Detection of colonic polyps according to insertion/withdrawal phases of colonoscopy

  • Sergio Morini
  • Cesare Hassan
  • Angelo Zullo
  • Roberto Lorenzetti
  • Marina de Matthaeis
  • Francesca Stella
  • Salvatore M.A. Campo
Original Article


Background and aims

Issues on colonoscopy quality are crucial to reduce the advanced neoplasia miss rate of colonoscopy. Recently, a >6-min withdrawal time has been recommended. However, the relative prevalence of polyp detected during insertion and withdrawal phases of colonoscopy is unknown. Therefore, we designed this prospective, endoscopic study.

Materials and methods

Three hundred and sixty-eight patients with 396 adenomas were selected from a consecutive colonoscopic series of 1,205 cases. Detection rates of adenomas, advanced adenomas, and cancer according to withdrawal and insertion phases of colonoscopy, also subgrouping polyps for size and location, were compared.


Thirty-two (74%) advanced adenomas and 21 (95%) cancers were detected during the insertion, being only 11 (26%) and one (5%) identified during withdrawal, respectively. This was mainly due to a higher detection of >10 mm polyps during insertion than during withdrawal (75% versus 25%).


Most advanced neoplasia are detected during the insertion. Although withdrawal time has been shown to be important, the scope insertion phase related to polyp detection should be specifically addressed.


Colonscopy Polyp detection rate Insertion phase Withdrawal phase 


  1. 1.
    Boyle P, Ferlay J (2005) Cancer incidence and mortality in Europe, 2004. Ann Oncol 16:481–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hassan C, Laghi A, Zullo A, Iafrate E, Morini S (2008) Q&A on diagnosis, screening and follow-up of colorectal neoplasia. Dig Liver Dis 40:85–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anwar R (2006) Screening for colorectal cancer in the UK. Dig Liver Dis 38:279–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stryker SJ, Wolff BG, Culp CE, Libbe SD, Ilstrup DM, MacCarty RL (1987) Natural history of untreated colonic polyps. Gastroenterology 93:1009–1013PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ponz de Leon M, Roncucci L (2000) The cause of colorectal cancer. Dig Liver Dis 32:466–539Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ponz de Leon M, Di Gregorio C (2001) Pathology of colorectal cancer. Dig Liver Dis 33:372–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hassan C, Zullo A, Winn S, Eramo A, Tomao S, Rossini FP, Morini S (2007) The colorectal malignant polyp: scoping a dilemma. Dig Liver Dis 39:92–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, O’Brien MJ, Ho MN, Gottlieb L, Sternberg SS, Waye JD, Bond J, Schapiro M, Stewart ET, Panish J, Ackroyd F, Kurtz RC, Shike M (1993) Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 329:1977–1981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Citarda F, Tomaselli G, Capocaccia R, Barcherini S, Crespi M (2001) Italian Multicentre Study Group. Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence. Gut 48:812–815PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kapsoritakis AN, Potamianos SP, Koukourakis MI, Tzardi M, Mouzas IA, Roussomoustakaki M, Alexandrakis G, Kouroumalis EA (2002) Diminutive polyps of large bowel should be an early target for endoscopic treatment. Dig Liver Dis 34:137–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, Bond J, Burt R, Ferrucci J, Ganiats T, Levin T, Woolf S, Johnson D, Kirk L, Litin S, Simmang C (2003) Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale. Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 124:544–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hixson LJ, Fennerty MB, Sampliner RE, Garewal HS (1991) Prospective blinded trial of the colonoscopic miss-rate of large colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 37:125–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, Rahmani EY, Clark DW, Helper DJ, Lehman GA, Mark DG (1997) Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 112:24–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J, Bossuyt PM, van deventer SJ, Dekker E (2006) Polyps miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 101:343–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, Leung WK, Winter TC, Hinshaw JL, Hinshaw JL, Gopal DV, Reichelderfer M, Hsu RH, Pfau PR (2007) CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 357:1403–1412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rex DK, Goodwine BW (2002) Method of colonoscopy in 42 consecutive patients presenting after prior incomplete colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 97:1148–1151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR, Bratcher LL (2002) Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 97:1696–1700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, Johanson JF, Greenlaw RL (2006) Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 355:2533–2541PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Winawer SJ, Zauber AG (2002) The advanced adenoma as the primary target of screening. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 12:1–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen SC, Rex DK (2007) Endoscopist can be more powerful than age and male gender in predicting adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 102:856–861PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    East JE, Suzuki N, Arebi N, Bassett P, Saunders BP (2007) Position changes improve visibility during colonoscope withdrawal: a randomized, blinded, crossover trial. Gastrointest Endosc 65:263–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hassan C, Zullo A, Laghi A, Reitano I, Taggi F, Cerro P, Iafrate F, Giustini M, Morini S (2007) Colon cancer prevention in Italy: cost-effectiveness analysis with CT colonography and endoscopy. Dig Liver Dis 39:242–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergio Morini
    • 2
  • Cesare Hassan
    • 2
  • Angelo Zullo
    • 2
  • Roberto Lorenzetti
    • 2
  • Marina de Matthaeis
    • 2
  • Francesca Stella
    • 1
  • Salvatore M.A. Campo
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Pathological Anatomy“San Giacomo” HospitalRomeItaly
  2. 2.Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy‘Nuovo Regina Margherita’ HospitalRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations