Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Latest Generation High-Definition Colonoscopy Increases Adenoma Detection Rate by Trainee Endoscopists

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality indicator of colonoscopy. High-definition (HD) colonoscopy has been reported to increase ADR compared to standard-definition (SD) colonoscopy. Although there are few reports comparing the latest generation and the previous generation of HD colonoscopy equipment, there are reports that the latest generation colonoscopy equipment improves ADR. However, there are no reports on the impact of the latest generation HD colonoscopy on the ADR of trainee endoscopists.

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the latest generation HD colonoscopy increases the ADR of trainee endoscopists compared with the previous generation HD colonoscopy.

Method

We conducted a retrospective review of medical records of patients aged 40–79 years old, who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopy performed by nine gastroenterology fellows at Dong-A University Hospital from March 2019 to February 2020. We calculated the overall ratios of the ADR: the ADRs of the group using the older generation HD colonoscopy equipment and the group using the latest HD colonoscopy equipment. Polyp detection rate (PDR), sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR), and advanced neoplasia detection rate (ANDR) were calculated for each group. Factors related to adenoma detection were identified using logistic regression analysis.

Results

Altogether, 2189 patients were included in the study (the older HD colonoscopy group comprising 1183 and the latest HD colonoscopy group comprising 1006). We found that PDR (45.98 vs. 51.69%, p = 0.008) and ADR (35.67 vs. 40.85%, p = 0.013) were significantly higher in the latest generation HD colonoscopy group. The generational differences were not statistically significant for SSPDR (1.94 vs. 2.78%, p = 0.195) or ANDR (4.65 vs. 4.97%, p = 0.726). In the multivariate regression analysis, age, male sex, the latest generation HD colonoscopy, and long withdrawal time were the most significant factors affecting adenoma detection.

