Simona Di Caro1, Lucia Fini2, Roser Vega1, Konstantinos C Fragkos1, Sunil Dolwani3, John Green3, Lesley-Ann Smith4, Conrad Beckett4, Ewen Cameron5, Matthew Banks1. 1. GI Services, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Ospedale di Busto Arsizio, Busto Arsizio, Italy. 3. Gastroenterology, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust, Cardiff, UK. 4. Department of Gastroenterology, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK. 5. Department of Gastroenterology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The UK bowel cancer screening programme (BCSP) has been established for the early detection of colorectal cancer offering colonoscopy to patients screened positive by faecal occult blood tests. In this multisite, prospective, randomised controlled trial, we aimed to compare the performance of Standard Definition Olympus Lucera (SD-OL) with Scope Guide and the High Definition Pentax HiLine (HD-PHL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subjects undergoing a colonoscopy as part of the UK National BCSP at four UK sites were randomised to an endoscopy list run using either SD-OL or HD-PHL. Primary endpoints were polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR, respectively) as well as polyp size, morphology and histology characteristics. RESULTS: 262 subjects (168 males, mean age 66.3±4.3 years) were colonoscoped (133 patients with HD-PHL while 129 with SD-OL). PDR and ADR were comparable within the two optical systems. The HD-PHL group resulted in a PDR 55.6% and ADR 43.6%; the SD-OL group had PDR 56.6% and ADR 45.7%. HD-PHL was significantly superior to SD-OL in detection of flat adenomas (18.6% vs 5.2%, p<0.001), but not detection of pedunculated or sessile polyps. Patient comfort, use of sedation and endoscopist perception of procedural difficulty resulted similar despite the use of Scope Guide with SD-OL. CONCLUSION: PDR and ADR were not significantly different between devices. The high-resolution colonoscopy system HD-PHL may improve polyp detection as compared with standard resolution technology in detecting flat adenomas. This advantage may have clinically significant implications for missed lesion rates and post-colonoscopy interval colorectal cancer rates.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The UK bowel cancer screening programme (BCSP) has been established for the early detection of colorectal cancer offering colonoscopy to patients screened positive by faecal occult blood tests. In this multisite, prospective, randomised controlled trial, we aimed to compare the performance of Standard Definition Olympus Lucera (SD-OL) with Scope Guide and the High Definition Pentax HiLine (HD-PHL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subjects undergoing a colonoscopy as part of the UK National BCSP at four UK sites were randomised to an endoscopy list run using either SD-OL or HD-PHL. Primary endpoints were polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR, respectively) as well as polyp size, morphology and histology characteristics. RESULTS: 262 subjects (168 males, mean age 66.3±4.3 years) were colonoscoped (133 patients with HD-PHL while 129 with SD-OL). PDR and ADR were comparable within the two optical systems. The HD-PHL group resulted in a PDR 55.6% and ADR 43.6%; the SD-OL group had PDR 56.6% and ADR 45.7%. HD-PHL was significantly superior to SD-OL in detection of flat adenomas (18.6% vs 5.2%, p<0.001), but not detection of pedunculated or sessile polyps. Patient comfort, use of sedation and endoscopist perception of procedural difficulty resulted similar despite the use of Scope Guide with SD-OL. CONCLUSION: PDR and ADR were not significantly different between devices. The high-resolution colonoscopy system HD-PHL may improve polyp detection as compared with standard resolution technology in detecting flat adenomas. This advantage may have clinically significant implications for missed lesion rates and post-colonoscopy interval colorectal cancer rates.
Authors: Douglas K Rex; John H Bond; Sidney Winawer; Theodore R Levin; Randall W Burt; David A Johnson; Lynne M Kirk; Scott Litlin; David A Lieberman; Jerome D Waye; James Church; John B Marshall; Robert H Riddell Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Ajay Pabby; Robert E Schoen; Joel L Weissfeld; Randall Burt; James W Kikendall; Peter Lance; Moshe Shike; Elaine Lanza; Arthur Schatzkin Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Michael J O'brien; Sidney J Winawer; Ann G Zauber; Marijayne T Bushey; Stephen S Sternberg; Leonard S Gottlieb; John H Bond; Jerome D Waye; Melvin Schapiro Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Sidney Winawer; Robert Fletcher; Douglas Rex; John Bond; Randall Burt; Joseph Ferrucci; Theodore Ganiats; Theodore Levin; Steven Woolf; David Johnson; Lynne Kirk; Scott Litin; Clifford Simmang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Cristiano Spada; Anastasios Koulaouzidis; Cesare Hassan; Pedro Amaro; Anurag Agrawal; Lene Brink; Wolfgang Fischbach; Matthias Hünger; Rodrigo Jover; Urpo Kinnunen; Akiko Ono; Árpád Patai; Silvia Pecere; Lucio Petruzziello; Jürgen Ferdinand Riemann; Harry Staines; Ann L Stringer; Ervin Toth; Giulio Antonelli; Lorenzo Fuccio Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-13 Impact factor: 3.390