Search

BACKGROUND : High quality colonoscopy is fundamental to good patient outcomes. "Textbook outcome" has proven to be a feasible multidimensional measure for quality assurance between surgical centers. In this study, we sought to establish the "textbook process" (TP) as a new composite measure for the optimal colonoscopy process and assessed how frequently TP was attained in clinical practice and the variation in TP between endoscopists. METHODS : To reach consensus on the definition of TP, international expert endoscopists completed a modified Delphi consensus process. The achievement of TP was then applied to clinical practice. Prospectively collected data in two endoscopy services were retrospectively evaluated. Data on colonoscopies performed for symptoms or surveillance between 1 January 2018 and 1 August 2021 were analyzed. RESULTS : The Delphi consensus process was completed by 20 of 27 invited experts (74.1 %). TP was defined as a colonoscopy fulfilling the following items: explicit colonoscopy indication; successful cecal intubation; adequate bowel preparation; adequate withdrawal time; acceptable patient comfort score; provision of post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations in line with guidelines; and the absence of the use of reversal agents, early adverse events, readmission, and mortality. In the two endoscopy services studied, TP was achieved in 5962/8227 colonoscopies (72.5 %). Of 48 endoscopists performing colonoscopy, attainment of TP varied significantly, ranging per endoscopist from 41.0 % to 89.1 %. CONCLUSION : This study proposes a new composite measure for colonoscopy, namely "textbook process." TP gives a comprehensive summary of performance and demonstrates significant variation between endoscopists, illustrating the potential benefit of TP as a measure in future quality assessment programs., Competing Interests: P. Fockens has received consultancy fees from Olympus and Cook Endoscopy, and research support from Boston Scientific. M. Pellisé has received consultancy and speakerʼs fees from Norgine Iberia, consultancy fees from GI Supply and Fujifilm Europe, and research grants from Casen Rocordati, 3DMattrix, Fujifilm Europe, and ZiuZ; her department has received loan material from Fujifilm Spain. E. Dekker has endoscopic equipment on loan and receives a research grant from Fujifilm; she has received consultancy fees from Fujifilm, Olympus, Tillots, GI Supply, CPP-FAP, PAION, and Ambu, and speakersʼ fees from Olympus, GI Supply, Norgine, IPSEN, PAION, and Fujifilm. K.J. Nass, S.C. van Doorn, C.J. Rees, and M. van der Vlugt declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).)

Background: To optimize colonoscopy quality, several performance measures have been developed. These are usually assessed without distinction between the indications for colonoscopy. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of linking two national registries (one for colonoscopy and one for adverse events of gastrointestinal endoscopies in the Netherlands), and to describe the results of colonoscopy quality per indication., Methods: This retrospective study was conducted with prospectively collected data of the Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit (DGEA) and the Dutch Registration of Complications in Endoscopy (DRCE). Data between 01-01-2016 and 01-01-2019 were analyzed. To calculate adverse event rates, data were linked at the level of endoscopy service., Results: During the 3-year study period, 266 981 colonoscopies were recorded in DGEA. Of all indications, cecal intubation rate was highest in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-positive screening colonoscopies (97.1 %), followed by surveillance (93.2 %), diagnostic (90.7 %), and therapeutic colonoscopies (83.1 %). The highest rate of adequate bowel preparation was observed in FIT-positive screening colonoscopies (97.1 %). A total of 1540 colonoscopy-related adverse events occurred (0.58 % of all colonoscopies). Bleeding and perforation and rates were highest for therapeutic (1.56 % and 0.51 %, respectively) and FIT-positive screening (0.72 % and 0.06 %, respectively) colonoscopies. The colonoscopy-related mortality was 0.006 %., Conclusion: This study describes the first results of the Dutch national colonoscopy registry, which was successfully linked to data from the national registry for adverse events of gastrointestinal endoscopies. In this large dataset, performance varied between indications. Our results emphasize the importance of defining benchmarks per indication in future guidelines., Competing Interests: Evelien Dekker has received endoscopic equipment on loan, a research grant, and consultancy honorarium from FujiFilm. She has also received consultancy honoraria from Olympus, Tillots, GI Supply, and CPP-FAP, and speaker's fees from Olympus, Roche, GI Supply, and Norgine. Paul Fockens has received consultancy honoraria from Olympus and Cook Endoscopy, and research support from Boston Scientific. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Despite regular colonoscopy surveillance, colorectal cancers still occur in patients with Lynch syndrome. Thus, detection of all relevant precancerous lesions remains very important. The present study investigates Linked Colour imaging (LCI), an image-enhancing technique, as compared with high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) for the detection of polyps in this patient group., Design: This prospective, randomised controlled trial was performed by 22 experienced endoscopists from eight centres in six countries. Consecutive Lynch syndrome patients ≥18 years undergoing surveillance colonoscopy were randomised (1:1) and stratified by centre for inspection with either LCI or HD-WLE. Primary outcome was the polyp detection rate (PDR)., Results: Between January 2018 and March 2020, 357 patients were randomised and 332 patients analysed (160 LCI, 172 HD-WLE; 6 excluded due to incomplete colonoscopies and 19 due to insufficient bowel cleanliness). No significant difference was observed in PDR with LCI (44.4%; 95% CI 36.5% to 52.4%) compared with HD-WLE (36.0%; 95% CI 28.9% to 43.7%) (p=0.12). Of the secondary outcome parameters, more adenomas were found on a patient (adenoma detection rate 36.3%; vs 25.6%; p=0.04) and a colonoscopy basis (mean adenomas per colonoscopy 0.65 vs 0.42; p=0.04). The median withdrawal time was not statistically different between LCI and HD-WLE (12 vs 11 min; p=0.16)., Conclusion: LCI did not improve the PDR compared with HD-WLE in patients with Lynch syndrome undergoing surveillance. The relevance of findings more adenomas by LCI has to be examined further., Trial Registration Number: NCT03344289., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AR has received loan equipment and a consultancy fee from Medtronic and Fujifilm. BAJB received speaking fees from Olympus, Tillotts Pharma AG and Ovesco Endoscopy. ED received equipment on loan from Olympus and Fujifilm, ED received a research grant from FujiFilm, a consulting fee for medical advice from Tillots, Olympus, Fujifilm, GI Supply and CPP-FAP and a speakers’ fee from Olympus, Roche and GI Supply. FB has endoscopic equipment on loan of Fujifilm, received an honorarium for consultancy from Sysmex, CPP-FAP speaking fees from Norgine, and an editorial fee from Elsevier. MFK has received speaking, teaching and consultancy fees from Olympus (2017 to present) and speaking and teaching fees, and a loan of equipment from Fujifilm (2019) and speaking fees from Medtronic (2019), Alfa Sigma (2017–2019) and Norgine (2018–2019). MP received a research grant from Fujifilm Spain and Casen Recordati, a loan of equipment from Fujifilm, received consultancy fee from Norgine, speaking fee from Norgine, Olympus, Casen Recordati, Janssen and an editorial fee from Thieme. RB has provided consultancy to and received research grants and speakings fees from Pentax (2008 to present) and Fujifilm (2015 to present); his department has received research grants and equipment from Pentax and Fujifilm (2015 to present). PB has received grant funding from Norgine, Fujifilm, Olympus, Pentax, Boston scientific. PF received research support from Boston Scientific research and a consulting fee from Olympus, Cook and Ethicon Endosurgery., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Propofol provides excellent sedation during colonoscopy. However, its application, namely when used together with an opioid, is associated with cardiopulmonary depression. Acupuncture is used nowadays for the treatment of pain and anxiety, and also to induce sedation. We hypothesised that electroacupuncture (EA) during colonoscopy would have sedative effects, thereby reducing propofol requirements to achieve an adequate level of sedation., Method: The study was designed and conducted as a single centre, patient and observer blinded, sham- and placebo-controlled randomised trial. Patients scheduled for elective colonoscopy under deep propofol/alfentanil sedation were randomly assigned to receive unilateral EA, sham-acupuncture (SA) or placebo-acupuncture (PA) at ST36, PC6 and LI4. The primary outcome parameter was the total dosage of propofol. Secondary outcomes included the patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction levels evaluated by questionnaires., Results: The dosage of propofol required (median [IQR]) was not significantly different between the three groups (EA group 147 μg/kg/min [109-193] vs SA group 141 μg/kg/min [123- 180] vs PA group 141 μg/kg/min [112-182]; P=0.776). There was also no significant difference in alfentanil consumption (P=0.634). Global satisfaction (median [IQR]) among patients (EA group 6.6 [6.0-7.0] vs SA group 6.8 [6.0-7.0] vs PA group 6.5 [6.0-7.0]; P=0.481) and endoscopists (6.0 [5.0-6.0] for all groups; P=0.773) did not significantly differ between the three groups. There was no significant difference in the number of cardiorespiratory events., Conclusion: For colonoscopy, the applied mode of EA did not show any propofol-sparing sedative effect compared with sham or placebo acupuncture., Trial Registration: The trial is registered in the Netherland's Trial Registry (NTR4325).

Competing Interests: Competing interests: ED and PF received equipment on loan from Olympus and Fujifilm. ED received a research grant from Fujifilm and a consulting fee for medical advice from Tillotts, Olympus, Fujifilm and GI Supply. PF received personal fees for consulting from Medtronic, Fujifilm, Cook, Ethicon Endo-Surgery and Olympus. The other authors have no relevant disclosures to report.

Colorectal cancer usually starts as a benign polyp. Endoscopic removal of these polyps reduces the risk of death from colorectal cancer. Some of the colorectal polyps are seen as 'too complex for endoscopic removal' and these polyps can be surgically resected. However, surgical resection is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. We have various advanced endoscopic techniques at our disposal for removing benign polyps these days, even if they are complex. The number of surgical resections of benign polyps is nevertheless increasing in the Netherlands, partly as a result of the introduction of population screening for colorectal cancer. Only a small proportion of patients with complex polyps is referred to a centre of expertise to undergo advanced endoscopic resection. We believe that regional multidisciplinary expert panels can improve the quality of care for patients with complex polyps and reduce the number of unnecessary surgical resections.

