SF. et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975 – 2012, featuring the increasing incidence of liver cancer. Cancer 2016; 122: 1312-1337
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Marshall DC, Webb TE, Hall RA. et al. Trends in UK regional cancer mortality 1991 – 2007. Br J Cancer 2016; 114: 340-347
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Robert Koch Institute and the Association of Population-based Cancer Registries in Germany (2014). In Internet: www.krebsdaten.de/Krebs/EN/Content/Publications/Cancer_in_Germany/cancer_chapters_2009_2010/cancer_germany_2009_2010.pdf?__blob = publicationFile (Accessed 2016 August 18)
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Nakagawa H, Ito H, Hosono S. et al. Changes in trends in colorectal cancer incidence rate by anatomic site between 1978 and 2004 in Japan. Eur J Cancer Prev 2017; 26: 269-276
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Samadder NJ, Curtin K, Pappas L. et al. Risk of Incident Colorectal Cancer and Death After Colonoscopy: A Population-based Study in Utah. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 14: 279-86.e1-2
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Hewett DG, Rex DK. Miss rate of right-sided colon examination during colonoscopy defined by retroflexion: an observational study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 246-252
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Chandran S, Parker F, Vaughan R. et al. Right-sided adenoma detection with retroflexion versus forward-view colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 608-613
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Shah SG, Saunders BP, Brooker JC. et al. Magnetic imaging of colonoscopy: an audit of looping, accuracy and ancillary maneuvers. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 1-8
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Bladen JS, Anderson AP, Bell GD. et al. Non-radiological technique for three-dimensional imaging of endoscopes. Lancet 1993; 341: 719-722
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 German Cancer Society, German Cancer Aid, AWMF, Evidenced-based Guideline for Colorectal Cancer, version 1.1 (2014). In Internet: leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/uploads/tx_sbdownloader/LL_Colorectal_Cancer_1.1_english.pdf (Accessed 2016 August 17)
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 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
• 12 R Core Team, R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2014). In Internet: www.R-project.org/ (Assessed 2017 July 5)
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Rondonotti E, Andrealli A, Amato A. et al. Technical interventions to increase adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 10: 1349-1358
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Rembacken B, Hassan C, Riemann JF. et al. Quality in screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Endoscopy 2012; 44: 957-968
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Cooper GS, Xu F, Barnholtz SloanJS. et al. Prevalence and predictors of interval colorectal cancers in medicare beneficiaries. Cancer 2012; 118: 3044-3052
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Gervaz P, Usel M, Rapiti E. et al. Right colon cancer: Left behind. Eur J Surg Oncol 2016; 42: 1343-1349
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Hazewinkel Y, Tytgat KM, van Leerdam ME. et al. Narrow-band imaging for the detection of polyps in patients with serrated polyposis syndrome: a multicenter, randomized, back-to-back trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 531-538
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Gupta N, Bansal A, Rao D. et al. Prevalence of advanced histological features in diminutive and small colon polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 1022-1030
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 IJspeert JE, van Doorn SC, van der Brug YM. et al. The proximal serrated polyp detection rate is an easy-to-measure proxy for the detection rate of clinically relevant serrated polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 870-877
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Bretagne JF, Ponchon T. Do we need to embrace adenoma detection rate as the main quality control parameter during colonoscopy?. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 523-528
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Hetzel JT, Huang CS, Coukos JA. et al. Variation in the detection of serrated polyps in an average risk colorectal cancer screening cohort. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2656-2664
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Bretagne JF, Hamonic S, Piette C. et al. Variations between endoscopists in rates of detection of colorectal neoplasia and their impact on a regional screening program based on colonoscopy after fecal occult blood testing. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 335-341
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS. et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2533-2541
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Jover R, Zapater P, Polanía E. et al. Modifiable endoscopic factors that influence the adenoma detection rate in colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 381-389.e1
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Lee RH, Tang RS, Muthusamy VR. et al. Quality of colonoscopy withdrawal technique and variability in adenoma detection rates (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 74: 128-134
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar