Literature DB >> 25992195

Polyp detection rates using magnification with narrow band imaging and white light.

Nooman Gilani1, Sally Stipho1, James D Panetta1, Sorin Petre1, Michele A Young1, Francisco C Ramirez1.   

Abstract

AIM: To compare the yield of adenomas between narrow band imaging and white light when using high definition/magnification.
METHODS: This prospective, non-randomized comparative study was performed at the endoscopy unit of veteran affairs medical center in Phoenix, Arizona. Consecutive patients undergoing first average risk colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy were selected. Two experienced gastroenterologists performed all the procedures that were blinded to each other's findings. Demographic details were recorded. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Proportional data were compared using the χ(2) test and means were compared using the Student's t test. Tandem colonoscopy was performed in a sequential and segmental fashion using one of 3 strategies: white light followed by narrow band imaging [Group A: white light (WL) → narrow band imaging (NBI)]; narrow band imaging followed by white light (Group B: NBI → WL) and, white light followed by white light (Group C: WL → WL). Detection rate of missed polyps and adenomas were evaluated in all three groups.
RESULTS: Three hundred patients were studied (100 in each Group). Although the total time for the colonoscopy was similar in the 3 groups (23.8 ± 0.7, 22.2 ± 0.5 and 24.1 ± 0.7 min for Groups A, B and C, respectively), it reached statistical significance between Groups B and C (P < 0.05). The cecal intubation time in Groups B and C was longer than for Group A (6.5 ± 0.4 min and 6.5 ± 0.4 min vs 4.9 ± 0.3 min; P < 0.05). The withdrawal time for Groups A and C was longer than Group B (18.9 ± 0.7 min and 17.6 ± 0.6 min vs 15.7 ± 0.4 min; P < 0.05). Overall miss rate for polyps and adenomas detected in three groups during the second look was 18% and 17%, respectively (P = NS). Detection rate for polyps and adenomas after first look with white light was similar irrespective of the light used during the second look (WL → WL: 13.7% for polyps, 12.6% for adenomas; WL → NBI: 14.2% for polyps, 11.3% for adenomas). Miss rate of polyps and adenomas however was significantly higher when NBI was used first (29.3% and 30.3%, respectively; P < 0.05). Most missed adenomas were ≤ 5 mm in size. There was only one advanced neoplasia (defined by size only) missed during the first look.
CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the tandem nature of the procedure rather than the optical techniques was associated with the detection of additional polyps' and adenomas.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colonoscopy; High-definition; Magnification; Narrow band imaging; Screening; Yield

Year:  2015        PMID: 25992195      PMCID: PMC4436924          DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i5.555

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc


  39 in total

1.  The beginning of a new paradigm in colonoscopy?

Authors:  Roy Soetikno; Tonya Kaltenbach
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 2.  Optical techniques for the endoscopic detection of dysplastic colonic lesions.

Authors:  Ralph S DaCosta; Brian C Wilson; Norman E Marcon
Journal:  Curr Opin Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.287

3.  Magnifying endoscopy with narrow band imaging for diagnosis of colorectal tumors.

Authors:  Mayuko Hirata; Shinji Tanaka; Shiro Oka; Iwao Kaneko; Shigeto Yoshida; Masaharu Yoshihara; Kazuaki Chayama
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2007-02-26       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  A prospective comparative study of narrow-band imaging, chromoendoscopy, and conventional colonoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.

Authors:  Han-Mo Chiu; Chi-Yang Chang; Chien-Chuan Chen; Yi-Chia Lee; Ming-Shiang Wu; Jaw-Town Lin; Chia-Tung Shun; Hsiu-Po Wang
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2006-09-27       Impact factor: 23.059

5.  Narrow-band imaging in the diagnosis of colorectal mucosal lesions: a pilot study.

Authors:  H Machida; Y Sano; Y Hamamoto; M Muto; T Kozu; H Tajiri; S Yoshida
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 10.093

6.  Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study.

Authors:  Florian Froehlich; Vincent Wietlisbach; Jean-Jacques Gonvers; Bernard Burnand; John-Paul Vader
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  Impact of proximal colon retroflexion on adenoma miss rates.

Authors:  Matthew Harrison; Navjot Singh; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 10.864

8.  Colonoscopic miss rates determined by direct comparison of colonoscopy with colon resection specimens.

Authors:  Georges Postic; David Lewin; Charles Bickerstaff; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  A prospective randomised study on narrow-band imaging versus conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection: does narrow-band imaging induce a learning effect?

Authors:  A Adler; H Pohl; I S Papanikolaou; H Abou-Rebyeh; G Schachschal; W Veltzke-Schlieker; A C Khalifa; E Setka; M Koch; B Wiedenmann; T Rösch
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2007-08-06       Impact factor: 23.059

10.  The Miss Rate for Colorectal Adenoma Determined by Quality-Adjusted, Back-to-Back Colonoscopies.

Authors:  Sang Bong Ahn; Dong Soo Han; Joong Ho Bae; Tae Jun Byun; Jong Pyo Kim; Chang Soo Eun
Journal:  Gut Liver       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 4.519

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Can technology increase adenoma detection rate?

Authors:  Wee Sing Ngu; Colin Rees
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 4.409

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.