Background: Optical diagnosis can replace histopathology of diminutive (1 - 5 mm) polyps if surveillance intervals based on optical diagnosis of polyps have ≥ 90 % agreement with intervals based on polyp histology and if the negative predictive value (NPV) for predicting neoplastic histology in the rectosigmoid is ≥ 90 %. This study aims to assess whether small (6 - 9 mm) polyps can be included in optical diagnosis strategies., Method: This is a post-hoc analysis of a prospective multicenter study in which 27 endoscopists, all performing endoscopies for the Dutch screening program, were trained in optical diagnosis. For 1 year, endoscopists recorded the predicted histology for all lesions detected using narrow-band imaging during 3144 consecutive colonoscopies after a positive fecal immunochemical test, along with confidence levels. Surveillance interval agreement and NPV were calculated for high confidence predictions for polyps of 1 - 9 mm and compared with histopathology. Surveillance interval agreement was calculated using the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy surveillance guideline., Results: Surveillance interval agreement was 95.4 % (confidence interval [CI] 94.2 % - 96.4 %), and NPV for predicting neoplastic histology in the rectosigmoid 90.0 % (CI 87.3 % - 92.2 %). The reduction in histology (45.9 % vs. 30.5 %) and the proportion of patients who could have received direct surveillance advice (15.6 % vs. 7.3 %) was higher when small polyps were included ( P  < 0.001). T1 cancer was found in seven small polyps (0.33 %), five of which would have been discarded without histopathology., Conclusion: Including small polyps in the optical diagnosis strategy improves its efficacy while maintaining performance thresholds. However, there is a small risk of missing T1 cancers when small polyps are included in the optical diagnosis strategy., Competing Interests: Evelien Dekker and Paul Fockens both received equipment on loan from Olympus and FujiFilm. Evelien Dekker has received an unrestricted research grant from Fujifilm and consulting fees for medical advice from Tillots, FujiFilm, and Olympus. Paul Fockens has received personal fees for consulting from Medtronic, Fujifilm, Cook, Ethicon Endosurgery, and Olympus. The other authors have no relevant disclosures to report., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background & Aims: Real-time differentiation of diminutive polyps (1-5 mm) during endoscopy could replace histopathology analysis. According to guidelines, implementation of optical diagnosis into routine practice would require it to identify rectosigmoid neoplastic lesions with a negative predictive value (NPV) of more than 90%, using histologic findings as a reference, and agreement with histology-based surveillance intervals for more than 90% of cases., Methods: We performed a prospective study with 39 endoscopists accredited to perform colonoscopies on participants with positive results from fecal immunochemical tests in the Bowel Cancer Screening Program at 13 centers in the Netherlands. Endoscopists were trained in optical diagnosis using a validated module (Workgroup serrAted polypS and Polyposis). After meeting predefined performance thresholds in the training program, the endoscopists started a 1-year program (continuation phase) in which they performed narrow band imaging analyses during colonoscopies of participants in the screening program and predicted histological findings with confidence levels. The endoscopists were randomly assigned to groups that received feedback or no feedback on the accuracy of their predictions. Primary outcome measures were endoscopists' abilities to identify rectosigmoid neoplastic lesions (using histology as a reference) with NPVs of 90% or more, and selecting surveillance intervals that agreed with those determined by histology for at least 90% of cases., Results: Of 39 endoscopists initially trained, 27 (69%) completed the training program. During the continuation phase, these 27 endoscopists performed 3144 colonoscopies in which 4504 diminutive polyps were removed. The endoscopists identified neoplastic lesions with a pooled NPV of 90.8% (95% confidence interval 88.6-92.6); their proposed surveillance intervals agreed with those determined by histologic analysis for 95.4% of cases (95% confidence interval 94.0-96.6). Findings did not differ between the group that did vs did not receive feedback. Sixteen endoscopists (59%) identified rectosigmoid neoplastic lesions with NPVs greater than 90% and selected surveillance intervals in agreement with those determined from histology for more than 90% of patients., Conclusions: In a prospective study following a validated training module, we found that a selected group of endoscopists identified rectosigmoid neoplastic lesions with pooled NPVs greater than 90% and accurately selected surveillance intervals for more than 90% of patients over the course of 1 year. Providing regular interim feedback on the accuracy of neoplastic lesion prediction and surveillance interval selection did not lead to differences in those endpoints. Monitoring is suggested, as individual performance varied. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02516748; Netherland Trial Register: NTR4635., (Copyright © 2018 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Optical diagnosis of diminutive (1 to 5 mm) polyps could result in a more cost-effective colonoscopy practice. Previous optical diagnosis studies did not incorporate the differentiation of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs). This study aimed to evaluate the impact of optical diagnosis of diminutive SSPs on the overall performance of endoscopic polyp differentiation in daily colonoscopy practice., Methods: Endoscopy data were prospectively collected between 2011 and 2014 in a colonoscopy center. Each endoscopist reported a real-time optical diagnosis (SSP, adenoma or hyperplastic polyp) for all lesions in a structured colonoscopy reporting system, using narrow band imaging at their discretion. Study outcomes were accuracy of optical diagnosis, surveillance interval agreement and negative predictive value for diminutive rectosigmoid neoplastic histology based on the optical diagnosis of diminutive polyps compared to histopathology., Results: Of 2853 removed diminutive polyps, 202 (7.1%) were histologically proven SSPs. Optical diagnosis of diminutive SSPs was accurate in 24.4%. Diminutive SSPs determined 6.9% of postpolypectomy surveillance assignments. Inaccurate optical diagnosis of diminutive SSPs led to lower surveillance interval agreement (78.1% vs. 53.3%, P<0.01) and pooled negative predictive value per polyp (84.3% vs. 50.0%; P<0.01) in patients with diminutive SSPs when compared to patients without diminutive SSPs. Accurate endoscopic identification of diminutive SSPs improved from 0% in 2011 to 47% in 2014 (P=0.02)., Conclusions: Endoscopic characterization of diminutive SSPs is difficult, impairing overall performance of optical diagnosis in patients with diminutive SSPs. Future optical diagnosis studies should use validated trainings and classification algorithms that include differentiation of SSPs.

Background and Aims: Colonoscopy is the current reference standard for the detection of colorectal neoplasia, but nevertheless adenomas remain undetected. The Endocuff, an endoscopic cap with plastic projections, may improve colonic visualisation and adenoma detection. The aim of this study was to compare the mean number of adenomas per patient (MAP) and the adenoma detection rate (ADR) between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and conventional colonoscopy (CC)., Methods: We performed a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in five hospitals and included fecal immonochemical test (FIT)-positive screening participants as well as symptomatic patients (>45 years). Consenting patients were randomised 1:1 to EAC or CC. All colonoscopies were performed by experienced colonoscopists (≥500 colonoscopies) who were trained in EAC. All colonoscopy quality indicators were prospectively recorded., Findings: Of the 1063 included patients (52% male, median age 65 years), 530 were allocated to EAC and 533 to CC. More adenomas were detected with EAC, 722 vs 621, but the gain in MAP was not significant: on average 1.36 per patient in the EAC group versus 1.17 in the CC group (p=0.08). In a per-protocol analysis, the gain was 1.44 vs 1.19 (p=0.02), respectively. In the EAC group, 275 patients (52%) had one or more adenomas detected versus 278 in the CC group (52%; p=0.92). For advanced adenomas these numbers were 109 (21%) vs 117 (22%). The adjusted caecal intubation rate was lower with EAC (94% vs 99%; p<0.001), however when allowing crossover from EAC to CC, they were similar in both groups (98% vs 99%; p value=0.25)., Interpretation: Though more adenomas are detected with EAC, the routine use of Endocuff does not translate in a higher number of patients with one or more adenomas detected. Whether increased detection ultimately results in a lower rate of interval carcinomas is not yet known., Trial Registration Number: http://www.trialregister.nl Dutch Trial Register: NTR3962., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

