Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 119–139

Advances in Colonoscopy

Endoscopy (I Waxman, Section Editor)

Opinion statement

Colonoscopy with polypectomy has been established as the major prevention and detection strategy for colorectal cancer for over a decade. Over this period advances in colonoscopic imaging, polyp detection, prediction of histopathology and polypectomy techniques have all been seen; however, the true magnitude of the limitations of colonoscopy has only recently been widely recognized. The rate and location of missed or interval cancers after complete colonoscopy appears to be influenced by the operator-dependency of colonoscopy and failure of conventional practices to detect and treat adenomatous, and possibly more importantly, non-adenomatous colorectal cancer precursors. Consequently, studies that expand our understanding of these factors and advances that aim to improve colonoscopy, polypectomy, and cancer protection are of critical importance.


Colonoscopy polyp adenoma sessile serrated adenoma colorectal cancer prevention serrated pathway limitations detection sedation preparation resection polypectomy EMR 

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as : • Of importance

  1. 1.•
    Rex DK. Can we fix colonoscopy?…Yes! Gastroenterology. 2011;140:19–21. This is an erudite commentry on the associated factors and limitations of colonoscopy.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harewood GC, Sharma VK, De Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:76–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ, et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61:378–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sherer EA, Imler TD, Imperiale TF. The effect of colonoscopy preparation quality on adenoma detection rates. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:545–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parra-Blanco A, Nicolas-Perez D, Gimeno-Garcia A, et al. The timing of bowel preparation before colonoscopy determines the quality of cleansing, and is a significant factor contributing to the detection of flat lesions: a randomized study. World J Gastroenterol : WJG. 2006;12:6161–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Flemming JA, Vanner SJ, Hookey LC. Split-dose picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid solution markedly enhances colon cleansing before colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:537–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF, et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2013;45:142–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gurudu SR, Ramirez FC, Harrison ME, et al. Increased adenoma detection rate with system-wide implementation of a split-dose preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:603–8. e601.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kilgore TW, Abdinoor AA, Szary NM, et al. Bowel preparation with split-dose polyethylene glycol before colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:1240–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cohen LB. Split-dosing of bowel preparations for colonoscopy: an analysis of its efficacy, safety, and tolerability. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:406–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Society of Anesthesiologists C. Practice guidelines for preoperative fasting and the use of pharmacologic agents to reduce the risk of pulmonary aspiration: application to healthy patients undergoing elective procedures: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Committee on Standards and Practice Parameters. Anesthesiology. 2011;114:495–511.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huffman M, Unger RZ, Thatikonda C, et al. Split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy and residual gastric fluid volume: an observational study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:516–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kelly NM, Rodgers C, Patterson N, et al. A prospective audit of the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of low-volume polyethylene glycol (2 L) versus standard volume polyethylene glycol (4 L) versus magnesium citrate plus stimulant laxative as bowel preparation for colonoscopy. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;46:595–601.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cesaro P, Hassan C, Spada C, et al. A new low-volume isosmotic polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl versus split-dose 4 L polyethylene glycol for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy: a randomised controlled trial. Dig Liver Dis Off J Ital Soc Gastroenterol Ital Assoc Study Liver. 2013;45:23–7.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    American Association for the Study of Liver D, American College Of G, American Gastroenterological Association I et al. Multisociety sedation curriculum for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:e18–41.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lewis JR, Cohen LB. Update on colonoscopy preparation, premedication and sedation. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;7:77–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pelosi P. Retraction of endorsement: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy. Endoscopy. 2012;44:302. author reply 302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vargo JJ, Cohen LB, Rex DK, et al. Position statement: Nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:2886–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rex DK, Deenadayalu VP, Eid E, et al. Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol: a worldwide safety experience. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:1229–37. quiz 1518–1229.