252
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    4
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Detection and miss rates of autofluorescence imaging of adenomatous and polypoid lesions during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          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.

          Abstract

          Background and study aims: Autofluorescence imaging (AFI) is an endoscopic imaging technique used to increase the detection of premalignant gastrointestinal lesions, and it has gradually become popular in recent years. This meta-analysis was performed to examine whether AFI provides greater efficacy in the detection of adenomatous and polypoid lesions and can even prevent the failure to detect a single adenoma or polyp. The aim of the study was to systematically review the efficacy of AFI in increasing detection rates and decreasing miss rates.

          Methods: Pertinent articles were identified through a search of databases up to December 2013 that included patients who had undergone two same-day colonoscopies (AFI and white light endoscopy [WLE]), followed by polypectomy. Fixed and random effects models were used to detect significant differences between AFI and WLE in regard to adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma miss rate (AMR), polyp miss rate (PMR), and procedural time.

          Results: A total of 1199 patients from six eligible studies met the inclusion criteria. No significant differences were found in ADR (odds ratio [OR] 1.01; 95 % confidence interval [95 %CI] 0.74 – 1.37), PDR (OR 0.86; 95 %CI 0.57 – 1.30), or advanced ADR (OR 1.22; 95 %CI 0.69 – 2.17). The AMR (OR 0.62; 95 %CI 0.44 – 0.86) and PMR (OR 0.64; 95 %CI 0.48 – 0.85) by AFI were significantly lower than those by WLE. The procedural time of AFI was significantly longer than that of WLE (mean 8.00 minutes; 95 %CI 1.59 – 14.41). Subgroup meta-analysis for the other characteristics was not performed because of insufficiency of the primary data.

          Conclusions: AFI decreases AMR and PMR significantly compared with WLE but does not improve ADR or PDR. AMR and PMR may be decreased by using AFI in flat and small lesions or when less experienced endoscopists perform the procedure.

          Most cited references17

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

          Comparison of the yield and miss rate of narrow band imaging and white light endoscopy in patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy: a meta-analysis.

          Colonoscopy has an appreciable miss rate for adenomas and colorectal cancer. The goal of advanced endoscopic imaging is to improve lesion detection. Compared with standard definition, high-definition (HD) colonoscopes have the advantage of increased field of visualization and higher resolution; narrow band imaging (NBI) utilizes narrow band filters for enhanced visualization of surface architecture and capillary pattern. The objective of this study was to compare the yield and miss rates of HD-NBI and HD-WLE (white light endoscopy) for the detection of colon polyps using meta-analysis. A recursive literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the yield of HD-NBI and HD-WLE for detection of colon polyps in patients undergoing screening/surveillance colonoscopy. Authors were contacted for missing data. In RCT with tandem colonoscopy (RCT-t), findings from the first-pass examinations were used in the yield analysis and from the tandem pass for the miss rate analysis. Data on the yield of polyps were extracted, pooled, and analyzed using RevMan 4.2.9 software. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the pooled data for the yield and miss rates of NBI and WLE were calculated. A fixed effect model (FEM) was used for analyses without, and a random effect model (REM) for analyses with heterogeneity. The yield analysis revealed no significant difference between HD-NBI and HD-WLE for the detection of adenomas (six studies; n=2,284; OR: 1.01; CI: 0.74-1.37; REM); patients with polyps (six studies; n=2,275; OR: 1.15; CI: 0.8-1.64; REM); patients with adenomas (four studies; n=2,177; OR: 1.0; CI: 0.83-1.20; FEM); detection of adenomas <10 mm (five studies; n=1,618; OR: 1.32; CI: 0.92-1.88; FEM); flat adenomas (five studies; n=1,675; OR: 1.26; CI: 0.62-2.57; REM); and flat adenomas per patient (five studies; n=2,200; OR: 1.63; CI: 0.71-3.74; REM). The miss rate analysis revealed no difference in polyp miss rate (three studies; n=524; OR: 1.17; CI: 0.8-1.71; FEM) or adenoma miss rate (three studies; n=524; OR: 0.65; CI: 0.4-1.06; FEM) between the two techniques. Compared with HD-WLE, HD-NBI does not increase the yield of colon polyps, adenomas, or flat adenomas, nor does it decrease the miss rate of colon polyps or adenomas in patients undergoing screening/surveillance colonoscopy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Meta-analysis of narrow-band imaging versus conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection.

            At colonoscopy, missed adenomas have been well documented at approximately 22%. The challenge is in reducing this miss rate. Narrow-band imaging (NBI) has been extensively evaluated in prospective, randomized, controlled studies for polyp detection. Sample-size calculations show us that these studies may be underpowered, and hence a meta-analysis is required. Our aim was to determine whether use of NBI enhances the detection of adenomas. Meta-analyses were conducted of 7 studies using NBI for adenoma detection rate. MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases were searched by using a combination of the following terms: "colonoscopy," "NBI," and "electronic chromoendoscopy." There was a total of 2936 patients in the NBI studies. Prospective, randomized trials of NBI versus standard white-light colonoscopy (WLC) were conducted. We excluded spray chromoendoscopy studies and studies of inflammatory bowel disease and polyposis syndromes. Adenoma and polyp detection rates and the number of polyps and adenomas detected per person. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall adenoma detection rate with the use of NBI or WLC (36% vs 34%; P = .413 [relative risk 1.06; 95% CI, 0.97-1.16]), and there was no statistically significant difference in polyp detection rate by using NBI or WLC (37% vs 35%; P = .289 [relative risk 1.22; 95% CI, 0.85-1.76]). When the number of adenomas and polyps per patient was analyzed, no significant difference was found between NBI and WLC (0.645 vs 0.59; P = .105 and 0.373 vs 0.348; P = .139 [weighted mean difference 0.19; 95% CI, ∞0.06 to 0.44], respectively). Variability in NBI studies can reduce the accuracy of this analysis. NBI did not increase adenoma or polyp detection rates. Copyright © 2012 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Does autofluorescence imaging videoendoscopy system improve the colonoscopic polyp detection rate?--a pilot study.

              Colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for the detection of colorectal polyps; however, polyps can be missed with conventional white light (WL) colonoscopy. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate whether a newly developed autofluorescence imaging (AFI) system can detect more colorectal polyps than WL. A modified back-to-back colonoscopy using AFI and WL was conducted for 167 patients in the right-sided colon including cecum, ascending and transverse colon by a single experienced colonoscopist. The patient was randomized to undergo the first colonoscopy with either AFI or WL (group A: AFI-WL, group B: WL-AFI). The time needed for both insertion and examination for withdrawal and all lesions detected in the right-sided colon were recorded. Eighty-three patients were randomized to group A and 84 to group B. The total number of polyps detected by AFI and WL colonoscopy was 100 and 73, respectively. The miss rate for all polyps with AFI (30%) was significantly less than that with WL (49%) (P= 0.01). AFI detects more polyps in the right-sided colon compared to WL colonoscopy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Endosc Int Open
                Endosc Int Open
                10.1055/s-0034-1377934
                Endoscopy International Open
                © Georg Thieme Verlag KG (Stuttgart · New York )
                2364-3722
                2196-9736
                June 2015
                07 May 2015
                : 3
                : 3
                : E226-E235
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Colorectal Surgery, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
                [2 ]Department of Surgery, No. 273 Hospital of People’s Liberation Army, Korla, Xinjiang Autonomous Region, China
                [3 ]Medical Team, Unit 66013 of People’s Liberation Army, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China
                [4 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Air Force General Hospital of People’s Liberation Army, Beijing, China
                [5 ]Department of General Surgery, Shengyang General Hospital of People’s Liberation Army, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China
                [6 ]Center of Digestive Endoscopy, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
                Author notes
                Corresponding author En-Da Yu, MD Department of Colorectal Surgery Changhai Hospital 168 Changhai RoadShanghaiChina 200433+86-21-31161613 endayu@ 123456yeah.net
                Article
                10.1055/s-0034-1391708
                4486028
                26171435
                aabda764-115a-4e50-a56e-6e66d1fe87ea
                © Thieme Medical Publishers
                History
                : 13 October 2014
                : 31 October 2014
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article