15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Impact of Inadequate Bowel Cleansing on Colonoscopic Findings in Routine Screening Practice

      research-article
      , MPH, PhD 1 , , , PhD 1 , , PhD 2 , , MPH, PhD 1 , 3 , , PhD 1 , , MPH, PhD, MD 1 , 2 , 3
      Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology
      Wolters Kluwer

      Read this article at

      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.

          INTRODUCTION:

          Colonoscopy is an imperfect gold standard for detecting colorectal neoplasms because some proportion of adenomas may be missed, mainly small lesions. This proportion is expected to be higher in case of inadequate bowel cleansing, which is frequently seen in routine practice. We estimated the proportions of neoplasms that are in principle detectable by colonoscopy but might be missed in case of incomplete bowel preparation.

          METHODS:

          For 8,193 participants of screening colonoscopy in South-Western Germany, recruited between 2005 and 2016, the prevalence and numbers of different findings were extracted from colonoscopy reports and compared according to the reported bowel preparation quality.

          RESULTS:

          Bowel preparation quality was reported as good, poor, or was unspecified in 30.3%, 11.1%, and 58.6% of colonoscopy records. Reported prevalences of nonadvanced adenomas (NAAs) were similar among participants with poor and unspecified bowel preparation quality but substantially lower than among participants with good bowel preparation (adjusted prevalence rate ratio [RR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77–0.96). The differences were observed for proximal but not for distal NAAs (RRs 0.82, 95% CI: 0.71–0.95 and 0.95, 95% CI: 0.82–1.10).

          DISCUSSION:

          Our study suggests that a significant proportion of NAAs located in the proximal colon might be missed during colonoscopy if bowel cleansing is not adequate. Major efforts should be made to further facilitate and enhance high-quality bowel preparation in routine screening practice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

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

          Magnitude, Risk Factors, and Factors Associated With Adenoma Miss Rate of Tandem Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

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

            Comparative evaluation of immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal adenoma detection.

            Different immunochemical fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) have been proposed for noninvasive colorectal cancer screening. Large-scale, colonoscopy-based screening studies that allow evaluation of these tests for the detection of precursor lesions are scarce. To determine and compare performance characteristics of 6 qualitative immunochemical FOBTs for identifying colorectal adenomas among adults who attended screening colonoscopy examinations. Prospective screening study from January 2006 to December 2007. 20 gastroenterology practices in Germany that did screening colonoscopy. 1319 participants at average risk for colorectal neoplasia who were undergoing screening colonoscopy (mean age, 63 years; 50% men). 6 different qualitative immunochemical FOBTs were done with stool samples collected before bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios) of tests were measured by comparing test results with findings on colonoscopy. Technicians who read the tests were blinded to colonoscopy results, and colonoscopists were blinded to FOBT results. Overall, 405 participants (31%) had an adenoma and 130 participants (10%) had an advanced adenoma. Performance characteristics varied widely among tests. For the 2 best-performing tests (immoCARE-C [CAREdiagnostica, Voerde, Germany] and FOB advanced [ulti med, Ahrensburg, Germany]), the sensitivity for detection of advanced adenomas was 25% (95% CI, 18% to 34%) and 27% (CI, 20% to 35%), respectively; specificity was 97% (CI, 95% to 98%) and 93% (CI, 91% to 95%); and the positive likelihood ratio was 3.5 (CI, 2.2 to 5.4) and 2.5 (CI, 1.9 to 3.5). The study differed from real-life conditions in that stool samples were not directly dissolved in a buffer-filled vial; instead, a small container was used and stool was frozen before testing. Qualitative immunochemical FOBTs could be an option for future colorectal cancer screening because they showed better performance characteristics for precursor lesions than guaiac-based FOBTs and are practical for mass screening. However, given the large differences in diagnostic performance among tests, careful evaluation of the different test variants is important. The German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) within the framework of a PhD program (Graduiertenkolleg 793).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Superior diagnostic performance of faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin in a head-to-head comparison with guaiac based faecal occult blood test among 2235 participants of screening colonoscopy.

              There is increasing evidence that faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for haemoglobin offer a number of advantages over traditional guaiac based faecal occult blood tests (gFOBTs). However, evidence on diagnostic performance from direct comparisons with colonoscopy findings in all participants in the average risk population is still sparse. We aimed for a head-to-head comparison of three quantitative FITs with a gFOBT among participants of the German screening colonoscopy programme. Pre-colonoscopy stool samples and colonoscopy reports were obtained from 2235 participants of screening colonoscopy in 2005-2009. To enhance comparability of diagnostic performance of the various tests, we assessed sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios of FITs after adjusting the FIT cut-off haemoglobin (Hb) concentrations in such a way that FIT positivity rates equalled the positivity rate of the gFOBT. Colorectal cancer, advanced adenomas and other adenomas were found in 15 (0.7%), 207 (9.3%) and 398 (17.8%) participants. The gFOBT was positive in 111 (5.0%) participants, with sensitivities (specificities) for detecting colorectal cancer, any advanced neoplasm or any neoplasm of 33.3% (95.2%), 8.6% (95.4%) and 5.5% (95.2%). At the same positivity rate, all three FITs outperformed the gFOBT in all indicators. In particular, all sensitivities of FITs were approximately two to three times higher at increased levels of specificity. All differences were statistically significant, except for some of the performance indicators for colorectal cancer. In conclusion, FITs can detect much larger proportions of colorectal neoplasms even if their cut-offs are set to levels that ensure equally low positivity rates as gFOBT. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Transl Gastroenterol
                Clin Transl Gastroenterol
                CLTG
                CT9
                CT9
                Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology
                Wolters Kluwer (Philadelphia, PA )
                2155-384X
                April 2020
                09 April 2020
                : 11
                : 4
                : e00169
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany;
                [2 ]Division of Preventive Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany;
                [3 ]German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Tobias Niedermaier, PhD, MPH. E-mail: t.niedermaier@ 123456dkfz.de .
                Article
                CTG-19-0445 00006
                10.14309/ctg.0000000000000169
                7263660
                32352678
                eebea009-c2df-4c57-92db-d697d270e71b
                © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                : 18 December 2019
                : 13 March 2020
                Categories
                Article
                Colon
                Custom metadata
                TRUE
                T

                Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                Gastroenterology & Hepatology

                Comments

                Comment on this article