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pambianco DJ, Vargo JJ, Pruitt RE, et al. Computer-assisted personalized sedation for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy: a comparative, multicenter randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:765–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mandel JE, Lichtenstein GR, Metz DC, et al. A prospective, randomized, comparative trial evaluating respiratory depression during patient-controlled versus anesthesiologist-administered propofol-remifentanil sedation for elective colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:112–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tox U, Schumacher B, Toermer T, et al. Propofol sedation for colonoscopy with a new ultrathin or a standard endoscope: a prospective randomized controlled study. Endoscopy. 2013;45:439–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leung CW, Kaltenbach T, Soetikno R, et al. Water immersion versus standard colonoscopy insertion technique: randomized trial shows promise for minimal sedation. Endoscopy. 2010;42:557–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ramirez FC, Leung FW. A head-to-head comparison of the water vs. air method in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. J Interv Gastroenterol. 2011;1:130–5.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Falt P, Liberda M, Smajstrla V, et al. Combination of water immersion and carbon dioxide insufflation for minimal sedation colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, single-center trial. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;24:971–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bretthauer M. Turning science into clinical practice - the case of carbon dioxide insufflation. Endoscopy. 2010;42:1104–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wu J, Hu B. The role of carbon dioxide insufflation in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2012;44:128–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Amato A, Radaelli F, Paggi S, et al. Carbon dioxide insufflation or warm-water infusion versus standard air insufflation for unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:511–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bassan MS, Holt B, Moss A, et al. Carbon dioxide insufflation reduces number of postprocedure admissions after endoscopic resection of large colonic lesions: a prospective cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:90–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Neerincx M, Terhaar Sive Droste JS, Mulder CJ, et al. Colonic work-up after incomplete colonoscopy: significant new findings during follow-up. Endoscopy. 2010;42:730–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, Forbes SS, et al. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:65–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Swan MP, Bourke MJ, Alexander S, et al. Large refractory colonic polyps: is it time to change our practice? A prospective study of the clinical and economic impact of a tertiary referral colonic mucosal resection and polypectomy service (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:1128–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Spada C, Hassan C, Galmiche JP, et al. Colon capsule endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2012;44:527–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Alarcon-Fernandez O, Ramos L, Adrian-De-Ganzo Z, et al. Effects of colon capsule endoscopy on medical decision making in patients with incomplete colonoscopies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc. 2013;11:534–40. e531.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Javeri K, Williams TR, Bonnett JW. An overview of the method, application, and various findings of computed tomographic colonography in patients after incomplete colonoscopy. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2010;39:262–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Van Der Paardt MP, Stoker J. Magnetic resonance colonography for screening and diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2014;22:67–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Suzuki T, Matsushima M, Tsukune Y, et al. Double-balloon endoscopy versus magnet-imaging enhanced colonoscopy for difficult colonoscopies, a randomized study. Endoscopy. 2012;44:38–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dzeletovic I, Harrison ME, Pasha SF, et al. Comparison of single- versus double-balloon assisted-colonoscopy for colon examination after previous incomplete standard colonoscopy. Dig Dis Sci. 2012;57:2680–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lim JU, Cha JM. Single- versus double-balloon-assisted colonoscopy after previous incomplete standard colonoscopy. Dig Dis Sci. 2012;57:2490–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jackson CS, Haq T, Olafsson S. Push enteroscopy has a 96% cecal intubation rate in colonoscopies that failed because of redundant colons. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:341–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. GLOBOCAN 2008 V2.0 Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide. GLOBOCAN 2008 V2.0 Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide (2010).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology. 2003;124:544–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.•
    Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'brien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:687–96. This paper presents colorectal cancer mortality in long term follow up from the National Polyp Study.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kahi CJ, Imperiale TF, Juliar BE, et al. Effect of screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc. 2009;7:770–5. quiz 711.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1795–803.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:1296–308.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Corely DaJ C, Marks AR, Zhao W, Lee JK, Quesenberry C, Levin TR, et al. Physician Adenoma Detection Rate Variability and Subsequent Colorectal Cancer Risk Following a Negative Colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2013;144:S2–3.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Imperiale TF, Glowinski EA, Juliar BE, et al. Variation in polyp detection rates at screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:1288–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chen SC, Rex DK. Endoscopist can be more powerful than age and male gender in predicting adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:856–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pickhardt PJ, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA, et al. Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:352–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Leufkens AM, Van Oijen MG, Vleggaar FP, et al. Factors influencing the miss rate of polyps in a back-to-back colonoscopy study. Endoscopy. 2012;44:470–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gross SA, Buchner AM, Crook JE, et al. A comparison of high definition-image enhanced colonoscopy and standard white-light colonoscopy for colorectal polyp detection. Endoscopy. 2011;43:1045–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Adler A, Aminalai A, Aschenbeck J, et al. Latest generation, wide-angle, high-definition colonoscopes increase adenoma detection rate. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc. 2012;10:155–9.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Subramanian V, Mannath J, Hawkey CJ, et al. High definition colonoscopy vs. standard video endoscopy for the detection of colonic polyps: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2011;43:499–505.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kiesslich R, Von Bergh M, Hahn M, et al. Chromoendoscopy with indigocarmine improves the detection of adenomatous and nonadenomatous lesions in the colon. Endoscopy. 2001;33:1001–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Brooker JC, Saunders BP, Shah SG, et al. Total colonic dye-spray increases the detection of diminutive adenomas during routine colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:333–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hurlstone DP, Cross SS, Slater R, et al. Detecting diminutive colorectal lesions at colonoscopy: a randomised controlled trial of pan-colonic versus targeted chromoscopy. Gut. 2004;53:376–80.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Le Rhun M, Coron E, Parlier D, et al. High resolution colonoscopy with chromoscopy versus standard colonoscopy for the detection of colonic neoplasia: a randomized study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc. 2006;4:349–54.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Pohl J, Schneider A, Vogell H, et al. Pancolonic chromoendoscopy with indigo carmine versus standard colonoscopy for detection of neoplastic lesions: a randomised two-centre trial. Gut. 2011;60:485–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kahi CJ, Anderson JC, Waxman I, et al. High-definition chromocolonoscopy vs. high-definition white light colonoscopy for average-risk colorectal cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1301–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Repici A, Di Stefano AF, Radicioni MM, et al. Methylene blue MMX tablets for chromoendoscopy. Safety tolerability and bioavailability in healthy volunteers. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33:260–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Repici A, Chiara Ferrara E, Vitetta EM, Fini L, Ciscato C, Danese S. Final Results of Phase II, Open Label, Study Investigating Polyp and Adenoma Detection Rate After Single Oral Dose of Methylene Blue MMx® Modified Release Tablets Administered to Subjects Undergoing Outpatients Colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:AB175.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Dinesen L, Chua TJ, Kaffes AJ. Meta-analysis of narrow-band imaging versus conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:604–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Jin XF, Chai TH, Shi JW, et al. Meta-analysis for evaluating the accuracy of endoscopy with narrow band imaging in detecting colorectal adenomas. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;27:882–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Pasha SF, Leighton JA, Das A, et al. Comparison of the yield and miss rate of narrow band imaging and white light endoscopy in patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:363–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    East JE, Ignjatovic A, Suzuki N, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of narrow-band imaging vs high-definition white light for adenoma detection in patients at high risk of adenomas. Color Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctol G B Irel. 2012;14:e771–8.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ikematsu H, Saito Y, Tanaka S, et al. The impact of narrow band imaging for colon polyp detection: a multicenter randomized controlled trial by tandem colonoscopy. J Gastroenterol. 2012;47:1099–107.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Pellise M, Lopez-Ceron M. Rodriguez De Miguel C et al. Narrow-band imaging as an alternative to chromoendoscopy for the detection of dysplasia in long-standing inflammatory bowel disease: a prospective, randomized, crossover study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:840–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Tontini GE, Vecchi M, Neurath MF, et al. Review article: newer optical and digital chromoendoscopy techniques vs. dye-based chromoendoscopy for diagnosis and surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:1198–208.