1  ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP) as the preferred technique for removal of diminutive polyps (size ≤ 5 mm). This technique has high rates of complete resection, adequate tissue sampling for histology, and low complication rates. (High quality evidence, strong recommendation.) 2  ESGE suggests CSP for sessile polyps 6 - 9 mm in size because of its superior safety profile, although evidence comparing efficacy with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) is lacking. (Moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation.) 3  ESGE suggests HSP (with or without submucosal injection) for removal of sessile polyps 10 - 19 mm in size. In most cases deep thermal injury is a potential risk and thus submucosal injection prior to HSP should be considered. (Low quality evidence, strong recommendation.) 4  ESGE recommends HSP for pedunculated polyps. To prevent bleeding in pedunculated colorectal polyps with head ≥ 20 mm or a stalk ≥ 10 mm in diameter, ESGE recommends pretreatment of the stalk with injection of dilute adrenaline and/or mechanical hemostasis. (Moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation.) 5  ESGE recommends that the goals of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are to achieve a completely snare-resected lesion in the safest minimum number of pieces, with adequate margins and without need for adjunctive ablative techniques. (Low quality evidence; strong recommendation.) 6  ESGE recommends careful lesion assessment prior to EMR to identify features suggestive of poor outcome. Features associated with incomplete resection or recurrence include lesion size > 40 mm, ileocecal valve location, prior failed attempts at resection, and size, morphology, site, and access (SMSA) level 4. (Moderate quality evidence; strong recommendation.) 7  For intraprocedural bleeding, ESGE recommends endoscopic coagulation (snare-tip soft coagulation or coagulating forceps) or mechanical therapy, with or without the combined use of dilute adrenaline injection. (Low quality evidence, strong recommendation.)An algorithm of polypectomy recommendations according to shape and size of polyps is given (Fig. 1)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: The number of colonoscopies tremendously increased in recent years and will further rise in the near future. Because of patients' growing expectation on comfort during medical procedures, it is not surprising that the demand for sedation also expands. Propofol in combination with alfentanil is known to provide excellent analgosedation, however, its use is associated with respiratory and cardiovascular depression. Acupuncture could be a technique to reduce drug requirement while providing the same level of sedation and analgesia., Methods/design: The study will be performed as a single centre, randomised, placebo controlled trial. 153 patients scheduled for propofol/alfentanil sedation during colonoscopy will be randomly assigned to receive electroacupuncture (P6, ST36, LI4), sham acupuncture, or placebo acupuncture. Following endoscopy patients and gastroenterologists have to fill in questionnaires about their sedation experiences. Additionally, patients have to accomplish the Trieger test before and after the procedure. Patient monitoring includes time adapted HR, SpO2, ECG, NIBP, exCO2, OAA/S, and the Aldrete score. The primary outcome parameter is the dosage of propofol necessary for an adequate level of sedation to tolerate the procedure (OAA/S < 4). Effectiveness of sedation, classified by satisfaction levels measured by questionnaires is the secondary outcome parameter., Discussion: Moderate to deep sedation using propofol is increasingly applied during colonoscopies with a high satisfaction level among patients despite well-known hemodynamic and respiratory side effects of this hypnotic agent. Acupuncture is known to attenuate gastrointestinal discomfort and pain. We hypothesize that the combination of conventional sedation techniques with acupuncture may result in equally satisfied patients with a lower risk of respiratory and hemodynamic events during colonoscopies., Trial Registration: This trial is registered in the Nederland's Trial Register NTR 4325 . The first patient was randomized on 13 February 2014.

Background and Study Aims: Fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) are used to detect blood in feces, which might indicate the presence of colorectal neoplasia. The aim of this study was to investigate whether FIT results vary depending on the characteristics of colonic lesions., Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of lesions detected in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals (aged 50 - 75 years) who were invited to participate in a FIT-based screening pilot in The Netherlands. The mean FIT result was compared across subgroups of individuals defined by histopathology of the most advanced lesion detected. In addition, the results were compared with data from a primary colonoscopy screening trial, in which participants also completed a FIT., Results: In three rounds of FIT-based screening, a total of 877 FIT-positive individuals underwent colonoscopy. Higher mean FIT results (hemoglobin [Hb]/g feces) were observed in individuals with carcinomas (199 μg Hb/g) and advanced adenomas (87 μg Hb/g) compared with participants with nonadvanced adenomas (50 μg Hb/g) or those with serrated lesions (46 μg Hb/g) (P < 0.001). In the primary colonoscopy trial, 1256 participants completed a FIT test and underwent colonoscopy. The number of participants with nonadvanced adenomas as the most advanced lesion was comparable between this group and the FIT-based screening group (20 % vs. 22 %)., Conclusion: In FIT-based screening, the mean FIT results varied depending on the characteristics of the most advanced colonic lesion. The proportion of participants with a nonadvanced adenoma as the most advanced lesion was similar in the FIT-based screening group and in the primary colonoscopy screening group, suggesting that these lesions are coincidental findings rather than FIT-detected findings., Clinical Trial Registration: www.trialregister.nl number NTR2755., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background and Aims: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the most important surrogate quality parameter for colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. However, serrated polyps also are precursors of CRC. Large, prospective studies comparing the detection rate of serrated polyps among endoscopists in an era of awareness about the malignant potential of serrated polyps have not yet been performed. We aimed to compare the proximal serrated polyp (PSP) detection rate and the clinically relevant serrated polyp (RSP) detection rate among endoscopists and to analyze the association between these parameters and the ADR., Methods: Colonoscopy data were retrieved in one expert center between January 2011 and July 2014 by using a structured reporting system, enabling prospective and automatic quality assessment. Endoscopists who performed at least 50 colonoscopies within the timeframe were included for analysis. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare the ADR, PSP detection rate, and RSP detection rate among endoscopists. The association among these parameters was calculated by using the Pearson r correlation coefficient. All lesions were assessed by an expert pathologist., Results: In total, 16 endoscopists and 2088 colonoscopies were included for analysis. The PSP detection rate ranged from 2.9% to 18.6% (mean 10.4%) among endoscopists. Corrected for confounders, the odds ratio to detect ≥1 PSP, compared with endoscopists with the highest detection rate, ranged from 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-1.52) to 0.12 (95% CI, 0.03-0.55). The PSP detection rate was highly correlated with the RSP detection rate (ρ 0.94; P < .001), ranging from 4.3% to 20.9% (mean 13.9%). The PSP detection rate moderately correlated with the ADR (0.55; P = .03), which ranged from 23.2% to 49.2% (mean 35.2%)., Conclusions: The PSP detection rate is widely variable among endoscopists, strongly correlated with the RSP detection rate, and moderately correlated with the ADR. These results suggest a high miss rate of RSPs among endoscopists with low rates of PSP detection. Future research should determine the association between endoscopists' PSP detection rates and the risk of interval cancer., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The flexible endoscope is increasingly used to perform minimal invasive interventions. A novel add-on platform allows single-person control of both endoscope and instrument at the site of intervention. The setup changes the current routine of handling the endoscope. This study aims to determine if the platform allows effective and efficient manipulation to position the endoscope at potential intervention sites throughout the bowel. Five experts in flexible endoscopy first performed three colonoscopies on a computer simulator using the conventional angulation wheels. Next they trained with the joystick interface to achieve their personal level of intubation time with low pain score. 14 PhD students (novices) without hands-on experience performed the same colonoscopy case using either the conventional angulation wheels or joystick interface. Both novice groups trained to gain the average expert level. The cecal intubation time, pain score and visualization performance (% of bowel wall) were recorded. All experts reached their personal intubation time in 6 ± 6 sessions. Three experts completed their learning curve with low pain score in 8 ± 6 sessions. The novices required 11 ± 6 sessions using conventional angulation wheels, and 12 ± 6 sessions using the joystick interface. There was no difference in the visualization performance between the novice and between the expert groups. This study shows that the add-on platform enables endoscope manipulation required to perform colonoscopy. Experts need only a relatively short training period. Novices are as effective and as efficient in endoscope manipulation when comparing the add-on platform with conventional endoscope control.

Background: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is considered the most important quality indicator for colonoscopy and varies widely among colonoscopists. It is unknown whether the ADR of gastroenterology consultants can already be predicted during their colonoscopy training., Objective: To evaluate the ADR of fellows in gastroenterology and evaluate whether this predicts their ADR as gastroenterology consultants., Design: Retrospective observational study., Setting: Academic and regional centers., Patients: Symptomatic patients undergoing colonoscopy., Main Outcome Measurements: The variance in ADR among 7 gastroenterology fellows during their training (between May 2004 and March 2012) and of the same fellows after they registered as consultants (between October 2011 and April 2014) was evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to compare the highest detector (endoscopist with highest ADR) with the individual fellows and to evaluate whether an ADR of 20% or higher during the training was predictive of a high ADR as a consultant., Results: During training, ADRs ranged from 14% to 36% (P < .001). Compared with the highest detector, the OR for detecting an adenoma ranged from 0.64 (95% CI, 0.40-1.03) to 0.29 (95% CI, 0.17-0.48). After registration, ADR ranged from 19.8% to 40.2% (P = .066). Compared with the highest detector during consultancy, the OR ranged from 0.64 (95% CI, 0.34-1.21) to 0.26 (95% CI, 0.13-0.52). Only 2 fellows significantly improved their ADR after completing their training. An ADR lower than 20% during training was associated with a lower ADR as a consultant (OR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30-0.87)., Limitations: Retrospective study., Conclusions: Variance in ADR is already present during the endoscopy training of gastroenterology fellows. Most fellows do not improve their ADR after completing their training. These findings suggest that the ADR can be predicted during colonoscopy training, and we suggest that feedback and benchmarking should be implemented early during training of fellows in an effort to improve ADR in future daily practice as a consultant., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Goals: We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of screening colonoscopies in first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS)., Background: Patients with SPS are at an increased risk for colorectal cancer. Although inheritance patterns are unknown, FDRs of these patients have an increased risk for both colorectal cancer and SPS. Prospective studies evaluating the yield of screening colonoscopies in this group are however scarce. This information would be useful to evaluate a possible mode of inheritance and to investigate whether screening colonoscopies are justified in this group., Study: FDR of patients with SPS were invited to undergo colonoscopy. The diagnostic yield was expressed by the number of FDRs with at least 1 significant polyp relative to the total number of included FDRs. Significant polyps were defined adenomas, traditional serrated adenomas, sessile serrated adenoma/polyp, or proximal hyperplastic polyp. Tissue specimens were reviewed by one expert pathologist., Results: Seventy-seven FDRs underwent colonoscopy (median age 52 y; interquartile range, 41 to 60). Colorectal cancer was not diagnosed. One or more significant polyps were detected in 43% of FDRs. No differences based on age, gender, or familial relationship were observed in the detection of polyps. Seven first-degree (9%) relatives had multiple polyps (≥5). Eleven (14%) FDRs fulfilled SPS WHO-criterion 2, of whom 1 sibling also met SPS WHO-criterion 3., Conclusions: The yield of a single screening colonoscopy in FDRs of patients with serrated polyposis is substantial, warranting a colonoscopy screening program for these individuals.

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the detection of colorectal cancer and its precursors. Nevertheless multiple studies have demonstrated a significant miss-rate for polyps and, more importantly, demonstrated the occurrence of interval cancers in the years after colonoscopy. This imperfect protection against colorectal cancer can be explained by multiple factors related to both the endoscopist and the equipment. To ensure the quality of colonoscopy, several quality indicators have been described. These include bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate and complication rate. Measurement of these quality indicators, followed by awareness, benchmarking and additional training will hopefully optimize daily practice. If these basic quality parameters are well taken care of, advanced colonoscopic techniques will aim at further increasing the detection and differentiation of colonic lesions. In this review, the authors discuss the literature on quality indicators for colonoscopy and give a comprehensive overview of the advanced colonoscopic techniques currently available.

Background: Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is characterized by the presence of multiple serrated polyps spread throughout the colon. Patients with SPS are considered to be at risk of colorectal cancer and are advised to undergo endoscopic surveillance. Narrow-band imaging (NBI) may improve the detection of polyps during these surveillance colonoscopies., Objective: To compare polyp miss rates between NBI and high-resolution white-light endoscopy (HR-WLE)., Design: Multicenter, randomized, crossover study., Setting: Four tertiary referral institutions., Patients: A total of 52 patients with SPS undergoing surveillance colonoscopy., Intervention: All patients underwent back-to-back colonoscopies with HR-WLE and NBI in a randomized order., Main Outcome Measurements: Polyp miss rates of HR-WLE and NBI., Results: In the HR-WLE group, 116 polyps were detected during the first inspection. A second inspection with NBI added 47 polyps, resulting in an overall polyp miss rate of 29% with HR-WLE (95% confidence interval, 22-36). In the NBI group, a total of 128 polyps were detected during the first inspection. Subsequent inspection with HR-WLE added 32 polyps, resulting in an overall polyp miss rate of NBI of 20% (95% confidence interval, 15-27). Comparison of the overall polyp miss rates of HR-WLE and NBI showed no significant difference (P = .065)., Limitations: Small sample size; second inspection was performed by the same endoscopist., Conclusions: The results of our study suggest that NBI does not reduce polyp miss rates in patients with SPS compared with HR-WLE. Further multinational studies with larger numbers of patients are warranted to verify these results. (, Clinical Trial Registration Number: NTR2497.)., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Polyps of 1-5 mm are often detected during colonoscopy; these are only sporadically malignant. The removal, collection and pathological analysis of these polyps accounts for a significant part of the costs of a colonoscopy. The histologist's assessment is the gold standard and is endorsed in all guidelines for determination of the recommended interval for surveillance colonoscopy. If, however, it was possible to make a reliable endoscopic diagnosis of a polyp during colonoscopy the pathologist's assessment would not be needed. This strategy is known as optical diagnosis, and application would lead to cost-savings in the Netherlands. Before this strategy can be safely applied in practice minimal requirements for precision have to be met, and these are not fulfilled during use of white-light endoscopy. The development of electronic chromoendoscopy will lead to improved accuracy in endoscopic diagnosis of polyps.

Background and Study Aims: Endoscopic optical diagnosis can potentially replace histopathological evaluation of small colorectal lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate diagnostic performance of WavSTAT, a novel system for automatic optical diagnosis based on laser-induced autofluorescence spectroscopy., Patients and Methods: Consecutive patients who were scheduled for colonoscopy were included in the study. Each detected lesion with a size of ≤ 9 mm was differentiated using high resolution endoscopy (HRE) by the endoscopist, who then reported this as a low or high confidence call. Thereafter, all lesions were analyzed using WavSTAT. Histopathology was used as the reference standard. The primary outcome measures were the accuracy of WavSTAT to differentiate between adenomatous and nonadenomatous lesions, and the accuracy of an algorithm combining HRE (lesions differentiated with high confidence) and WavSTAT (all remaining lesions). The secondary outcome measure was the accuracy of on-site recommended surveillance intervals., Results: At total of 87 patients with 207 small colorectal lesions were evaluated. Accuracy and negative predictive value of WavSTAT were 74.4 % and 73.5 %, respectively. The corresponding figures for the algorithm were 79.2 % and 73.9 %, respectively. Accuracy of on-site recommended surveillance interval was 73.7 % for WavSTAT alone and 77.2 % for the algorithm of HRE and WavSTAT., Conclusions: Both accuracy of WavSTAT alone and the algorithm combining HRE with WavSTAT proved to be insufficient for the in vivo differentiation of small colorectal lesions, and do not fulfill American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance thresholds for assessment of diminutive lesions. Future studies should assess whether combining WavSTAT with more advanced imaging techniques could result in a higher accuracy.Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR 3235)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: We investigated the satisfaction of patients and endoscopists and concurrently safety aspects of an "alfentanil only" and two clinically routinely used sedation regimes in patients undergoing colonoscopy in a teaching hospital., Methods: One hundred and eighty patients were prospectively randomized in three groups: M (midazolam/fentanyl), A (alfentanil), and P (propofol/alfentanil); M and A were administered by an endoscopy nurse, P by an anesthesia nurse. Interventions, heart rate, saturation, electrocardiogram, noninvasive blood pressure, and expiratory CO₂ were monitored using video assistance. After endoscopy, patients and gastroenterologists completed questionnaires about satisfaction., Results: A high level of satisfaction was found in all groups, with patients in group P being more satisfied with their sedation experience (median 1.75, p < 0.001). Gastroenterologist satisfaction varied not significantly between the three alternatives. Patients in group A felt less drowsy, could communicate more rapidly than patients in both other groups, and met discharge criteria immediately after the end of the procedure. Respiratory events associated with sedation were observed in 43% patients in group M, 47% in group P, but only 13% in group A (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: These results suggest that alfentanil could be an alternative for sedation in colonoscopy even in the setting of a teaching hospital. It results in satisfied patients easily taking up information, and recovering rapidly. Although one might expect to observe more respiratory depression with an "opioid only" sedation technique without involvement of anesthesia partners, respiratory events were less frequent than when other methods were used.

Background & Aims: Patients with serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) are advised to undergo endoscopic surveillance for early detection of polyps and prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC). The optimal surveillance and treatment regimen is unknown. We performed a prospective study to evaluate a standardized endoscopic treatment protocol in a large cohort of patients with SPS., Methods: We followed a cohort of patients with SPS who received annual endoscopic surveillance at the Academic Medical Centre in Amsterdam, The Netherlands from January 2007 through December 2012. All patients underwent clearing colonoscopy with removal of all polyps ≥3 mm. After clearance, subsequent follow-up colonoscopies were scheduled annually. The primary outcomes measure was the incidence of CRC and polyps. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of complications and the rate of preventive surgery., Results: Successful endoscopic clearance of all polyps ≥3 mm was achieved in 41 of 50 (82%) patients. During subsequent annual surveillance, with a median follow-up time of 3.1 years (interquartile range, 1.5-4.3 years), CRC was not detected. The cumulative risks of detecting CRC, advanced adenomas, or large (≥10 mm) serrated polyps after 3 surveillance colonoscopies were 0%, 9%, 34%, respectively. Twelve patients (24%) were referred for preventive surgery; 9 at initial colonoscopy and 3 during surveillance. Perforations or severe bleeding did not occur., Conclusions: Annual surveillance with complete removal of all polyps ≥3 mm with timely referral of selected high-risk patients for prophylactic surgery prevents development of CRC in SPS patients without significant morbidity. Considering the substantial risk of polyp recurrence, close endoscopic surveillance in SPS seems warranted. www.trialregister.nl ID NTR2757., (Copyright © 2014 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To evaluate the yield and clinical impact of random biopsies taken during colonoscopic surveillance of patients with longstanding ulcerative colitis (UC)., Methods: Retrospective analysis of 1,010 colonoscopies performed from 1998 to 2008. Colonoscopy and pathology reports were reviewed to assess the yield and clinical impact of random biopsies. In total, 475 patients with UC who underwent colonoscopy at the Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam were included in this study. The main outcome measures are neoplasia yield per-colonoscopy and clinical impact per-patient of random biopsies., Results: Of all colonoscopies, 466 were performed for surveillance (in 167 patients) during which 11,772 random biopsies were taken (median 29). Overall, neoplasia was detected in 88 colonoscopies (53 patients): in 75 colonoscopies (85%) by targeted biopsies only and in 8 (9.1%) by both targeted and random biopsies. Neoplasia was detected in random biopsies only in five (5.7%) colonoscopies in four (7.5%) patients. Two of these four patients with neoplasia detected only by random biopsies had visible neoplasia in previous colonoscopies. One patient had unifocal low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN) that could not be confirmed in three subsequent colonoscopies. The last patient had multifocal LGIN and suspicious appearing ulcerations. Proctocolectomy confirmed the presence of neoplasia., Conclusions: The yield of random biopsies is low whereas UC-associated neoplasia is macroscopically visible in 94% of colonoscopies. During 10-year surveillance, neoplasia was detected in only random biopsies in four patients of whom only one had clinical consequences. The low yield and lack of clinical consequences from random biopsies in this high-risk population raise questions about the necessity and cost-effectiveness of their routine use during UC surveillance.

