Dataset Information

Second exam of right colon improves adenoma detection rate: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: Background and study aims A second examination of the right colon, either as a second forward view (SFV) or as retroflexion (RF) in the cecum, can increase adenoma detection rate (ADR) in the right colon. In this meta-analysis, we have evaluated the role of a second examination of the right colon in improving ADR. Methods We reviewed several databases to identify randomized controlled trials that compared right colon SFV with no SFV, and RCTs that compared SFV with RF in the right colon, and reported data on ADR. Our outcomes of interest were ADR and polyp detection rate (PDR) with SFV vs no SFV, right colon and total withdrawal times, and additional ADR and PDR with SFV vs RF. For categorical variables, we calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs); for continuous variables, we calculated standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95 % CI. Data were analyzed using random effects model. Results We included six studies with 3901 patients. Comparing SFV with no SFV, right colon ADR and PDR were significantly higher in the SFV group: ADR (RR [95 % CI] 1.39 [1.22,1.58]) and PDR (RR [95 % CI] 1.47 [1.30, 1.65]). We found no significant difference in right colon withdrawal time (SMD [95 % CI] 1.54 [-0.20,3.28]) or total withdrawal time (SMD (95 % CI) 0.37 [-0.39,1.13]) with and without SFV. We found no significant difference in additional ADR between SFV and RF. Conclusions SFV of the right colon significantly increases right-sided and overall ADR.

SUBMITTER: Kamal F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9576333 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Second exam of right colon improves adenoma detection rate: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Kamal Faisal F Khan Muhammad Ali MA Lee-Smith Wade W Sharma Sachit S Acharya Ashu A Imam Zaid Z Farooq Umer U Hanson John J Pulous Vian V Aziz Muhammad M Chandan Saurabh S Kouanda Abdul A Dai Sun-Chuan SC Munroe Craig A CA Howden Colin W CW

Endoscopy international open 20221017 10

<b>Background and study aims </b> A second examination of the right colon, either as a second forward view (SFV) or as retroflexion (RF) in the cecum, can increase adenoma detection rate (ADR) in the right colon. In this meta-analysis, we have evaluated the role of a second examination of the right colon in improving ADR. <b>Methods </b> We reviewed several databases to identify randomized controlled trials that compared right colon SFV with no SFV, and RCTs that compared SFV with RF in the righ ...[more]

PMID: 36262512

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesAlthough screening colonoscopy is effective in preventing distal colon cancers, effectiveness in preventing right-sided colon cancers is less clear. Previous studies have reported that retroflexion in the right colon improves adenoma detection. We aimed to determine whether a second withdrawal from the right colon in retroflexion vs. forward view alone leads to the detection of additional adenomas.MethodsPatients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy were invited to participate in a parallel, randomized, controlled trial at two centers. After cecal intubation, the colonoscope was withdrawn to the hepatic flexure, all visualized polyps removed, and endoscopist confidence recorded on a 5-point Likert scale. Patients were randomized to a second exam of the proximal colon in forward (FV) or retroflexion view (RV), and adenoma detection rates (ADRs) compared. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate predictors of identifying adenomas on the second withdrawal from the proximal colon.ResultsA total of 850 patients (mean age 59.1±8.3 years, 59% female) were randomly assigned to FV (N=400) or RV (N=450). Retroflexion was successful in 93.5%. The ADR (46% FV and 47% RV) and numbers of adenomas per patient (0.9±1.4 FV and 1.1±2.1 RV) were similar (P=0.75 for both). At least one additional adenoma was detected on second withdrawal in similar proportions (10.5% FV and 7.5% RV, P=0.13). Predictors of identifying adenomas on the second withdrawal included older age (odds ratio (OR)=1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.08), adenomas seen on initial withdrawal (OR=2.8, 95% CI=1.7-4.7), and low endoscopist confidence in quality of first examination of the right colon (OR=4.8, 95% CI=1.9-12.1). There were no adverse events.ConclusionsRetroflexion in the right colon can be safely achieved in the majority of patients undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Reexamination of the right colon in either retroflexed or forward view yielded similar, incremental ADRs. A second exam of the right colon should be strongly considered in patients who have adenomas discovered in the right colon, particularly when endoscopist confidence in the quality of initial examination is low.