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Efthymiou M, Allen PB, Taylor AC, et al. Chromoendoscopy versus narrow band imaging for colonic surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013;19:2132–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Subramanian V, Mannath J, Ragunath K, et al. Meta-analysis: the diagnostic yield of chromoendoscopy for detecting dysplasia in patients with colonic inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011;33:304–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    He Q, Li JD, An SL, et al. Cap-assisted colonoscopy versus conventional colonoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Color Dis. 2013;28:279–81.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Ng SC, Tsoi KK, Hirai HW, et al. The efficacy of cap-assisted colonoscopy in polyp detection and cecal intubation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:1165–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Tsiamoulos ZP, Saunders BP. A new accessory, endoscopic cuff, improves colonoscopic access for complex polyp resection and scar assessment in the sigmoid colon (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:1242–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Triadafilopoulos G, Li J. A pilot study to assess the safety and efficacy of the Third Eye retrograde auxiliary imaging system during colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 2008;40:478–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Waye JD, Heigh RI, Fleischer DE, et al. A retrograde-viewing device improves detection of adenomas in the colon: a prospective efficacy evaluation (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:551–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Demarco DC, Odstrcil E, Lara LF, et al. Impact of experience with a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rates and withdrawal times during colonoscopy: the Third Eye Retroscope study group. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:542–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    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;73:480–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Gralnek IM, Carr-Locke DL, Segol O, et al. Comparison of standard forward-viewing mode versus ultrawide-viewing mode of a novel colonoscopy platform: a prospective, multicenter study in the detection of simulated polyps in an in vitro colon model (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:472–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hewett DG, Rex DK. Miss rate of right-sided colon examination during colonoscopy defined by retroflexion: an observational study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:246–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Rex DK, Vemulapalli KC. Retroflexion in colonoscopy: why? Where? When? How? What value? Gastroenterology. 2013;144:882–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2533–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Sawhney MS, Cury MS, Neeman N, et al. Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 minutes on polyp detection. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1892–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Lee RH, Tang RS, Muthusamy VR, et al. Quality of colonoscopy withdrawal technique and variability in adenoma detection rates (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:128–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Coe SG, Crook JE, Diehl NN, et al. An endoscopic quality improvement program improves detection of colorectal adenomas. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:219–26. quiz 227.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Ussui V, Coe SG, Ngamruengphong S, Rizk C, Wallace M. Long term increases in adenoma detection at colonoscopy follow up of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:AB300.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Rex DK, Kahi C, O'brien M, et al. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy PIVI (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations) on real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:419–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:844–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Gancayco J, Siddiqui UD, Jain D, et al. Narrow band imaging features and pathological correlations of sessile serrated polyps. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1559–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Boparai KS, Van Den Broek FJ, Van Eeden S, et al. Hyperplastic polyposis syndrome: a pilot study for the differentiation of polyps by using high-resolution endoscopy, autofluorescence imaging, and narrow-band imaging. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:947–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Hazewinkel Y, Lopez-Ceron M, East JE, et al. Endoscopic features of sessile serrated adenomas: validation by international experts using high-resolution white-light endoscopy and narrow-band imaging. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:916–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Kimura T, Yamamoto E, Yamano HO, et al. A novel pit pattern identifies the precursor of colorectal cancer derived from sessile serrated adenoma. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:460–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Tutticci N, Hewett DG, Leggett BA. Prevalence of serrated polyps: implications for significance as colorectal cancer precursors. Color Cancer. 2013;2:535–47.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Rex DK, Ahnen DJ, Baron JA et al. Serrated lesions of the colorectum: review and recommendations from an expert panel. Am J Gastroenterol 2012.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Nanda KST, Burgess N, Sonson N, Mcleod R, Bourke D, MJ “Caught in the act”: Endoscopic characterization of sessile serrated adenomas with dysplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2014. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.01.013.