Background and Study Aims: The quality of colonoscopy can only be measured if colonoscopy reports include all key quality indicators. In daily practice, reporting is often incomplete and not standardized. This study describes a novel, structured colonoscopy reporting system, which aims to generate standardized and complete reports and to facilitate the automatic analysis of colonoscopy quality indicators., Methods: A new colonoscopy reporting system (EndoALPHA) was developed. The system reports all colonoscopy quality indicators, as well as pathological findings, in a systematic manner using structured terminology. All essential items carry specific codes, which enables statistical analysis and the automatic generation of reports of all quality indicators. The EndoALPHA reporting system was tested with regard to completeness of reporting and evaluation of quality indicators both for individual endoscopists and the endoscopy unit., Results: In 2012, all 810 colonoscopies performed at one colonoscopy center were documented using EndoALPHA. Overall, 94 % of performed colonoscopies were reported completely using the encoded terminology. Individual unadjusted cecal intubation rates were above 90 % for all endoscopists (mean 96.7 %), and the adenoma detection rate was above 20 % for all endoscopists (35.4 % for the unit)., Conclusion: The novel EndoALPHA reporting system enables automatic quality assessment on two levels: the completeness of reporting can be evaluated, and if this is adequate, the quality of the colonoscopies can also be assessed. Integrated with feedback, benchmarking and training, the reporting system may facilitate quality improvement for colonoscopy services., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Objective: Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is increasingly used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening but has a less than perfect sensitivity. Combining risk stratification, based on established risk factors for advanced neoplasia, with the FIT result for allocating screenees to colonoscopy could increase the sensitivity and diagnostic yield of FIT-based screening. We explored the use of a risk prediction model in CRC screening., Design: We collected data in the colonoscopy arm of the Colonoscopy or Colonography for Screening study, a multicentre screening trial. For this study 6600 randomly selected, asymptomatic men and women between 50 years and 75 years of age were invited to undergo colonoscopy. Screening participants were asked for one sample FIT (OC-sensor) and to complete a risk questionnaire prior to colonoscopy. Based on the questionnaire data and the FIT results, we developed a multivariable risk model with the following factors: total calcium intake, family history, age and FIT result. We evaluated goodness-of-fit, calibration and discrimination, and compared it with a model based on primary screening with FIT only., Results: Of the 1426 screening participants, 1112 (78%) completed the questionnaire and FIT. Of these, 101 (9.1%) had advanced neoplasia. The risk based model significantly increased the goodness-of-fit compared with a model based on FIT only (p<0.001). Discrimination improved significantly with the risk-based model (area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve: from 0.69 to 0.76, (p=0.02)). Calibration was good (Hosmer-Lemeshow test; p=0.94). By offering colonoscopy to the 102 patients at highest risk, rather than to the 102 cases with a FIT result >50 ng/mL, 5 more cases of advanced neoplasia would be detected (net reclassification improvement 0.054, p=0.073)., Conclusions: Adding risk based stratification increases the accuracy FIT-based CRC screening and could be used in preselection for colonoscopy in CRC screening programmes.

Background and Study Aims: Novel imaging techniques need to be evaluated for their ability to improve the detection of polyps. Critical appraisal of reported studies reveals remarkable differences in study designs, despite their similar objectives. The aim of the current study was to compare frequently used study designs for their required sample size to detect relevant differences in polyp detection rates., Patients and Methods: Three commonly reported study designs were compared: design 1, the parallel randomized design; design 2, the randomized cross-over design with direct removal of polyps; and design 3, the randomized cross-over design without direct removal of polyps. A total of five different scenarios were analyzed per study design, representing a variety of clinical settings. Each scenario was repeated 1000 times for each study design and the sample size that produced a significant result per study design in each scenario was recorded., Results: In many scenarios, study design 1 required 10-15 times more patients to reach the same statistical power of 80% compared with study design 2. Further reductions in sample size could be achieved when study design 3 was used, although this design is limited by its impracticality., Conclusions: The randomized parallel design requires a larger sample size to achieve equivalent power to the cross-over design. Researchers should carefully consider whether the latter design could be used instead, as it requires a lower number of subjects, although it may be more cumbersome for patients, endoscopists, and researchers., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Objective: To evaluate the level of informed decision making in a randomized controlled trial comparing colonoscopy and CT-colonography for colorectal cancer screening., Methods: 8844 citizens aged 50-75 were randomly invited to colonoscopy (n=5924) or CT-colonography (n=2920) screening. All invitees received an information leaflet. Screenees received a questionnaire within 4 weeks before the planned examination, non-screenees 4 weeks after the invitation. A decision was categorized as informed when characterized by sufficient decision-relevant knowledge and consistent with personal attitudes toward participation in screening., Results: Knowledge and attitude items were completed by 1032/1276 colonoscopy screenees (81%), by 698/4648 colonoscopy non-screenees (15%), by 824/982 CT-colonography screenees (84%) and by 192/1938 CT-colonography non-screenees (10%). 1027 colonoscopy screenees (>99%) and 815 CT-colonography screenees (99%) had adequate knowledge; 915 (89%) and 742 (90%) had a positive attitude. 675 non-screenees invited to colonoscopy (97%) and 182 invited to CT-colonography (95%) had adequate knowledge; 344 (49%) and 94 (49%) expressed a negative attitude., Conclusion: A large majority of screenees made an informed decision on participation. Almost half of responding non-screenees, made an uninformed decision, suggesting additional barriers to participation., Practice Implications: Efforts to understand the additional barriers will create opportunities to facilitate informed participation to colorectal cancer screening., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Insufficient detection of proximal serrated polyps (PSP) might explain the occurrence of a proportion of interval carcinomas in colonoscopy surveillance programs., Objective: To compare PSP detection among endoscopists and to identify patient-related and endoscopist-related factors associated with PSP detection., Design: Prospective study in unselected patients., Setting: Colonoscopy screening program for colorectal cancer at two academic medical centers., Patients: Asymptomatic consecutive screening participants (aged 50-75 years)., Intervention: Colonoscopies were performed by 5 experienced endoscopists. All detected polyps were removed. Multiple colonoscopy quality indicators were prospectively recorded., Main Outcome Measurements: We compared PSP detection among endoscopists by calculating odds ratios (OR) with logistic regression analysis. Logistic regression also was used to identify patient features and colonoscopy factors associated with PSP detection., Results: A total of 1354 patients underwent a complete screening colonoscopy: 1635 polyps were detected, of which 707 (43%) were adenomas and 685 (42%) were serrated polyps, including 215 PSPs. In 167 patients (12%) 1 or more PSPs were detected. The PSP detection rate differed significantly among endoscopists, ranging from 6% to 22% (P < .001). Longer withdrawal time (OR 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.16) was significantly associated with better PSP detection, whereas patient age, sex, and quality of bowel preparation were not., Limitations: Limited number of highly experienced endoscopists., Conclusion: The PSP detection rate differs among endoscopists. Longer withdrawal times are associated with better PSP detection, but patient features are not. (, Clinical Trial Registration Number: NTR1888.)., (Copyright © 2013 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Irrespective of the primary test used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, colonoscopy needs to be performed in positive screenees. This procedure is generally perceived as burdensome.We aimed to explore the burden of the colonoscopy in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-positive screenees., Trial Registration Number: NTR1327., Methods: Two weeks after their colonoscopy, a random sample of screenees in the Dutch CRC screening pilot who underwent colonoscopy after a positive FIT were asked to rate their experience on a five-point scale (1=not at all, 5=very) for embarrassment, pain, and burden. Aspects that would add to satisfaction and the level of disturbance of daily activity and sleep were also assessed., Results: Of 373 invited individuals, 273 (73 %)completed the questionnaire; 53% were men,mean age was 63 years (standard deviation [SD]7). The bowel preparation received the highest burden score (mean score 2.87, SD 1.28) and was chosen as the most burdensome aspect by 56%.The highest levels of pain were assigned to postcolonoscopy abdominal complaints (2.55, SD1.03). The procedure was rated as only slightly embarrassing (1.49, SD 0.68). Adequate explanation of the procedure, immediate discussion of preliminary colonoscopy results, and a short waiting time between FIT result and colonoscopy were selected most often as potential contributors to satisfaction., Conclusion: Bowel preparation and postcolonoscopy abdominal complaints are experienced as the most burdensome elements by persons undergoing colonoscopy in a FIT screening program. A more easily tolerable bowel preparation, carbondioxide insufflation, and adequate and timely communication are seen as measures to alleviate the burden and increase satisfaction with the procedure.

Background and Study Aims: Time limitations and unwanted health effects may act as barriers to participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The aim of the study was to measure the time requirements and health effects of colonoscopy and computed tomography colonography (CTC) screening., Patients and Methods: This was a prospective diary study in a consecutive sample within a randomized controlled CRC screening trial, comparing primary colonoscopy and CTC screening for average-risk individuals aged 50 - 74 years. The diary ended when all screening-related complaints had passed., Results: The diary was returned by 75 % (241/322) of colonoscopy and 75 % (127/170) of CTC screenees. The median interval between leaving home and returning from the examination was longer for colonoscopy (4 hours and 18 minutes [4:18], interquartile range [IQR] 3:30 - 5:00) than for CTC (2:30 hours, IQR 2:06 - 3:00; P < 0.001). Similarly, the time to return to routine activities was longer after colonoscopy (3:54 hours, IQR 1:48 - 15:00) than after CTC (1:36 hours, IQR 0:54 - 4:42). The duration of screening-related symptoms after the examination was shorter for colonoscopy (11:00 hours, IQR 2:54 - 20:00) than for CTC (22:00 hours; IQR 5:30 - 47:00; P < 0.001). Abdominal complaints were reported more frequently after CTC. Anxiety, pain, and quality of life worsened during the screening process, with no differences between the two examinations., Conclusions: Compared with colonoscopy, CTC screening required less time and allowed screenees to return to their daily activities more quickly. In contrast, CTC was associated with a twofold longer duration of screening-related symptoms. Feelings of anxiety, pain, and quality of life scores were similar during colonoscopy and CTC screening. These results should be incorporated into cost-effectiveness analyses of CRC screening techniques., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: Colonoscopy requires highly skill-dependent manoeuvres that demand a significant amount of training, and can cause considerable discomfort to patients, which increases the use of sedatives. Understanding the underlying fundamental mechanics behind insertion difficulties and pain during colonoscopy may help to simplify colonoscopy and reduce the required extent of training and reliance on sedatives., Methods: A literature search, anatomical studies, models of the colon and colonoscope, and bench tests were used to qualitatively analyze the fundamental mechanical causes of insertion difficulties and pain. A categorized review resulted in an overview of potential alternatives to current colonoscopes., Results: To advance a colonoscope through the colon, the colon wall, ligaments and peritoneum must be stretched, thus creating tension in the colon wall, which resists further wall deformation. This resistance forces the colonoscope to bend and follow the curves of the colon. The deformations that cause insertion difficulties and pain (necessitating the use of complex conventional manoeuvres) are the stretching of ligaments, and stretching of colon wall in the transverse and longitudinal directions, and the peritoneum., Conclusions: Four fundamental mechanical solutions to prevent these deformations were extracted from the analysis. The current results may help in the development of new colonoscopy devices that reduce - or eliminate - the necessity of using highly skill-dependent manoeuvres, facilitate training and reduce the use of sedatives.

