Is There a Difference in Adenoma Detection Rates According to Indication? An Experience in a Panamanian Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

Background: The benefit of colorectal cancer screening in reducing cancer risk and related death is unclear. There are quality measure indicators and multiple factors that affect the performance of a successful colonoscopy. The main objective of our study was to identify if there is a difference in polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) according to colonoscopy indication and which factors might be associated. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all colonoscopies performed between January 2018 and January 2019, in a tertiary endoscopic center. All patients ≥ 50 years old scheduled for a nonurgent colonoscopy and screening colonoscopy were included. We stratified the total number of colonoscopies into two categories according to the indication: screening vs. non-screening, and then calculated PDR, ADR and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR). We also performed logistic regression model to identify factors associated with detecting polyps and adenomatous polyps. Results: A total of 1,129 and 365 colonoscopies were performed in the non-screening and screening group, respectively. In comparison with the screening group, PDR and ADR were lower for the non-screening group (33% vs. 25%; P = 0.005 and 17% vs. 13%; P = 0.005). SDR was non-significantly lower in the non-screening group when compared with the screening group (11% vs. 9%; P = 0.53 and 22% vs. 13%; P = 0.007). Conclusion: In conclusion, this observational study reported differences in PDR and ADR depending on screening and non-screening indication. These differences could be related to factors related to the endoscopist, time slot allotted for colonoscopy, population background, and external factors.

Impacto da retroflexão na detecção de lesões de cólon proximal: avaliação de 393 pacientes em hospital privado terciário / Impact of retroflexed view on the detection of lesions in the proximal colon: assessment of 393 patients in a private tertiary hospital

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The gold standard test for colorectal cancer screening the colonoscopy. Although this is the test of choice, colonoscopy misses a significant number of lesions, mainly in the proximal colon. With the purpose of reducing the number of lesions missed, new techniques have been studied, amongst them, retroflexed view in the right side of the colon and the second direct forward view. OBJECTIVE: Assessing the safety of the retroview in the proximal colon (cecum and ascending colon), its impact on the detection of lesions in the proximal colon and its advantage over the double right forward view using adenoma detection rate and adenoma miss rate. METHODS: Three hundred and ninety-three patients who came to Hospital Mater Dei to undergo colonoscopy from March to July 2017, prospectively. Out of these, 372 were included in the study based on the following exclusion criteria: being under 18 years of age, inadequate bowel preparations (Boston scale <7), history of colectomy, inflammatory bowel disease or polypoid diseases. First, an endoscopist inserted the colonoscope into the cecum and examine the cecum and the ascending colon with a forward view twice. In the third insertion into the cecum, retroflexed view was performed, cecal mucosa was examined until the hepatic flexure in search of polyps missed on forward view. All lesions found were resected and sent for histological analysis. RESULTS: In 334 (89.8%) patients, retroflexed view was performed successfully, 65.8% of failures were attributed to the loops of the device which prevented the maneuver. The direct view identified 175 polyps in the proximal colon in 102 people. Retroflexed view detected 26 polyps missed by the direct view in 24 (6.5%) people, with a missing rate of 12.9% in the test with only the forward view. Out of the 26 polyps found in retroview, 21 (80.76%) were adenomas, one of them with a high-grade dysplasia. Eleven patients had polyps seen only in retroflexed view. Retroview has increased the polyp detection rate from 27.41% to 31.72% and the adenoma detection rate from 21.77% to 25%. The adenoma miss rate by the double direct view was 12.8%. Without the retroview, one polyp in every 13.91 colonoscopies would be missed (number needed to treat - NNT=13.91). There was no adverse event. CONCLUSION: The retroflexed view technique in the proximal colon was shown to be safe, fast and feasible in most cases. It increased the adenoma detection rate and was shown to be advantageous in this study wit benefit beyond the double direct view.

RESUMO CONTEXTO: O exame padrão ouro para rastreamento de câncer colorretal é a colonoscopia. Apesar de ser o exame de escolha, a colonoscopia perde um número não desprezível de lesões, principalmente no cólon proximal. Com a intenção de reduzir a perda de lesões, novas técnicas são estudadas, dentre elas, a retroflexão em cólon direito e a segunda visão frontal direta. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a segurança da retrovisão no cólon proximal (ceco e cólon ascendente), o seu impacto na detecção de lesões em cólon proximal e sua superioridade sobre a dupla visão frontal direta usando taxa de detecção de adenoma e taxa de adenoma perdido. MÉTODOS: Foram avaliados 393 pacientes de forma prospectiva que procuraram o Hospital Mater Dei para realizar colonoscopia entre março e julho de 2017. Desses, 372 foram incluídos baseados nos critérios de exclusão: menores de 18 anos, preparos intestinais inadequados (escala de Boston <7), com antecedente de colectomia, doença inflamatória intestinal ou síndromes polipoides. Primeiramente um endoscopista realizou a inserção do colonoscópio até o ceco e examinou o ceco e o cólon ascendente em visão frontal por duas vezes. Na terceira reinserção até o ceco era realizada a retroflexão e inspeção da mucosa do ceco até a flexura hepática em busca de pólipos perdidos à visão frontal. Todas lesões encontradas foram ressecadas e enviadas para análise histológica. RESULTADOS: Em 334 (89,8%) pacientes a retroflexão foi realizada com sucesso, 65,8% dos insucessos foram atribuídos a alças no aparelho que impediram a manobra. A visão direta identificou 175 pólipos no cólon proximal em 102 pessoas. A retroflexão detectou 26 pólipos perdidos pela visão direta em 24 (6,5%) pessoas, com uma taxa de perda de 12,9% no exame apenas em visão frontal. Dos 26 pólipos encontrados em retrovisão, 21 (80,76%) eram adenomas, um deles com displasia de alto grau. Onze pacientes tinham pólipos vistos apenas em retroflexão. A realização da retrovisão aumentou a taxa de detecção de pólipo de 27,41% para 31,72% e a taxa de detecção e adenomas de 21,77% para 25%. A taxa de adenoma perdido pela dupla visão direta foi de 12,8%. Se a retrovisão não fosse realizada, um pólipo a cada 13,91 colonoscopias seria perdido (NNT=13,91). Não houve nenhum evento adverso. CONCLUSÃO: A técnica de retroflexão em cólon proximal mostrou-se segura, rápida e factível na maioria dos casos. Ela aumentou a taxa de detecção de adenomas e mostrou-se soberana neste estudo com benfeitorias além da dupla visão direta.

Colonoscopic techniques in polyp detection: An Egyptian study. / Técnicas colonoscópicas para la detección de pólipos: un estudio egipcio.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The polyp detection rate (PDR) is defined as the percentage of colonoscopies in which one or more polyps are detected, and has been shown to be highly correlated with the adenoma detection rate. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the PDR at the Endoscopy Unit of the Kasr Al-Ainy Hospital, Cairo University, Egypt, through the i-SCAN, Endocuff, and underwater colonoscopy techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted on 100 Egyptian subjects over 50 years of age. Their polyp detection rate was measured through 4 different colonoscopic techniques. An equal number of patients were divided into 4 groups: i-SCAN, Endocuff, underwater colonoscopy, and controls. The control group was examined using standard white light colonoscopy. The colonoscopy evaluation included the type of agent utilized for bowel preparation, preparation grade, and colonoscopy withdrawal time. RESULTS: The general PDR was 48%. The i-SCAN technique had the highest rate (56%), followed by the underwater (52%) and the Endocuff (48%) techniques. CONCLUSION: The i-SCAN and underwater colonoscopy techniques produced higher PDR than the Endocuff-assisted and standard techniques, but with no statistical significance.