Explore the vast range of titles available.

INTRODUCTION:The detection rate of proximal sessile serrated lesion (PSSLDR) is linked to the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. However, research on second forward view (SFV) examinations for PSSLDR remains limited. This first randomized controlled trial assessed the impact of the proximal SFV on the PSSLDR.METHODS:Patients were randomized into 2 groups during proximal colonoscopy: standard colonoscopy (SC) and SFV. The SC group underwent a standard examination, whereas the SFV group underwent a second examination of the proximal colon (cecum to splenic flexure). The primary outcome was PSSLDR, with secondary outcomes, including the proximal polyp detection rate (PPDR), proximal adenoma detection rate (PADR), and lesion miss rate, compared between the 2 groups.RESULTS:Among 246 patients (SC = 124; SFV = 122), SFV significantly improved the PSSLDR by 7.4% compared with SC (9.8% vs 2.4%, P = 0.017). SFV increased the PPDR by 20.2% (55.7% vs 35.5%, P = 0.002) and PADR by 12.7% (37.7% vs 25%, P = 0.039). Multivariate analysis revealed that sessile serrated lesions (odds ratio [OR] = 7.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.58, 37.59]), inflammatory polyps (OR = 4.24, 95% CI [1.73, 10.39]), and lesion size (OR = 0.76, 95% CI [0.60, 0.96]) were associated with proximal missed lesions. The overall polyp miss rate was 52.9%, with miss rates of 61.0% for polyps <5 mm, 80% for sessile serrated lesions, and 42.2% for adenomas. Furthermore, 12.3% of patients experienced changes in surveillance intervals from SFV examination.DISCUSSION:SFV examination of the proximal colon significantly improved the PSSLDR by 7.4%, PPDR by 20.2%, and PADR by 12.7%, while shortening the detection interval by 12.3%, making it a valuable and cost-effective addition to routine colonoscopy.

Background Although colonoscopy is considered the most effective tool for reducing colorectal cancer-related morbidity, the age at which average-risk individuals begin colonoscopic screening is undetermined. This study aimed to compare the adenoma and advanced adenoma detection rates according to age and sex in a large average-risk population in the rural areas of Eastern China. Methods This observational, single-center, retrospective study included patients with average colorectal cancer risk and examined the adenoma and advanced adenoma detection rates using age intervals of 5 years. We also compared the size and age of patients with and without advanced adenoma. Results We included 18 928 patients with a median age of 54 years (range 15–90 years), including 10 143 men and 8785 women. The adenoma and advanced adenoma detection rates were 17.08% and 5.24%, respectively, and increased with age in the whole population. The adenoma detection rates increased from 8.97% (aged 40–44) to 14.98% (aged 45–49) and 6.24% (aged 45–49) to 11.00% (aged 50–54) in men and women (both P < .001), respectively. The advanced adenoma detection rates increased from 2.19% (aged 40–44) to 4.76% (aged 45–49) and 1.89% (aged 45–49) to 3.13% (aged 50–54) in men (P = .002) and women (P = .056), respectively. Patients with advanced adenomas were significantly older than those with non-advanced adenomas (P < .001). The tumors in the advanced adenoma group were significantly larger than those in the non-advanced adenoma group (P < .001). Conclusion The adenoma and advanced adenoma detection rates increased significantly in average-risk population aged 45 years and older, especially in men.

BackgroundColonoscopies are considered to be the primary screening test and gold standard test for colorectal cancer. Position changes during colonoscope withdrawal are believed to be associated with an increased adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR). However, previous results conflicted, and this study aimed to elucidate the effectiveness of dynamic position changes during colonoscope withdrawal.MethodsThe relevant publications were identified by searching the medical databases. The primary outcomes were the ADR and PDR, which were pooled and analyzed. The secondary outcome was the withdrawal time. The studies that supplied the ADR and PDR for different segments of the colon were separated into subgroup analyses.ResultsFive randomized controlled trials were eligible for analysis. The total ADR was higher with dynamic position changes than with a static position (odds ratio, [OR] 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13–1.59; p < 0.001), with low evidence of between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Although the total PDR was slightly higher with dynamic position changes than with a static position (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.88–1.73), there difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.22). The withdrawal time was only increased by 0.47 min (95% CI − 0.11 to 1.06) with dynamic position changes, without statistical significance (p = 0.11). The subgroup analysis showed that the ADR and PDR for the transverse colon were higher with dynamic position changes, with pooled estimates of ADR (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.02–2.88; p = 0.04) and PDR (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.08–2.96; p = 0.02).ConclusionDynamic position changes during colonoscope withdrawal increased the total ADR; however, no obvious increase was found in the total PDR. The withdrawal time was not significantly prolonged with dynamic position changes. Subgroup analysis showed that the ADR and PDR in the transverse colon were obviously improved with dynamic position changes.