  96. 96.•
    Bettington M, Walker N, Clouston A, et al. The serrated pathway to colorectal carcinoma: current concepts and challenges. Histopathology. 2013;62:367–86. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the serrated pathway and precursor lesions.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Rex DK. Narrow-band imaging without optical magnification for histologic analysis of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology. 2009;136:1174–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Basford PJ, Longcroft-Wheaton G, Higgins B, et al. High-definition endoscopy with i-Scan for evaluation of small colon polyps: the HiSCOPE study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79:111–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Mcgill SK, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP, et al. Narrow band imaging to differentiate neoplastic and non-neoplastic colorectal polyps in real time: a meta-analysis of diagnostic operating characteristics. Gut. 2013;62:1704–13.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Rastogi A, Pondugula K, Bansal A, et al. Recognition of surface mucosal and vascular patterns of colon polyps by using narrow-band imaging: interobserver and intraobserver agreement and prediction of polyp histology. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:716–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Singh R, Bhat YM, Thurairajah PH, et al. Is narrow band imaging superior to high-definition white light endoscopy in the assessment of diminutive colorectal polyps? J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;28:472–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Yoshida N, Naito Y, Inada Y, et al. The detection of surface patterns by flexible spectral imaging color enhancement without magnification for diagnosis of colorectal polyps. Int J Color Dis. 2012;27:605–11.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Longcroft-Wheaton G, Brown J, Cowlishaw D, et al. High-definition vs. standard-definition colonoscopy in the characterization of small colonic polyps: results from a randomized trial. Endoscopy. 2012;44:905–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Chan JL, Lin L, Feiler M, et al. Comparative effectiveness of i-SCAN and high-definition white light characterizing small colonic polyps. World J Gastroenterol : WJG. 2012;18:5905–11.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Shahid MW, Buchner AM, Heckman MG, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy and narrow band imaging for small colorectal polyps: a feasibility study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:231–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Buchner AM, Shahid MW, Heckman MG, et al. Comparison of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy with virtual chromoendoscopy for classification of colon polyps. Gastroenterology. 2010;138:834–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Arain MA, Sawhney M, Sheikh S, et al. CIMP status of interval colon cancers: another piece to the puzzle. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1189–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Sawhney MS, Farrar WD, Gudiseva S, et al. Microsatellite instability in interval colon cancers. Gastroenterology. 2006;131:1700–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Hetzel JT, Huang CS, Coukos JA, et al. Variation in the detection of serrated polyps in an average risk colorectal cancer screening cohort. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:2656–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Kahi CJ, Hewett DG, Norton DL, et al. Prevalence and variable detection of proximal colon serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc. 2011;9:42–6.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Wong NA, Hunt LP, Novelli MR, et al. Observer agreement in the diagnosis of serrated polyps of the large bowel. Histopathology. 2009;55:63–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Tadepalli US, Feihel D, Miller KM, et al. A morphologic analysis of sessile serrated polyps observed during routine colonoscopy (with ). Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:1360–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.•
    Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP, et al. Incomplete Polyp Resection During Colonoscopy-Results of the Complete Adenoma Resection (CARE) Study. Gastroenterology. 2013;144:74–80. e71. This study reveals an unexpectedly high rate of incomplete resection with standard polypectomy technique. The magnitude and predictors of incomplete resection are of particular interest.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Binmoeller KF, Weilert F, Shah J, et al. "Underwater" EMR without submucosal injection for large sessile colorectal polyps (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:1086–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Efthymiou M, Taylor AC, Desmond PV, et al. Biopsy forceps is inadequate for the resection of diminutive polyps. Endoscopy. 2011;43:312–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Lee CK, Shim JJ, Jang JY. Cold snare polypectomy vs. Cold forceps polypectomy using double-biopsy technique for removal of diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:1593–600.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Pattullo V, Bourke MJ, Tran KL, et al. The suction pseudopolyp technique: a novel method for the removal of small flat nonpolypoid lesions of the colon and rectum. Endoscopy. 2009;41:1032–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Draganov PV, Chang MN, Alkhasawneh A, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of standard, large-capacity versus jumbo biopsy forceps for polypectomy of small, sessile, colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:118–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Goldstein NS, Watts JC, Neill JS, et al. The effect of electrothermal cautery-assisted resection of diminutive colonic polyps on histopathologic diagnosis. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;115:356–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Metz AJ, Moss A, Mcleod D, et al. A blinded comparison of the safety and efficacy of hot biopsy forceps electrocauterization and conventional snare polypectomy for diminutive colonic polypectomy in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:484–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Tappero G, Gaia E, De Giuli P, et al. Cold snare excision of small colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 1992;38:310–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Ichise Y, Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of cold snare polypectomy and conventional polypectomy for small colorectal polyps. Digestion. 2011;84:78–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Paspatis GA, Tribonias G, Konstantinidis K, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of cold vs hot snare polypectomy in the occurrence of postpolypectomy bleeding in small colonic polyps. Color Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctol G B Irel. 2011;13:e345–8.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Repici A, Hassan C, Vitetta E, et al. Safety of cold polypectomy for <10mm polyps at colonoscopy: a prospective multicenter study. Endoscopy. 2012;44:27–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Kahi CJ, Rex DK. Why We Should CARE About Polypectomy Technique. Gastroenterology. 2013;144:16–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Watanabe T, Itabashi M, Shimada Y, et al. Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2010 for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2012;17:1–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Bosman FT, World Health Organization., International Agency for Research on Cancer. WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2010.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Bosch SL, Teerenstra S, De Wilt JH et al. Predicting lymph node metastasis in pT1 colorectal cancer: a systematic review of risk factors providing rationale for therapy decisions. Endoscopy 2013.Google Scholar
  129. 129.•
    Holt BA, Bourke MJ. Wide field endoscopic resection for advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia: current status and future directions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc. 2012;10:969–79. This paper provides a comprehensive and up to date reivew of colonic EMR.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Matsuda T, Saito Y, Nakajima T, et al. Macroscopic estimation of submucosal invasion in the colon. Tech Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;13:24–32.Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Tanaka S, Sano Y. Aim to unify the narrow band imaging (NBI) magnifying classification for colorectal tumors: current status in Japan from a summary of the consensus symposium in the 79th Annual Meeting of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society. Dig Endosc Off J Jpn Gastroenterol Endosc Soc. 2011;23 Suppl 1:131–9.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Hewett DG, Kaltenbach T, Sano Y, et al. Validation of a simple classification system for endoscopic diagnosis of small colorectal polyps using narrow-band imaging. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:599–607. e591.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Hayashi N, Tanaka S, Hewett DG et al. Endoscopic prediction of deep submucosal invasive carcinoma: validation of the Narrow-Band Imaging International Colorectal Endoscopic (NICE) classification. Gastrointest Endosc 2013.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Tutticci N, Bourke MJ. Advanced endoscopic resection in the colon: recent innovations, current limitations and future directions. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Moss A, Bourke MJ, Williams SJ, et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and prediction of submucosal cancer from advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:1909–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Moss AW, Williams SJ, Hourigan LF, Brown GJ, Zanati SA, Singh R, et al. Long Term Recurrence Following Wide Field Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (WF-EMR) for Advanced Colonic Mucosal Neoplasia - Results of the Australian Colonic EMR (ACE) Multicenter Prospective Study of 940 Patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:AB176.Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Saito Y, Fukuzawa M, Matsuda T, et al. Clinical outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal tumors as determined by curative resection. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:343–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Saito Y, Kawano H, Takeuchi Y, et al. Current status of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection in Japan and other Asian countries: progressing towards technical standardization. Dig Endosc Off J Jpn Gastroenterol Endosc Soc. 2012;24 Suppl 1:67–72.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Metz AJ, Bourke MJ, Moss A, et al. Factors that predict bleeding following endoscopic mucosal resection of large colonic lesions. Endoscopy. 2011;43:506–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Burgess NG, Metz AJ, Williams SJ et al. Risk Factors for Intraprocedural and Clinically Significant Delayed Bleeding After Wide-field Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Colonic Lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc 2013.Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Fahrtash-Bahin FN, Sonson M, Williams R, Hourigan SJ, Ormonde LF, Raftopoulos DG, et al. Does prophylactic endoscopic coagulation prevent bleeding after Wide Field Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of large sessile colonic polyps? – A prospective randomised control trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;28:AB 22–3.Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Liaquat H, Rohn E, Rex DK. Prophylactic clip closure reduced the risk of delayed postpolypectomy hemorrhage: experience in 277 clipped large sessile or flat colorectal lesions and 247 control lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:401–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Parikh ND, Zanocco K, Keswani RN, et al. A cost-efficacy decision analysis of prophylactic clip placement after endoscopic removal of large polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc. 2013;11:1319–24.Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Fahrtash-Bahin F, Holt BA, Jayasekeran V, et al. Snare tip soft coagulation achieves effective and safe endoscopic hemostasis during wide-field endoscopic resection of large colonic lesions (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;78:158–63. e151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Terasaki M, Tanaka S, Oka S, et al. Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for laterally spreading tumors larger than 20 mm. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;27:734–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Swan MP, Bourke MJ, Moss A, et al. The target sign: an endoscopic marker for the resection of the muscularis propria and potential perforation during colonic endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:79–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Holt BA, Jayasekeran V, Sonson R, et al. Topical submucosal chromoendoscopy defines the level of resection in colonic EMR and may improve procedural safety (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:949–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyWestmead HospitalWestmeadAustralia

Personalised recommendations