+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Improved adenoma detection with Endocuff Vision: the ADENOMA randomised controlled trial

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          Low adenoma detection rates (ADR) are linked to increased postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates and reduced cancer survival. Devices to enhance mucosal visualisation such as Endocuff Vision (EV) may improve ADR. This multicentre randomised controlled trial compared ADR between EV-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and standard colonoscopy (SC).


          Patients referred because of symptoms, surveillance or following a positive faecal occult blood test (FOBt) as part of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme were recruited from seven hospitals. ADR, mean adenomas per procedure, size and location of adenomas, sessile serrated polyps, EV removal rate, caecal intubation rate, procedural time, patient experience, effect of EV on workload and adverse events were measured.


          1772 patients (57% male, mean age 62 years) were recruited over 16 months with 45% recruited through screening. EAC increased ADR globally from 36.2% to 40.9% (P=0.02). The increase was driven by a 10.8% increase in FOBt-positive screening patients (50.9% SC vs 61.7% EAC, P<0.001). EV patients had higher detection of mean adenomas per procedure, sessile serrated polyps, left-sided, diminutive, small adenomas and cancers (cancer 4.1% vs 2.3%, P=0.02). EV removal rate was 4.1%. Median intubation was a minute quicker with EAC (P=0.001), with no difference in caecal intubation rate or withdrawal time. EAC was well tolerated but caused a minor increase in discomfort on anal intubation in patients undergoing colonoscopy with no or minimal sedation. There were no significant EV adverse events.


          EV significantly improved ADR in bowel cancer screening patients and should be used to improve colonoscopic detection.

          Trial registration number

          NCT02552017, Results; ISRCTN11821044, Results.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer.

          Although rates of detection of adenomatous lesions (tumors or polyps) and cecal intubation are recommended for use as quality indicators for screening colonoscopy, these measurements have not been validated, and their importance remains uncertain. We used a multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression model to evaluate the influence of quality indicators for colonoscopy on the risk of interval cancer. Data were collected from 186 endoscopists who were involved in a colonoscopy-based colorectal-cancer screening program involving 45,026 subjects. Interval cancer was defined as colorectal adenocarcinoma that was diagnosed between the time of screening colonoscopy and the scheduled time of surveillance colonoscopy. We derived data on quality indicators for colonoscopy from the screening program's database and data on interval cancers from cancer registries. The primary aim of the study was to assess the association between quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. A total of 42 interval colorectal cancers were identified during a period of 188,788 person-years. The endoscopist's rate of detection of adenomas was significantly associated with the risk of interval colorectal cancer (P=0.008), whereas the rate of cecal intubation was not significantly associated with this risk (P=0.50). The hazard ratios for adenoma detection rates of less than 11.0%, 11.0 to 14.9%, and 15.0 to 19.9%, as compared with a rate of 20.0% or higher, were 10.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37 to 87.01), 10.75 (95% CI, 1.36 to 85.06), and 12.50 (95% CI, 1.51 to 103.43), respectively (P=0.02 for all comparisons). The adenoma detection rate is an independent predictor of the risk of interval colorectal cancer after screening colonoscopy. 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death.

            The proportion of screening colonoscopic examinations performed by a physician that detect one or more adenomas (the adenoma detection rate) is a recommended quality measure. However, little is known about the association between this rate and patients' risks of a subsequent colorectal cancer (interval cancer) and death. Using data from an integrated health care delivery organization, we evaluated the associations between the adenoma detection rate and the risks of colorectal cancer diagnosed 6 months to 10 years after colonoscopy and of cancer-related death. With the use of Cox regression, our estimates of attributable risk were adjusted for the demographic characteristics of the patients, indications for colonoscopy, and coexisting conditions. We evaluated 314,872 colonoscopies performed by 136 gastroenterologists; the adenoma detection rates ranged from 7.4 to 52.5%. During the follow-up period, we identified 712 interval colorectal adenocarcinomas, including 255 advanced-stage cancers, and 147 deaths from interval colorectal cancer. The unadjusted risks of interval cancer according to quintiles of adenoma detection rates, from lowest to highest, were 9.8, 8.6, 8.0, 7.0, and 4.8 cases per 10,000 person-years of follow-up, respectively. Among patients of physicians with adenoma detection rates in the highest quintile, as compared with patients of physicians with detection rates in the lowest quintile, the adjusted hazard ratio for any interval cancer was 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.69), for advanced-stage interval cancer, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.29 to 0.64), and for fatal interval cancer, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.22 to 0.65). Each 1.0% increase in the adenoma detection rate was associated with a 3.0% decrease in the risk of cancer (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96 to 0.98). The adenoma detection rate was inversely associated with the risks of interval colorectal cancer, advanced-stage interval cancer, and fatal interval cancer. (Funded by the Kaiser Permanente Community Benefit program and the National Cancer Institute.).
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review.

              Colonoscopy is the best available method to detect and remove colonic polyps and therefore serves as the gold standard for less invasive tests such as virtual colonoscopy. Although gastroenterologists agree that colonoscopy is not infallible, there is no clarity on the numbers and rates of missed polyps. The purpose of this systematic review was to obtain summary estimates of the polyp miss rate as determined by tandem colonoscopy. An extensive search was performed within PUBMED, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify studies in which patients had undergone two same-day colonoscopies with polypectomy. Random effects models based on the binomial distribution were used to calculate pooled estimates of miss rates. Six studies with a total of 465 patients could be included. The pooled miss rate for polyps of any size was 22% (95% CI: 19-26%; 370/1,650 polyps). Adenoma miss rate by size was, respectively, 2.1% (95% CI: 0.3-7.3%; 2/96 adenomas > or =10 mm), 13% (95% CI: 8.0-18%; 16/124 adenomas 5-10 mm), and 26% (95% CI: 27-35%; 151/587 adenomas 1-5 mm). Three studies reported data on nonadenomatous polyps: zero of eight nonadenomatous polyps > or =10 mm were missed (0%; 95% CI: 0-36.9%) and 83 of 384 nonadenomatous polyps or =10 mm, but the miss rate increases significantly in smaller sized polyps. The available evidence is based on a small number of studies with heterogeneous study designs and inclusion criteria.

                Author and article information

                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                February 2019
                23 January 2018
                : 68
                : 2
                : 280-288
                [1 ] departmentDepartment of Gastroenterology , South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust , South Shields, UK
                [2 ] departmentDepartment of Gastroenterology , North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust , Stockton, UK
                [3 ] departmentDepartment of Gastroenterology , St Mark’s Hospital , London, UK
                [4 ] Statsconsultancy Ltd , Bucks, UK
                [5 ] departmentNorth Wales Organisation for Randomised Trials in Health , Bangor University , Bangor, UK
                [6 ] departmentDepartment of Gastroenterology , Northumbria NHS Trust , North Tyneside, UK
                [7 ] departmentDepartment of Gastroenterology , South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Middlesbrough, UK
                [8 ] departmentDepartment of Gastroenterology , County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust , Durham, UK
                [9 ] departmentDepartment of Gastroenterology , City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust , Sunderland, UK
                [10 ] departmentNorthern Institute for Cancer Research , Newcastle University , Newcastle, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Colin J Rees, Department of Gastroenterology, South Tyneside District Hospital, South Shields, NE34 0PL, UK; colin.rees@
                © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2019. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See:

                Original article
                Custom metadata


                Comment on this article