Objectives: We compared reported reasons for participation and nonparticipation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening between colonoscopy and computed tomographic (CT) colonography in a randomized controlled trial., Methods: We randomly invited 8,844 people for screening by colonoscopy or CT colonography. On a questionnaire, invitees indicated reasons for participation or nonparticipation and indicated the most decisive reason., Results: The most frequently cited reasons to accept screening were early detection of precursor lesions and CRC, and contribution to science. The most frequently cited reasons to decline were the unpleasantness of the examination, the inconvenience of the preparation, a lack of symptoms, and "no time/too much effort." Among colonoscopy nonparticipants, elderly invitees cited inconvenience less often, and absence of symptoms more often, than did the group overall. The reason reported most frequently as the most decisive reason not to participate was the unpleasantness of the examination among colonoscopy nonparticipants, and "no time/too much effort" and lack of symptoms among CT colonography nonparticipants., Conclusions: In light of these results, future screening programs could tailor the information provided to invitees.

Objective: CT-colonography has been suggested to be less burdensome for primary colorectal cancer (CRC) screening than colonoscopy. To compare the expected and perceived burden of both in a randomised trial., Design: 8844 Dutch citizens aged 50-74 years were randomly invited for CRC screening with colonoscopy (n=5924) or CT-colonography (n=2920). Colonoscopy was performed after full colon lavage, or CT-colonography after limited bowel preparation (non-cathartic). All invitees were asked to complete the expected burden questionnaire before the procedure. All participants were invited to complete the perceived burden questionnaire 14 days later. Mean scores were calculated on 5-point scales., Results: Expected burden: 2111 (36%) colonoscopy and 1199 (41%) CT-colonography invitees completed the expected burden questionnaire. Colonoscopy invitees expected the bowel preparation and screening procedure to be more burdensome than CT-colonography invitees: mean scores 3.0±1.1 vs 2.3±0.9 (p<0.001) and 3.1±1.1 vs 2.2±0.9 (p<0.001). Perceived burden: 1009/1276 (79%) colonoscopy and 801/982 (82%) CT-colonography participants completed the perceived burden questionnaire. The full screening procedure was reported as more burdensome in CT-colonography than in colonoscopy: 1.8±0.9 vs 2.0±0.9 (p<0.001). Drinking the bowel preparation resulted in a higher burden score in colonoscopy (3.0±1.3 vs 1.7±1.0, p<0.001) while related bowel movements were scored more burdensome in CT-colonography (2.0±1.0 vs 2.2±1.1, p<0.001). Most participants would probably or definitely take part in a next screening round: 96% for colonoscopy and 93% for CT-colonography (p=0.99)., Conclusion: In a CRC screening programme, colonoscopy invitees expected the screening procedure and bowel preparation to be more burdensome than CT-colonography invitees. In participants, CT-colonography was scored as more burdensome than colonoscopy. Intended participation in a next screening round was comparable.

Objective: Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is increasingly used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We aimed to estimate its diagnostic accuracy in invitational population screening measured against colonoscopy., Methods: Participants (50-75 years) in an invitational primary colonoscopy screening program were asked to complete one sample FIT before colonoscopy. We estimated FIT sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values in detecting CRC and advanced neoplasia (carcinomas and advanced adenomas) for cutoff levels of 50 (FIT50), 75 (FIT75), and 100 (FIT100) ng hemoglobin (Hb)/ml, corresponding with, respectively, 10, 15 and 20 μg Hb/g feces., Results: A total of 1,256 participants underwent a FIT and screening colonoscopy. Advanced neoplasia was detected by colonoscopy in 119 (9%), 8 (0.6%) of them had CRC. At FIT50, 121 (10%) had a positive test result; 45 (37%) had advanced neoplasia and 7 (6%) had CRC. A total of 74 of 1,135 FIT50 negatives (7%) had advanced neoplasia including 1 (0.1%) CRC. FIT50 had a sensitivity of 38% (95% confidence interval (CI): 29-47) for advanced neoplasia and 88% (95% CI: 37-99) for CRC at a specificity of 93% (95% CI: 92-95) and 91% (95% CI: 89-92), respectively. The positive and negative predictive values for FIT50 were 6% (95% CI: 3-12) and almost 100% (95% CI: 99-100) for CRC, and 37% (95% CI: 29-46) and 93% (95% CI: 92-95) for advanced neoplasia. The sensitivity and specificity of FIT75 for advanced neoplasia were 33% (95% CI: 25-42) and 96% (95% CI: 94-97). At FIT100, 71 screenees (6%) had a positive test result. The sensitivity and specificity of FIT100 were for advanced neoplasia 31% (95% CI: 23-40) and 97% (95% CI: 96-98), and for CRC 75% (95% CI: 36-96) and 95% (95% CI: 93-96). The area under curve for detecting advanced neoplasia was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.64-0.76). FIT had a similar sensitivity for proximal and distal advanced neoplasia at cutoffs of 50 (38% vs. 37%; P=0.99), 75 (33% vs. 31%; P=0.85) and 100 (33% vs. 29%; P=0.68) ng Hb/ml., Discussion: Nine out of ten screening participants with CRC and four out of ten with advanced neoplasia will be detected using one single FIT at low cutoff. Sensitivity in detecting proximal and distal advanced neoplasia is comparable.

Objective: Conventional colonoscopy (CC) is considered the reference standard for detection of colorectal neoplasia, but it can still miss a substantial number of adenomas. The use of a transparent plastic cap may improve colonic visualisation. Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) was compared with CC for adenoma detection. Secondary outcomes were caecal intubation time, caecal intubation rate and the degree of discomfort of colonoscopy., Design: This is a parallel, randomised, controlled trial at two centres. Asymptomatic participants (aged 50-75 years) in a primary colonoscopy screening programme were consecutively invited. Consenting subjects were 1:1 randomised to either CAC or CC. All colonoscopies were performed by experienced endoscopists (≥ 1000 colonoscopies) who were trained in CAC. Colonoscopy quality indicators were prospectively recorded., Results: A total of 1380 participants were randomly allocated to CC (N=694) or CAC (N=686). Caecal intubation rate was comparable in the two groups (98% vs 99%; p=0.29). Caecal intubation time was significantly lower in the CAC group: 7.7 ± 5.0 min with CAC vs 8.9 ± 6.2 min with CC (p<0.001) (values mean ± SD). Adenoma detection rates of all endoscopists were ≥ 20%. The proportion of subjects with at least one adenoma was similar in the two groups (28% vs 28%; RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16), as well as the mean number of adenomas per subject (0.49 ± 1.05 vs 0.50 ± 1.03; p=0.91). Detection of small size, flat and proximally located adenomas was comparable. CAC participants had lower Gloucester Comfort Scores during colonoscopy (2.2 ± 1.0 vs 2.0 ± 1.0; p=0.03)., Conclusion: CAC does not improve adenoma detection, but does reduce caecal intubation time by more than 1 min and does lessen the degree of discomfort during colonoscopy.

Background: A pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is necessary to assess a screenee's general health status and to explain benefits and risks of screening. The first option allows for personal attention, whereas a telephone consultation does not require travelling. We hypothesised that a telephone consultation would lead to higher response and participation in CRC screening compared with a face-to-face consultation., Methods: A total of 6600 persons (50-75 years) were 1:1 randomised for primary colonoscopy screening with a pre-colonoscopy consultation either face-to-face or by telephone. In both arms, we counted the number of invitees who attended a pre-colonoscopy consultation (response) and the number of those who subsequently attended colonoscopy (participation), relative to the number invited for screening. A questionnaire regarding satisfaction with the consultation and expected burden of the colonoscopy (scored on five-point rating scales) was sent to invitees. Besides, a questionnaire to assess the perceived burden of colonoscopy was sent to participants, 14 days after the procedure., Results: In all, 3302 invitees were allocated to the telephone group and 3298 to the face-to-face group, of which 794 (24%) attended a telephone consultation and 822 (25%) a face-to-face consultation (P=0.41). Subsequently, 674 (20%) participants in the telephone group and 752 (23%) in the face-to-face group attended colonoscopy (P=0.018). Invitees and responders in the telephone group expected the bowel preparation to be more painful than those in the face-to-face group while perceived burden scores for the full screening procedure were comparable. More subjects in the face-to-face group than in the telephone group were satisfied by the consultation in general: (99.8% vs 98.5%, P=0.014)., Conclusion: Using a telephone rather than a face-to-face consultation in a population-based CRC colonoscopy screening programme leads to similar response rates but significantly lower colonoscopy participation.

Background & Aims: When small colorectal lesions are accurately characterized, adenomas can be removed and discarded without formal histopathology analysis. Previous studies in an academic setting showed that many lesions can be managed accurately on the basis of their endoscopic image (optical diagnosis). We performed a prospective study to assess the accuracy of optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps in a nonacademic setting (the DISCOUNT trial) by using high-resolution endoscopy (HRE) and narrow-band imaging (NBI)., Methods: During colonoscopy, 1 of 3 nonacademic endoscopists characterized small lesions and declared whether this was done with low or high confidence. In cases of high confidence, the endoscopists decided whether lesions should be removed and discarded or whether they could be left in situ. A surveillance interval was then recommended on-site., Results: Of 215 patients in the study, 108 were found to have 281 small lesions. Of these lesions, 231 were characterized with high confidence by using HRE or NBI; the level of corresponding sensitivity was 77.0% (95% confidence interval, 68.4-83.8), and specificity was 78.8% (95% confidence interval, 70.6-85.2). Of these lesions, 164 were assigned for removal, and 67 were assigned to remain in situ, including 9 adenomas. In 54 patients, a surveillance interval could be recommended on-site that was in line with Dutch guidelines for 44 patients., Conclusions: Even though many lesions were characterized by HRE or NBI with high confidence, optical diagnosis in a nonacademic setting proved to be disappointing, with a sensitivity of 77.0% and a specificity of 78.8%. Many lesions were accurately assigned to be removed or remain in situ, although few adenomas were assigned to remain in situ. Also, 19% of on-site recommendations for a surveillance interval proved to be inaccurate., (Copyright © 2012 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Colonoscopy is a proven method for bowel cancer screening and is often experienced as a painful procedure. Today, there are two main strategies to facilitate colonoscopy. First, deep sedation results in satisfied patients but increases sedation-associated risks and raises costs for healthcare providers. Second, there is the advocacy for colonoscopies without any form of sedation. This might be an option for a special group of patients, but does not hold true for everybody. Following Moerman's hypothesis: "If pain is the crucial point, why do we need sedation?" this review shows the analgesic options for a painless procedure, increasing success rates without increasing risk of sedation. There are two agents, with the potential to be a nearly ideal analgesic agent for colonoscopy: alfentanil and nitrous oxide (N(2)O). Administration of either substance causes the patient to be comfortable yet alert and facilitates a short turnover. Advantages of these drugs include rapid onset and offset of action, analgesic and anxiolytic effects, ease of titration to desired level, rapid recovery, and an excellent safety profile.

Background: The endoscope-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (eCLE) system allows in vivo imaging of colorectal epithelium. Little is known about the learning curve for accurate interpretation of confocal images acquired with eCLE., Objective: To determine the learning curve of eCLE, its diagnostic accuracy, and the intra- and interobserver agreement for the differentiation of colorectal lesions., Design: Post hoc assessment of selected eCLE images., Setting: Academic centers., Patients: This study involved colonoscopic images from 47 patients., Main Outcome Measurements: Learning curve of eCLE, accuracy, and intraobserver and interobserver agreement., Methods: Three endoscopists received a short introduction to eCLE before evaluating 90 images. Observers assessed all eCLE images by using the Mainz classification. After each set of 30 images, the accuracy of each observer was assessed. The same procedure was repeated 6 months later by using the same set of images., Limitations: Post hoc assessment., Results: There were no significant changes between the first set of 30 images and the 2 consecutive sets (P = .08 and P = .180, respectively). The overall accuracy was 85.6%, 95.6%, and 92.2% for each observer. The κ values of the intraobserver agreement were 0.68, 0.84, and 0.77 for each observer. The κ value for interobserver agreement was 0.73 during the first and 0.72 during the second assessment., Conclusions: Accurate post hoc interpretation of eCLE confocal images can be learned quickly. High diagnostic accuracy was achieved by all 3 observers during the initial stage of the assessment, which remained high thereafter. Intra- and interobserver agreement was substantial for all 3 observers. Future studies should focus on the real-time assessment of eCLE images., (Copyright © 2012 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Several advanced imaging techniques have been developed to improve differentiation of colorectal lesions. These techniques need to be assessed for both feasibility and accuracy in order to prove their value in daily clinical practice. The current study assessed the feasibility of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) in acquiring videos of sufficient quality. Furthermore, the accuracy of pCLE for the differentiation of colorectal lesions was assessed and compared with narrow-band imaging (NBI) and chromoendoscopy (CE)., Methods: Consecutive patients scheduled for surveillance colonoscopy at our centre were included. All procedures were performed by two expert colonoscopists, who previously participated in studies evaluating pCLE, NBI, and CE. All detected lesions during colonoscopy were differentiated real-time with NBI and CE for Kudo pit pattern. Lesions were also assessed real-time for vascular pattern intensity (VPI) during NBI. Subsequently, pCLE videos of each lesion were acquired and biopsies were taken for histopathology. All pCLE videos were assessed post-hoc for the percentage of time demonstrating sufficient image quality (i.e., depicting at least one crypt or vessel). Finally, pCLE videos were assessed post-hoc for diagnostic accuracy by two experts., Results: A total of 154 lesions detected in 64 patients were included. Accuracy of Kudo pit pattern with NBI for predicting neoplasia (88.7%) was significantly better than accuracy of VPI (77.5%, P = 0.05) but not significantly different from CE (89.3%, P = 0.125). During pCLE, no histology was shown at all on the video in 19 lesions (12%). The mean time to acquire a pCLE video of the remaining 135 lesions was 50 seconds (s.d. 47) per lesion. The median percentage demonstrating sufficient quality per video was 40.5% (interquartile range 21.2-67.0). Accuracy of pCLE for both observers (66.7 and 71.9%) was significantly lower than accuracy of CE (P < 0.001) and NBI (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Video acquisition with pCLE could not be achieved in a small number of lesions. The majority of pCLE videos demonstrated insufficient quality in more than half of the time recorded. Moreover, post-hoc accuracy of pCLE was significantly lower in comparison with real-time accuracy of CE and NBI. Future research should assess whether further increase in experience could improve pCLE video acquisition and determine the real-time accuracy of pCLE for differentiating colorectal lesions.