Conclusions

The latest generation HD colonoscopy improved PDR and ADR by trainee endoscopists. These findings suggest that latest generation, higher-resolution colonoscopy equipment can improve the quality of colonoscopy for less experienced endoscopists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin.. 2018;68:394–424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schoenfeld P, Cash B, Flood A, et al. Colonoscopic screening of average-risk women for colorectal neoplasia. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2061–2068. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa042990.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008;134:1570–1595. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2008.02.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jacob BJ, Moineddin R, Sutradhar R, Baxter NN, Urbach DR. Effect of colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: an instrumental variable analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:355.e1–364.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2012.03.247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:687–696. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1100370.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Citarda F, Tomaselli G, Capocaccia R, Barcherini S, Crespi M. Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence. Gut. 2001;48:812–815. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.48.6.812.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy: The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1977–1981. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199312303292701.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Doubeni CA, Corley DA, Quinn VP, et al. Effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in reducing the risk of death from right and left colon cancer: a large community-based study. Gut. 2018;67:291–298. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312712.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, Saskin R, Stukel TA. Association between colonoscopy rates and colorectal cancer mortality. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1627–1632. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2010.83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Adler J, Robertson DJ. Interval colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: exploring explanations and solutions. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:1657–1664. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2015.365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1298–1306. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1309086.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1795–1803. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0907667.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rutter MD, Beintaris I, Valori R, et al. World endoscopy organization consensus statements on post-colonoscopy and post-imaging colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2018;155:909.e3–925.e3. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2018.05.038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M, et al. Increased rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:98–105. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.04.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zorzi M, Senore C, Da Re F, et al. Detection rate and predictive factors of sessile serrated polyps in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme with immunochemical faecal occult blood test: the EQuIPE study (evaluating quality indicators of the performance of endoscopy). Gut. 2017;66:1233–1240. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310587.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Leufkens AM, DeMarco DC, Rastogi A, et al. Effect of a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: the TERRACE study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:480–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2010.09.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gralnek IM, Siersema PD, Halpern Z, et al. Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy versus full-spectrum endoscopy: an international, multicentre, randomised, tandem colonoscopy trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:353–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70020-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Dik VK, Gralnek IM, Segol O, et al. Multicenter, randomized, tandem evaluation of EndoRings colonoscopy–results of the CLEVER study. Endoscopy. 2015;47:1151–1158. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1392421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang P, Berzin TM, Glissen Brown JR, et al. Real-time automatic detection system increases colonoscopic polyp and adenoma detection rates: a prospective randomised controlled study. Gut. 2019;68:1813–1819. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. DeWitt J, Van Dam J. Development of endoscopy- gastroenterology diamond jubilee review. Gastroenterology. 2018;155:237–240. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2018.04.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Yasser MBKAD, Chauhan SS, Gottlieb KT, et al. High-definition and high-magnification endoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80:919–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2014.06.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Longcroft-Wheaton G, Brown J, Cowlishaw D, Higgins B, Bhandari P. High-definition vs standard-definition colonoscopy in the characterization of small colonic polyps: results from a randomized trial. Endoscopy. 2012;44:905–910. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1310004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Roelandt P, Demedts I, Willekens H, et al. Impact of endoscopy system, high definition, and virtual chromoendoscopy in daily routine colonoscopy: a randomized trial. Endoscopy. 2019;51:237–243. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0755-7471.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zimmermann-Fraedrich K, Groth S, Sehner S, et al. Effects of two instrument-generation changes on adenoma detection rate during screening colonoscopy: results from a prospective randomized comparative study. Endoscopy. 2018;50:878–885. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0607-2636.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bond A, O’Toole P, Fisher G, et al. New-generation high-definition colonoscopes increase adenoma detection when screening a moderate-risk population for colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2017;16:44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clcc.2016.07.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Park SK, Park SH, Yang HJ, et al. Simple proxies for detection of clinically significant serrated polyps and data for their benchmarks. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.14977.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Adler A, Aminalai A, Aschenbeck J, et al. Latest generation, wide-angle, high-definition colonoscopes increase adenoma detection rate. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:155–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2011.10.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Jrebi NY, Hefty M, Jalouta T, et al. High-definition colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:78–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4986-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pioche M, Denis A, Allescher HD, et al. Impact of 2 generational improvements in colonoscopes on adenoma miss rates: results of a prospective randomized multicenter tandem study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;88:107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.01.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, et al. Systematic review: distribution of advanced neoplasia according to polyp size at screening colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010;31:210–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04160.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Paggi S, Radaelli F, Repici A, Hassan C. Advances in the removal of diminutive colorectal polyps. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;9(2):237–244. https://doi.org/10.1586/17474124.2014.950955.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J, Bossuyt PM, van Deventer SJ, Dekker E. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:343–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00390.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Heresbach D, Barrioz T, Lapalus MG, et al. Miss rate for colorectal neoplastic polyps: a prospective multicenter study of back-to-back video colonoscopies. Endoscopy. 2008;40:284–290. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-995618.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhao S, Wang S, Pan P, et al. Magnitude, risk factors, and factors associated with adenoma miss rate of tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2019;156:1661.e3–1674.e11. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kudo S, Hirota S, Nakajima T, et al. Colorectal tumours and pit pattern. J Clin Pathol. 1994;47:880–885. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.47.10.880.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Hurlstone DP, Cross SS, Adam I, et al. Endoscopic morphological anticipation of submucosal invasion in flat and depressed colorectal lesions: clinical implications and subtype analysis of the kudo type V pit pattern using high-magnification-chromoscopic colonoscopy. Colorectal Dis. 2004;6:369–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2004.00667.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tobaru T, Mitsuyama K, Tsuruta O, Kawano H, Sata M. Sub-classification of type VI pit patterns in colorectal tumors: relation to the depth of tumor invasion. Int J Oncol. 2008;33:503–508.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Li M, Ali SM, Umm-a-OmarahGilani S, Liu J, Li YQ, Zuo XL. Kudo’s pit pattern classification for colorectal neoplasms: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:12649–12656. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i35.12649.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Iacucci M, Kiesslich R, Gui X, et al. Beyond white light: optical enhancement in conjunction with magnification colonoscopy for the assessment of mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis. Endoscopy. 2017;49:553–559. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-124363.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Klenske E, Zopf S, Neufert C, et al. I-scan optical enhancement for the in vivo prediction of diminutive colorectal polyp histology: results from a prospective three-phased multicentre trial. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0197520. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197520.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Iacucci M, Trovato C, Daperno M, et al. Development and validation of the SIMPLE endoscopic classification of diminutive and small colorectal polyps. Endoscopy. 2018;50:779–789. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-100791.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by Dong-A University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine, Dong-A University College of Medicine, Busan, 49201, South Korea

    Jong Yoon Lee, Myeongseok Koh & Jong Hoon Lee

Authors
  1. Jong Yoon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Myeongseok Koh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jong Hoon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jong Hoon Lee.

Ethics declarations

Ethics statement

Approval of our research protocols by the ethics committee was in accordance with international agreements (World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects). For this type of study formal consent is not required. The present study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Dong-A University College of Medicine (DAUHIRB-20-051).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, J.Y., Koh, M. & Lee, J.H. Latest Generation High-Definition Colonoscopy Increases Adenoma Detection Rate by Trainee Endoscopists. Dig Dis Sci 66, 2756–2762 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-020-06543-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-020-06543-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation