Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Comparison of adenoma miss rate and adenoma detection rate between conventional colonoscopy and colonoscopy with second-generation distal attachment cuff: a multicenter, randomized, back-to-back trial

  • Kelly E. van Keulen
  • , Ioannis S. Papanikolaou
  • , Tony W.C. Mak
  • , Periklis Apostolopoulos
  • , Helmut Neumann
  • , Gabriele Delconte
  • , Manuele Furnari
  • , Yonne Peters
  • , James Y.W. Lau
  • , Dimitrios Polymeros
  • , Ruud W.N. Schrauwen
  • , Federica Cavalcoli
  • , Eleni Koukoulioti
  • , Konstantinos Triantafyllou
  • , Joseph C. Anderson
  • , Heiko Pohl
  • , Douglas K. Rex
  • , Peter D. Siersema*
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • Radboud University Medical Center
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong
  • The 417 Army Veterans Hospital (NIMTS)
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz
  • IRCCS Fondazione Istituto Nazionale per lo studio e la cura dei tumori - Milano
  • University of Genoa
  • Bernhoven Hospital
  • Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Indiana University Bloomington

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

11 Citations (Scopus)
117 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background and Aims:

Endocuff Vision (Olympus Europe, Hamburg, Germany) has been designed to enhance mucosal visualization, thereby improving detection of (pre-)malignant colorectal lesions. This multicenter, international, back-to-back, randomized colonoscopy trial compared the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma miss rate (AMR) between Endocuff Vision–assisted colonoscopy (EVC) and conventional colonoscopy (CC). 

Methods: 

Patients aged 40 to 75 years referred for non–immunochemical fecal occult blood test–based screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy were included at 10 hospitals and randomized into 4 groups: group 1, 2 × CC; group 2, CC followed by EVC; group 3, EVC followed by CC; and group 4, 2 × EVC. Primary outcomes included ADR and AMR.

Results:

A total of 717 patients were randomized, of whom 661 patients (92.2%) had 1 and 646 (90.1%) patients had 2 completed back-to-back colonoscopies. EVC did not significantly improve ADR compared to CC (41.1%; [95% confidence interval (CI), 36.1-46.3] vs 35.5% [95% CI, 30.7-40.6], respectively; P = .125), but EVC did reduce AMR by 11.7% (29.6% [95% CI, 23.6-36.5] vs 17.9% [95% CI, 12.5-23.5], respectively; P = .049). AMR of 2 × CC compared to 2 × EVC was also not significantly different (25.9% [95% CI, 19.3-33.9] vs 18.8% [95% CI, 13.9-24.8], respectively; P = .172). Only 3.7% of the polyps missed during the first procedures had advanced pathologic features. Factors affecting risk of missing adenomas were age (P = .002), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (P = .008), and region where colonoscopy was performed (P < .001). 

Conclusions: 

Our trial shows that EVC reduces the risk of missing adenomas but does not lead to a significantly improved ADR. Remarkably, 25% of adenomas are still missed during conventional colonoscopies, which is not different from miss rates reported 25 years ago; reassuringly, advanced features were only found in 3.7% of these missed lesions. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03418948.)

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)798-808.e3
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume99
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of adenoma miss rate and adenoma detection rate between conventional colonoscopy and colonoscopy with second-generation distal attachment cuff: a multicenter, randomized, back-to-back trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this