Background The effectiveness in surveillance colonoscopy largely depends on the quality of bowel preparation. We aimed to investigate the quality of bowel preparation segmentally and its effect on Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rate (AADR) at corresponding bowel segments. Methods This is a single-centered and cross-sectional study. A consecutive of 5798 patients who underwent colonoscopy examination were included. Bowel preparation was evaluated based on Bowel Bubble Scale (BBS) in general and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) in each segment (right side, transverse and left side of colon) and total BBPS scores. The quality of bowel preparation was correlated with ADR and AADR. Results Four thousand nine hundred forty colonoscopies (14,820 bowel segments) were included in the final analysis. In which 30.9% scored 3, 57.5% scored 2, 11.2% scored 1 and 0.4% scored 0 on basis of BBPS. For each score, ADR were 10.8, 7.7, 4.9 and 3.2%, respectively; whereas AADR were 4.5, 2.8,1.8 and 1.6% ( P  < 0.05). 36.9% of the colonoscopies showed presence of minimal bubbles and 34.3% with no bubble. For bowels without bubbles and with a large amount of bubbles, ADR were 28.3 and 20.0% respectively; and AADR were 13.3 and 7.1% respectively. Conclusions Segmental bowels’ cleanliness and the amount of bubbles in bowels significantly affect ADR and AADR. The better the bowel preparation at each segment is and the less bubbles in the bowel there are, the higher ADR and AADR we got. We suggest repeating colonoscopy if any segment of the bowel preparation is poor, or if there is more bubbles, even if the total score of BBPS indicates good or fair bowel preparation.

Background: Adequate bowel preparation quality is essential for high-quality colonoscopy according to the current guidelines. However, the effect of excellent bowel preparation on adenoma/polyp detection rate (ADR/PDR) remained controversial. Methods: During the period from December 2020 to August 2022, a total of 1566 consecutive patients underwent colonoscopy by an endoscopist. Their medical records were reviewed. According to the Boston bowel preparation scale, patients were divided into excellent, good, and poor bowel preparation quality groups. ADR/PDR, diminutive ADR/PDR, small ADR/PDR, intermediate ADR/PDR, large ADR/PDR, and number of adenomas/polyps were compared among them. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the factors that were significantly associated with ADR/PDR. Results: Overall, 1232 patients were included, of whom 463, 636, and 133 were assigned to the excellent, good, and poor groups, respectively. The good group had a significantly higher ADR/PDR (66% vs 55%, P = .015) and a larger number of adenomas/polyps (2.5 ± 3.2 vs 2.0 ± 2.8, P = .030) than the poor group. Both ADR/PDR (63% vs 55%, P = .097) and number of adenomas/polyps (2.2 ± 2.8 vs 2.0 ± 2.8, P = .219) were not significantly different between excellent and poor groups. The excellent (9% vs 4%, P = .045) and good (9% vs 4%, P = .040) groups had a significantly higher intermediate ADR/PDR than the poor group. Logistic regression analyses showed that either good (odds ratio [OR] = 1.786, 95% CI = 1.046-3.047, P = .034) or excellent (OR = 2.179, 95% CI = 1.241-3.826, P = .007) bowel preparation quality was independently associated with a higher ADR/PDR compared with poor bowel preparation quality. Excellent (OR = 1.202, 95% CI = 0.848-1.704, P = .302) bowel preparation quality was not independently associated with a higher ADR/PDR compared with good bowel preparation quality. Conclusions: The pursuit of excellence in bowel preparation does not show an association with increased ADR/PDR and number of adenomas/polyps compared with a good level. In addition, our study further contributes to the existing evidence that poor bowel preparation compromises ADR/PDR and number of adenomas/polyps.

BackgroundAdequate bowel preparation is crucial for effective screening colonoscopy. However, it is unclear whether higher bowel preparation scores correspond to beneficial effects on the adenoma and polyp detection rate (ADR and PDR) in the adequate bowel preparation group.AimsThis study aimed to evaluate the effects of bowel preparation, according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), and colonoscopy withdrawal time (CWT) on ADR and PDR in the adequate bowel preparation group.MethodsHealthy examinees between 50 and 75 years old who underwent colonoscopy between September 2015 and August 2016 were included. BBPS scores, CWT, ADR, and PDR were reviewed retrospectively. Predictors of ADR and PDR were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model.ResultsA total of 5073 cases with adequate bowel preparation (BBPS ≥ 6) were analyzed. Examinees with good (BBPS = 6, 7) and excellent (BBPS = 8, 9) bowel preparation were 1898 (37.4%) and 3175 (62.6%), respectively. Both ADR and PDR were higher in the good bowel preparation group than in the excellent bowel preparation group (ADR 47.3% vs. 45.0%, P = 0.035; PDR 73.7% vs. 69.5%, P = 0.004, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, CWT, rather than BBPS, was significantly associated with both ADR (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.02–1.06; P < 0.001) and PDR (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.02–1.07; P = 0.002).ConclusionsBoth ADR and PDR were lower when bowel preparation was excellent rather than good. However, CWT, not BBPS, was significantly associated with ADR and PDR in the adequate bowel preparation group. Therefore, meticulous inspection is important for high-quality colonoscopy regardless of the BBPS score in examinees with adequate bowel preparation.

Background and AimsA network meta-analysis showed that low-cost optimization of existing resources was as effective as distal add-on devices in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR). We assessed the impacts of water exchange (WE), Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy on ADR and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). We hypothesized that WE may be superior at improving ADR and AADR.MethodsThe literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported ADR as an outcome and included the keywords colonoscopy, and water exchange, Endocuff, or cap. We performed traditional network meta-analyses with random effect models comparing ADR and AADR of each method using air insufflation (AI) as the control and reported the odds ratios with 95% confidence interval. Performances were ranked based on P-score.ResultsTwenty-one RCTs met inclusion criteria. Fourteen RCTs also reported AADR. Both WE [1.46 (1.20–1.76)] and Endocuff [1.39 (1.17–1.66)] significantly increase ADR, while cap has no impact on ADR [1.00 (0.82–1.22)]. P-scores for WE (0.88), Endocuff (0.79), cap (0.17), and AI (0.17) suggest WE has the highest ADR. WE [1.38 (1.12–1.70)], but not Endocuff [0.96 (0.76–1.21)] or cap [1.06 (0.85–1.32)], significantly increases AADR. P-scores for WE (0.98), cap (0.50), AI (0.31), and Endocuff (0.21) suggest WE is more effective at increasing AADR. The results did not change after adjusting for age, proportion of males, and withdrawal time.ConclusionWE may be the modality of choice to maximally improve ADR and AADR.

Background Sedated colonoscopy has been increasingly selected. However, the effect of sedated colonoscopy on polyp/adenoma detection rate (PDR/ADR) remains controversial among studies. Methods In this retrospective study, the medical records of 11 504 consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy at our department from July 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022 were collected. Patients were divided into sedated and unsedated groups according to the use of intravenous sedation during colonoscopy. Overall PDR/ADR, right-side, transverse, and left-side colon PDR/ADR, and single and multiple PDR/ADR were calculated. By adjusting for age, gender, body mass index, inpatient, screening/surveillance, cecal intubation time, colonoscopy withdrawal time ≥6 min, and an endoscopist’s experience ≥5 years, multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association of sedated colonoscopy with overall PDR/ADR, right-side, transverse, and left-side colon PDR/ADR, and single and multiple PDR/ADR, where the absence of PDR/ADR was used as reference. Odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results Overall, 2275 patients were included, of whom 293 and 1982 underwent sedated and unsedated colonoscopy, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that sedated colonoscopy was independently associated with lower overall PDR/ADR (OR = 0.640, 95% CI = 0.460-0.889, P = 0.008), right-side colon PDR/ADR (OR = 0.591, 95% CI = 0.417-0.837, P = 0.003), single PDR/ADR (OR = 0.659, 95% CI = 0.436-0.996, P = 0.048), and multiple PDR/ADR (OR = 0.586, 95% CI = 0.402-0.855, P = 0.005), but not transverse or left-side colon PDR/ADR. Conclusion Sedated colonoscopy may not be beneficial in terms of overall PDR/ADR, right-side colon PDR/ADR, and number of polyps/adenomas. Thus, it should be selectively recommended. Additionally, it should be necessary to explore how to improve the quality of sedated colonoscopy.

BackgroundAdenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality indicator for screening colonoscopy, but its calculation is time-consuming. Polyp detection rate (PDR) has been found to correlate with ADR; however, its use as a quality indicator has been criticized out of concern for endoscopists artificially inflating the PDR. We aim to evaluate whether active monitoring affects PDR.MethodsIn March 2015, 14 endoscopists were made aware that their personal PDRs would be tracked monthly as a quality improvement project. Endoscopists received a report of their individual monthly and cumulative PDR, departmental averages, and a benchmark PDR. Following the intervention, data were collected for consecutive patients undergoing average risk screening colonoscopy for six months. PDR, ADR, and adenoma to polyp detection ratio quotient (APDRQ) were compared to a six-month pre-intervention period.Results2203 patients were included in the study. There was no statistically significant difference in PDR when comparing pre- and post-intervention (44 vs. 45%, OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.77–1.36). No statistically significant difference in ADR was observed when comparing pre- and post-intervention (29 vs. 30%, OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.64–1.52). There was no statistically significant difference in APDRQ when comparing pre- and post-intervention (0.67 vs. 0.66, OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.69–1.33).ConclusionsMonthly report cards did not result in a change in PDR or APDRQ. In some environments, PDR can be used as a surrogate marker of ADR, despite endoscopist awareness that PDR is being measured.

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key indicator of colonoscopy quality, but operator variability persists. Female clinicians may perform differently in other medical contexts, and artificial intelligence (AI) has been proposed to enhance detection. This study evaluated the impact of endoscopist characteristics and AI assistance on ADR in a real-world cohort. This retrospective cohort study analyzed colonoscopy data from 17,604 patients in a single center in China between January 2021 and August 2022. Endoscopist characteristics were determined via survey, and AI-assisted procedures were identified based on implementation dates. The primary outcome was ADR; secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), lesion size and location, and detection rates of advanced adenomas (AA) and sessile serrated lesions (SSL). Multivariable regression models were employed to adjust for confounders, including patient and endoscopist characteristics. Of the 17,604 colonoscopies, 12,638 (71.8%) were performed by male endoscopists and 4,966 (28.2%) by female endoscopists. After adjustment by nine confounders at patient and endoscopist levels and the use of AI, female endoscopists achieved higher ADR (AOR 1.273, 95% CI 1.171 to 1.385;  < 0.001) and PDR (AOR 1.816, 95% CI 1.679 to 1.964;  < 0.001). Female endoscopists also outperformed in detecting diminutive adenomas and lesions in the proximal colon. AI assistance improved ADR among male endoscopists (AOR 1.166, 95% CI 1.064 to 1.278;  = 0.001) but had no significant effect for females. With AI, ADR among male endoscopists increased to 28.77%, approaching the level observed in female endoscopists without AI (30.05%). Endoscopist characteristics, particularly sex and experience, and AI assistance influence ADR. Female endoscopists demonstrated superior performance in detecting lesions during colonoscopy, especially for small and proximally located lesions. AI assistance significantly enhanced the performance of male endoscopists, reducing sex-based disparities in ADR.