Background: Residual neoplasia after EMR of colorectal lesions is common. There is a critical need for imaging methods to accurately diagnose residual disease and to guide retreatment in real time., Objective: The aim was to estimate and compare the accuracy of virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE) and probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) for detection of residual neoplastic tissue at the site of prior EMR., Design: Prospective, blind, pilot comparison of advanced endoscopic imaging (VCE and pCLE) by using matching histology as reference standard., Setting: Three tertiary-care referral hospitals., Patients: This study involved 92 participants who underwent follow-up colonoscopies for the evaluation of prior EMR sites within 1 year., Intervention: The EMR scars were assessed during follow-up high-resolution colonoscopy by using VCE (narrow-band imaging/Fujinon Intelligent Color Enhancement [FICE]), and pCLE. Confocal videos of EMR scars were interpreted in real time and were also stored and reviewed offline, blinded to histopathology and endoscopic appearance. Tissue confirmation by biopsies or polypectomy/repeat EMR was performed in all cases., Main Outcome Measurements: Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for VCE and pCLE alone and in combination against histopathology as the standard reference standard., Results: Among 129 EMR scars, residual neoplasia was confirmed by histology in 29 sites (22%). For VCE, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were 72%, 77%, 49%, 91%, and 77%, respectively, and were 97%, 77%, 55%, 99%, and 81% for pCLE (P = .045 for sensitivity). When only EMR scars for which VCE and pCLE agreed on the diagnosis were analyzed (95/129 scars), the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of pCLE and VCE were 90%, 100%, 87%, 67%, and 100%, respectively., Limitations: Small sample size, lack of power, involvement of highly experienced pCLE experts., Conclusion: Confocal endomicroscopy significantly increases the sensitivity for detecting residual neoplasia after colorectal EMR compared with endoscopy alone. When confocal endomicroscopy is used in combination with VCE, the accuracy is extremely high, and sensitivity approaches that of histopathology. Together, they may reduce the need for histologic examination and allow a highly accurate on-table decision to treat again or not, thus avoiding unnecessary repeat procedures. (, Clinical Trial Registration Number: 00874263.)., (Copyright © 2012 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Screening for colorectal cancer is widely recommended, but the preferred strategy remains unidentified. We aimed to compare participation and diagnostic yield between screening with colonoscopy and with non-cathartic CT colonography., Methods: Members of the general population, aged 50-75 years, and living in the regions of Amsterdam or Rotterdam, identified via the registries of the regional municipal administration, were randomly allocated (2:1) to be invited for primary screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy or by CT colonography. Randomisation was done per household with a minimisation algorithm based on age, sex, and socioeconomic status. Invitations were sent between June 8, 2009, and Aug 16, 2010. Participants assigned to CT colonography who were found to have one or more large lesions (≥10 mm) were offered colonoscopy; those with 6-9 mm lesions were offered surveillance CT colonography. The primary outcome was the participation rate, defined as number of invitees undergoing the examination relative to the total number of invitees. Diagnostic yield was calculated as number of participants with advanced neoplasia relative to the total number of invitees. Invitees and screening centre employees were not masked to allocation. This trial is registered in the Dutch trial register, number NTR1829., Findings: 1276 (22%) of 5924 colonoscopy invitees participated, compared with 982 (34%) of 2920 CT colonography invitees (relative risk [RR] 1·56, 95% CI 1·46-1·68; p<0·0001). Of the participants in the colonoscopy group, 111 (9%) had advanced neoplasia of whom seven (<1%) had a carcinoma. Of CT colonography participants, 84 (9%) were offered colonoscopy, of whom 60 (6%) had advanced neoplasia of whom five (<1%) had a carcinoma; 82 (8%) were offered surveillance. The diagnostic yield for all advanced neoplasia was 8·7 per 100 participants for colonoscopy versus 6·1 per 100 for CT colonography (RR 1·46, 95% CI 1·06-2·03; p=0·02) and 1·9 per 100 invitees for colonoscopy and 2·1 per 100 invitees for CT colonography (RR 0·91, 0·66-2·03; p=0·56). The diagnostic yield for advanced neoplasia of 10 mm or more was 1·5 per 100 invitees for colonoscopy and 2·0 per 100 invitees for CT colonography, respectively (RR 0·74, 95% CI 0·53-1·03; p=0·07). Serious adverse events related to the screening procedure were post-polypectomy bleedings: two in the colonoscopy group and three in the CT colonography group., Interpretation: Participation in colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography was significantly better than with colonoscopy, but colonoscopy identified significantly more advanced neoplasia per 100 participants than did CT colonography. The diagnostic yield for advanced neoplasia per 100 invitees was similar for both strategies, indicating that both techniques can be used for population-based screening for colorectal cancer. Other factors such as cost-effectiveness and perceived burden should be taken into account when deciding which technique is preferable., Funding: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Centre for Translational Molecular Medicine, and the Nuts Ohra Foundation., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE; Cellvizio, Mauna Kea Technologies, Paris, France) enables in vivo histology during colonoscopy and may allow endoscopists to make real-time diagnoses. A collaboration of five experts proposed a new pCLE classification for colonic use. The aim of this study was to assess interobserver agreement and accuracy of the new pCLE classification in the colon., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were prospectively investigated by pCLE. A subset of 13 pCLE video sequences was reviewed post hoc for the establishment of a new classification, which comprised three vessel categories and seven crypt categories. All five blinded observers then scored another set of 102 video sequences, using the new classification. Histopathology was used as a reference standard., Results: The interobserver agreements on vessel and crypt architecture were 'fair' with kappa values of 0.29 and 0.27, respectively. When the classification was reduced to neoplasia vs. non-neoplasia (i.e. vessel or crypt type 3), overall agreement became 'moderate' (κ = 0.56). Overall sensitivity and specificity for predicting neoplasia was 66 % and 83 %, respectively. When all observers agreed (69 % of videos), the corresponding figures became 80 % and 95 %., Conclusion: A new classification for pCLE in the colon had a 'moderate' interobserver agreement for differentiating neoplasia from non-neoplastic tissue in the colon. The overall accuracy (81 %) for predicting neoplasia was acceptable and became excellent (94 %) when all five observers agreed. Future research should focus on refinement and validation of the classification., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) represents a noninvasive technology that allows visualization of the colon without requiring sedation and air insufflation. A second-generation colon capsule endoscopy system (PillCam Colon 2) (CCE-2) was developed to increase sensitivity for colorectal polyp detection compared with the first-generation system., Objective: To assess the feasibility, accuracy, and safety of CCE-2 in a head-to-head comparison with colonoscopy., Design and Setting: Prospective, multicenter trial including 8 European sites., Patients: This study involved 117 patients (mean age 60 years). Data from 109 patients were analyzed., Intervention: CCE-2 was prospectively compared with conventional colonoscopy as the criterion standard for the detection of colorectal polyps that are ≥6 mm or masses in a cohort of patients at average or increased risk of colorectal neoplasia. Colonoscopy was independently performed within 10 hours after capsule ingestion or on the next day., Main Outcome Measurements: CCE-2 sensitivity and specificity for detecting patients with polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm were assessed. Capsule-positive but colonoscopy-negative cases were counted as false positive. Capsule excretion rate, level of bowel preparation, and rate of adverse events also were assessed., Results: Per-patient CCE-2 sensitivity for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm was 84% and 88%, with specificities of 64% and 95%, respectively. All 3 invasive carcinomas were detected by CCE-2. The capsule excretion rate was 88% within 10 hours. Overall colon cleanliness for CCE-2 was adequate in 81% of patients., Limitations: Not unblinding the CCE-2 results at colonoscopy; heterogenous patient population; nonconsecutive patients., Conclusion: In this European, multicenter study, CCE-2 appeared to have a high sensitivity for the detection of clinically relevant polypoid lesions, and it might be considered an adequate tool for colorectal imaging., (Copyright © 2011 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Study Aims: Hyperplastic polyposis syndrome (HPS) is associated with colorectal cancer and is characterized by multiple hyperplastic polyps, sessile serrated adenomas (SSAs) and adenomas. Narrow band imaging (NBI) may improve the detection of polyps in HPS. We aimed to compare polyp miss rates with NBI with those of high resolution endoscopy (HRE)., Patients and Methods: In a single center, randomized crossover study consecutive HPS patients underwent tandem colonoscopy with HRE and NBI, in randomized order with removal of all detected polyps., Results: In 22 patients with HPS, 209 polyps were detected, including 27 with normal histology, 116 hyperplastic polyps, 42 SSAs, and 24 adenomas. Among patients assigned to HRE first (n = 11) a total of 78 polyps was detected; subsequent NBI added 44 polyps. In patients examined with NBI first, 78 polyps were detected and subsequent HRE added 9. Polyp miss rates of HRE and NBI were 36% and 10% (OR 0.21; 0.09-0.45). Flat polyp shape was independently associated with increased miss rate., Conclusion: NBI significantly reduces polyp miss rates in HPS patients. We recommend using either NBI or chromoendoscopy for colonoscopic surveillance of HPS patients with removal of all detected polyps., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background & Aims: Endoscopic trimodal imaging (ETMI) is a novel endoscopic technique that combines high-resolution endoscopy (HRE), autofluorescence imaging (AFI), and narrow-band imaging (NBI) that has only been studied in academic settings. We performed a randomized, controlled trial in a nonacademic setting to compare ETMI with standard video endoscopy (SVE) in the detection and differentiation of colorectal lesions., Methods: The study included 234 patients scheduled to receive colonoscopy who were randomly assigned to undergo a colonoscopy in tandem with either ETMI or SVE. In the ETMI group (n=118), first examination was performed using HRE, followed by AFI. In the other group, both examinations were performed using SVE (n=116). In the ETMI group, detected lesions were differentiated using AFI and NBI., Results: In the ETMI group, 87 adenomas were detected in the first examination (with HRE), and then 34 adenomas were detected during second inspection (with AFI). In the SVE group, 79 adenomas were detected during the first inspection, and then 33 adenomas were detected during the second inspection. Adenoma detection rates did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (ETMI: 1.03 vs SVE: 0.97, P=.360). The adenoma miss-rate was 29% for HRE and 28% for SVE. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of NBI in differentiating adenomas from nonadenomatous lesions were 87%, 63%, and 75%, respectively; corresponding values for AFI were 90%, 37%, and 62%, respectively., Conclusions: In a nonacademic setting, ETMI did not improve the detection rate for adenomas compared with SVE. NBI and AFI each differentiated colonic lesions with high levels of sensitivity but low levels of specificity., (Copyright © 2011 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Study Aim: Colonic perforation is a serious complication of colonoscopy, with surgical repair usually indicated. The aim was to compare acute strength of various endoscopic colonic closure techniques by assessing air leak pressures in a previously described ex vivo experimental apparatus., Methods: Standardized colonic perforations were created using fresh porcine colon and subsequently closed on a bench. Six techniques included surgical suture (gold standard), QuickClips, T-tags, over-the-scope-clip (OTSC) system, and two types of flexible stapler (Covidien). After closure, each specimen was fixed in the apparatus and pressure was gradually increased until air bubbles were seen. Leak pressure was the primary outcome parameter. Closure using the gold standard (first 15 experiments) resulted in a mean leak pressure of 86.9 mmHg (SD 7). Using a noninferiority design a sample size of 12 specimens for each closure technique was determined., Results: Mean colotomy leak pressures in millimeters of mercury (mmHg) and difference (with 95% confidence intervals [CI]) between each technique and the gold standard were: QuickClips 85.1 (difference -1.8; 95% CI -7.0 to 3.9); T-tags 53.9 (difference -33.0; -39.0 to -27.0); OTSC 90.3 mmHg (difference 3.4; -6.1 to 12.9); 15-mm shaft stapler 98.5 mmHg (difference 9.7; 0.8 to 18.5) and 8-mm shaft stapler 96.6 mmHg (difference 11.6; 1.5 to 21.7)., Conclusions: OTSCs, QuickClips, and both flexible staplers produced results comparable to hand-sewn colotomy closure in this ex vivo porcine colonic model. These devices seem to be prime candidates for further evaluation in survival animal studies., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background and Aims: Surveillance of patients with ulcerative colitis consists of taking targeted and random biopsies, which is time-consuming and of doubtful efficiency. The use of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) may increase efficiency. This prospective pilot study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of pCLE in ulcerative colitis surveillance., Methods: In 22 patients with ulcerative colitis, 48 visible lesions and 87 random areas were initially evaluated by real-time narrow-band imaging (NBI) and high-definition endoscopy (HDE). Before taking biopsies, fluorescein-enhanced pCLE was performed. All pCLE videos were scored afterwards by two endoscopists who were blinded to histology and endoscopy. Outcome measures were: (1) the feasibility of pCLE, expressed as pCLE imaging time required, percentage of imaging time with clear pCLE histology, and pCLE video quality as rated by two endoscopists; and (2) the diagnostic accuracy of pCLE., Results: The median pCLE imaging time required was 98 seconds for lesions vs. 66 seconds for random areas ( P = 0.002). The median percentages of imaging time with clear pCLE histology were 61 % vs. 81 % respectively ( P < 0.001). The pCLE video quality was rated as good/excellent in 69 %. Feasibility was significantly poorer for sessile and pedunculated mobile lesions. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of blinded pCLE were 65 %, 82 %, and 81 %, whereas these figures were 100 %, 89 %, and 92 % for real-time endoscopic diagnosis with NBI and HDE., Conclusion: This study demonstrates that pCLE for ulcerative colitis surveillance is feasible with reasonable diagnostic accuracy. Future research should show whether increased experience with pCLE improves its ease of use and whether real-time pCLE diagnosis is associated with greater diagnostic accuracy., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)