Literature DB >> 23251879

Inadequate bowel preparation increases missed polyps.

Hyung Wook Kim1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2012        PMID: 23251879      PMCID: PMC3521933          DOI: 10.5946/ce.2012.45.4.345

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Endosc        ISSN: 2234-2400


× No keyword cloud information.
See "The Effect of the Bowel Preparation Status on the Risk of Missing Polyp and Adenoma during Screening Colonoscopy: A Tandem Colonoscopic Study" Sung Noh Hong, In Kyung Sung, Jeong Hwan Kim, et al., on page 404-411 Recently, the demand of colonoscopy has been increasing rapidly due to the social interest for screening of colorectal cancer (CRC). This phenomenon is associated with the fact that colonoscopy is the most useful method for the detection and removal of colorectal polyps and that colonoscopic polypectomy significantly reduces the incidence and mortality of CRC.1,2 Although there are several screening modalities available for CRC, colonoscopy is considered the most effective method due to the ability of immediate polypectomy and biopsy of abnormal findings. Despite these remarkable features, the effectiveness of colonoscopy on the unconverted mortality of proximal colon cancer and the development of interval cancer are still in question. In addition, previous tandem colonoscopy studies reported the miss rates ranging from 12% to 24% for overall adenomas and between 0% and 6% for adenomas of ≥1 cm.3,4 Although most colonoscopists already expect that polyps can be missed during colonoscopy, these results suggest that colonoscopy is no more infallible for the detection of colorectal neoplasms. In order to obtain clear image during colonoscopy, adequate colon preparation, defined as the ability to detect polyps of 5 mm or larger,5 is essential. If bowel preparation is poor, it leads to prolonged examination time, incomplete procedure, and more importantly, missed significant lesions. Suboptimal bowel preparation has actually taken considerable portions of all colonoscopic examinations. Recently, two studies investigated the relationship between missing polyps and suboptimal bowel preparation.6,7 The results of these two studies suggested that suboptimal preparation at index colonoscopy for screening induced increased adenoma miss rate (AMR) and advanced adenoma miss rate (AAMR) despite having reached the current target adenoma detection rate (42% and 27%, 47.9% and 18%, respectively). Also, Chokshi et al.7 reported that 80% of missed advanced adenomas in patients with suboptimal preparation were located in the proximal colon. This result can be explained by the fact that missed adenomas on the right side of the colon have sessile morphology, which may be difficult to detect specifically after suboptimal bowel preparation. In an article published in the Clinical Endoscopy, Hong et al.8 reported a study suggesting that the risk of missing polyps and adenomas during screening colonoscopy is significantly affected by the bowel preparation status and that the patients with poor/inadequate bowel preparation were independently associated with an increased risk of missed polyp, missed adenoma, and missed advanced adenoma compared to the patients with excellent bowel preparation. In this study, AMR and AAMR in patients with suboptimal (poor/inadequate) bowel preparation were 47% and 37%, respectively, which were similar to the previous studies;7,8 furthermore, the rates were high even in patients with a well-prepared colon (21% to 27%, 9% to 18%, respectively). The patients with poor/inadequate bowel preparation were also independently associated with increased risks of missed polyp, missed adenoma, and missed advanced adenoma compared to the patients with excellent bowel preparation. As mentioned by the authors, the limitations of this study is the inflation of the overall miss rate (AMR and AAMR), which might be associated with the fact that all patients had one or more adenomas (≥5 mm), patients with ≥10 polyps were excluded, and tandem colonoscopies were performed by different colonoscopists in some patients. In addition, higher AMR and AAMR than previous tandem colonoscopy even in the patients with a well-prepared colon may be associated with the lack of high-quality colonoscopy, such as adequate withdrawal time and careful examination of the whole surface. Also, the location, shape and histology of missed advanced adenoma among bowel preparation status were not investigated in this study. Thus, it is necessary to give a supplementary explanation and make more precise investigation about these aspects. In conclusion, inadequate bowel preparation is clearly related with increased missed polyps. Current recommendations for postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance interval essentially require adequate bowel preparation, and if the bowel preparation was inadequate, repeat colonoscopy should be performed after adequate preparation as soon as possible considering low patient-return for repeat colonoscopy, reduction of secondary inadequate preparation, and legal problems related with interval cancer. Efforts to improve the quality of bowel preparation, including patient education, should be continued to obtain high-quality colonoscopy.
  8 in total

1.  Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence.

Authors:  F Citarda; G Tomaselli; R Capocaccia; S Barcherini; M Crespi
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 2.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; John L Petrini; Todd H Baron; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Brenda Hoffman; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Prevalence of missed adenomas in patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Reena V Chokshi; Christine E Hovis; Thomas Hollander; Dayna S Early; Jean S Wang
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2012-02-28       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy.

Authors:  Benjamin Lebwohl; Fay Kastrinos; Michael Glick; Adam J Rosenbaum; Timothy Wang; Alfred I Neugut
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2011-04-08       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies.

Authors:  D K Rex; C S Cutler; G T Lemmel; E Y Rahmani; D W Clark; D J Helper; G A Lehman; D G Mark
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  Miss rate for colorectal neoplastic polyps: a prospective multicenter study of back-to-back video colonoscopies.

Authors:  D Heresbach; T Barrioz; M G Lapalus; D Coumaros; P Bauret; P Potier; D Sautereau; C Boustière; J C Grimaud; C Barthélémy; J Sée; I Serraj; P N D'Halluin; B Branger; T Ponchon
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 10.093

7.  Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup.

Authors:  S J Winawer; A G Zauber; M N Ho; M J O'Brien; L S Gottlieb; S S Sternberg; J D Waye; M Schapiro; J H Bond; J F Panish
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-12-30       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  The Effect of the Bowel Preparation Status on the Risk of Missing Polyp and Adenoma during Screening Colonoscopy: A Tandem Colonoscopic Study.

Authors:  Sung Noh Hong; In Kyung Sung; Jeong Hwan Kim; Won Hyeok Choe; Byung Kook Kim; Soon Young Ko; Jung Hyun Lee; Dong Choon Seol; Su Young Ahn; Sun-Young Lee; Hyung Seok Park; Chan Sup Shim
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2012-11-30
  8 in total
  4 in total

1.  Efficacy and Tolerability of Prucalopride in Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Sung-Wook Park; Seok-Pyo Shin; Ji Taek Hong
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2020-04-22       Impact factor: 3.845

2.  Effect of the High-FODMAP Diet on Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Multicenter, Prospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Peng Cheng; Ruijun Ma; Shuling Wang; Jun Fang; Zhengrong Zhong; Yu Bai; Xiangjun Meng; Zhaoshen Li
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2020-06-22       Impact factor: 2.260

3.  The Efficacy of Simethicone With Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Preparation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Xin Liu; Mufa Yuan; Zhen Li; Sujuan Fei; Guodong Zhao
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 3.174

Review 4.  Endorobots for Colonoscopy: Design Challenges and Available Technologies.

Authors:  Luigi Manfredi
Journal:  Front Robot AI       Date:  2021-07-14
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.