Improvement of adenoma detection rate by two computer-aided colonic polyp detection systems in high adenoma detectors: a randomized multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of a self-developed computer-aided polyp detection system (SD-CADe) and a commercial system (CM-CADe) for high adenoma detectors compared with white-light endoscopy (WLE) as a control. METHODS: Average-risk 50-75-year-old individuals who underwent screening colonoscopy at five referral centers were randomized to SD-CADe, CM-CADe, or WLE groups (1:1:1 ratio). Trainees and staff with an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of ≥35% were recruited. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were the proximal adenoma detection rate (pADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and the number of adenomas, proximal adenomas, and advanced adenomas per colonoscopy (APC, pAPC, and AAPC, respectively). RESULTS: The study enrolled 1200 participants. The ADR in the control, CM-CADe, and SD-CADe groups was 38.3%, 50.0%, and 54.8%, respectively. The pADR was 23.0%, 32.3%, and 38.8%, respectively. AADR was 6.0%, 10.3%, and 9.5%, respectively. After adjustment, the ADR and pADR in both intervention groups were significantly higher than in controls (all P<0.05). The APC in the control, CM-CADe, and SD-CADe groups was 0.66, 1.04, and 1.16, respectively. The pAPC was 0.33, 0.53, and 0.64, respectively, and the AAPC was 0.07, 0.12, and 0.10, respectively. Both CADe systems showed significantly higher APC and pAPC than WLE. AADR and AAPC were improved in both CADe groups versus control, although the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Even in high adenoma detectors, CADe significantly improved ADR and APC. The AADR tended to be higher with both systems, and this may enhance colorectal cancer prevention.

Linked color imaging, mucosal exposure device, their combination, and standard colonoscopy for adenoma detection: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: By different mechanisms, image-enhancement techniques (linked color imaging [LCI]) and mucosal exposure devices (Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy [EAC]) can improve the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during screening colonoscopy. The impact of the combination of the 2 techniques has never been studied. This study aimed to compare the ADR between the combination of LCI and EAC (LCI+EAC), LCI alone, EAC alone, and standard high-definition (HD) colonoscopy. METHODS: This prospective randomized controlled trial included participants who underwent screening colonoscopy. Participants were randomized to LCI+EAC, LCI, EAC, and standard HD colonoscopy. All colonoscopies were performed by endoscopists with a recorded ADR ≥35%. The primary outcome was the ADR. Secondary outcomes were proximal ADR (pADR) and the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). RESULTS: One thousand participants were included in the study. The LCI+EAC group provided the highest ADR and pADR. The ADRs in the LCI+EAC, LCI, EAC, and standard HD colonoscopy groups were 57.2%, 52.8%, 51.6%, and 47.6%, respectively, with pADRs of 38.4%, 34.8%, 33.6%, and 28.0%, respectively. The mean numbers of APC were 1.28, 1.20, 1.16, and .89, respectively. After a multiple comparison adjustment, a significant difference in pADR was only observed between the LCI+EAC and standard HD colonoscopy groups (difference, 10.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, .02%-17.4%; P = .05). The incidence rate ratios of the adenoma numbers were significantly higher in the LCI+EAC (1.43), LCI (1.34), and EAC (1.30) groups relative to the standard HD colonoscopy group (.89) (P < .009 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of LCI and EAC can significantly improve the detection of pADR and APC but not ADR by high-ADR performers. (Clinical trial registration number: TCTR20190319001.).

Usefulness of mean number of adenomas per positive screenee for identifying meticulous endoscopists among those who achieve acceptable adenoma detection rates.

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality indicator for colonoscopy. However, many missed adenomas have subsequently been identified after colonoscopies performed by endoscopists with ADR ≥ 25 %. Adenomas per positive participant (APP; mean number of adenomas detected by an endoscopist among screenees with positive findings) correlates well inversely with adenoma miss rate. This study aimed to evaluate whether APP added additional information on the detection rate for advanced adenomas (AADR) and proximal adenomas (pADR) and among endoscopists with acceptable ADRs (≥ 25 %). METHODS: A total of 47 endoscopists performed 7339 screening colonoscopies that were retrospectively reviewed. Using a cutoff APP value of 2.0, endoscopist performance was classified as high or low APP. Endoscopist ADRs were also classified as acceptable (25 % - 29 %), high standard (30 % - 39 %) and aspirational (≥ 40 %). Generalized linear models were used to assess the relationship between AADR or pADR, and ADR and APP, after adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: After adjusting for endoscopist performance and patient characteristics, endoscopists with high APP had a significant 2.1 percentage point increase in AADR (95 %CI 0.3 to 3.9; P = 0.02) and a 2.1 percentage point increase in pADR (95 %CI - 0.8 to 5.1; P = 0.15) compared to endoscopists with low APP. In total, 11 (24 %), 18 (38 %), and 18 (38 %) endoscopists were classified as having acceptable, high standard, and aspirational ADRs, respectively. APP values higher than the cutoff were found in 18 %, 44 %, and 72 % of endoscopists with acceptable, high standard, and aspirational ADRs, respectively (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: APP is helpful for identifying more meticulous endoscopists who can detect a greater number of advanced adenomas. Endoscopists who achieved an only acceptable ADR had the lowest APP.

Low rate of recurrent bleeding after double-balloon endoscopy-guided therapy in patients with overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Double-balloon endoscopy (DBE) provides both diagnosis and treatment in overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). The aim of this study was to evaluate the rebleeding rate after DBE. METHODS: This retrospective review was conducted between January 2006 and July 2018, 166 patients with overt OGIB who underwent DBE were enrolled. Therapeutic intervention was defined as endoscopic treatment, embolization, or surgery. Primary outcome was rebleeding rate after DBE. The patients were divided into 3 groups based on their DBE; (1) positive DBE requiring therapeutic intervention (G1), (2) positive DBE without therapeutic intervention required (G2) and (3) negative DBE (G3). Cumulative incidence of rebleeding was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression was used to assess the association of DBE with rebleeding risk. This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients (41%) were categorized in G1, 34 patients (20%) in G2 and 64 patients (39%) in G3. Overall rebleeding occurred in 24 patients (15%). The cumulative incidence of rebleeding for G1 was the lowest. The 1-year and 2-year cumulative probability of developing rebleeding after DBE in G1 were 3.5% and 3.5%, 8.2% and 14.0% in G2, and 18.2% and 20.6% in G3, respectively (p = 0.02). After adjusting for bleeding severity and comorbidities, patients with positive DBE requiring therapeutic intervention had a significantly lower rate of rebleeding when compared with patients who did not receive intervention (hazard ratio 0.17; 95% CI 0.03-0.90). CONCLUSION: DBE-guided therapeutic intervention was associated with a lower risk of rebleeding when compared with those with negative and positive DBE without therapeutic intervention. One-fifth of patients with overt OGIB had false negative after DBE.