Project description:AimTo determine which patients might benefit most from retrograde viewing during colonoscopy through subset analysis of randomized, controlled trial data.MethodsThe Third Eye® Retroscope® Randomized Clinical Evaluation (TERRACE) was a randomized, controlled, multicenter trial designed to evaluate the efficacy of a retrograde-viewing auxiliary imaging device that is used during colonoscopy to provide a second video image which allows viewing of areas on the proximal aspect of haustral folds and flexures that are difficult to see with the colonoscope's forward view. We performed a post-hoc analysis of the TERRACE data to determine whether certain subsets of the patient population would gain more benefit than others from use of the device. Subjects were patients scheduled for colonoscopy for screening, surveillance or diagnostic workup, and each underwent same-day tandem examinations with standard colonoscopy (SC) and Third Eye colonoscopy (TEC), randomized to SC followed by TEC or vice versa.ResultsIndication for colonoscopy was screening in 176/345 subjects (51.0%), surveillance after previous polypectomy in 87 (25.2%) and diagnostic workup in 82 (23.8%). In 4 subjects no indication was specified. Previously reported overall results had shown a net additional adenoma detection rate (ADR) with TEC of 23.2% compared to SC. Relative risk (RR) of missing adenomas with SC vs TEC as the initial procedure was 1.92 (P = 0.029). Post-hoc subset analysis shows additional ADRs for TEC compared to SC were 4.4% for screening, 35.7% for surveillance, 55.4% for diagnostic and 40.7% for surveillance and diagnostic combined. The RR of missing adenomas with SC vs TEC was 1.11 (P = 0.815) for screening, 3.15 (P = 0.014) for surveillance, 8.64 (P = 0.039) for diagnostic and 3.34 (P = 0.003) for surveillance and diagnostic combined. Although a multivariate Poisson regression suggested gender as a possibly significant factor, subset analysis showed that the difference between genders was not statistically significant. Age, bowel prep quality and withdrawal time did not significantly affect the RR of missing adenomas with SC vs TEC. Mean sizes of adenomas detected with TEC and SC were similar at 0.59 cm and 0.56 cm, respectively (P = NS).ConclusionTEC allows detection of significantly more adenomas compared to SC in patients undergoing surveillance or diagnostic workup, but not in screening patients (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01044732).

Project description:Background and aimsScreening colonoscopy has significantly contributed to the reduction of the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and its associated mortality, with adenoma detection rate (ADR) as the quality marker. To increase the ADR, various solutions have been proposed including the utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and employing second observers during colonoscopies. In the interest of AI improving ADR independently, without a second observer, and the operational similarity between AI and second observer, this network meta-analysis aims at evaluating the effectiveness of AI, second observer, and a single observer in improving ADR.MethodsWe searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science Core Collection, Korean Citation Index, SciELO, Global Index Medicus, and Cochrane. A direct head-to-head comparator analysis and network meta-analysis were performed using the random-effects model. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsWe analyzed 26 studies, involving 22,560 subjects. In the direct comparative analysis, AI demonstrated higher ADR (OR: 0.668, 95% CI 0.595-0.749, p < 0.001) than single observer. Dual observer demonstrated a higher ADR (OR: 0.771, 95% CI 0.688-0.865, p < 0.001) than single operator. In network meta-analysis, results were consistent on the network meta-analysis, maintaining consistency. No statistical difference was noted when comparing AI to second observer. (RR 1.1 (0.9-1.2, p = 0.3). Results were consistent when evaluating only RCTs. Net ranking provided higher score to AI followed by second observer followed by single observer.ConclusionArtificial Intelligence and second-observer colonoscopy showed superior success in Adenoma Detection Rate when compared to single-observer colonoscopy. Although not statistically significant, net ranking model favors the superiority of AI to the second observer.

Dataset Information

Second exam of right colon improves adenoma detection rate: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Second exam of right colon improves adenoma detection rate: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets