RSS-Feed abonnieren
PDF herunterladen
DOI: 10.1055/a-2678-7367
A novel colonoscope with 230-degree extra-wide field-of-view optics: a prospective first-in-human pilot study
Autoren
Clinical Trial:
Registration number (trial ID): NCT06483503, Trial registry: ClinicalTrials.gov (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/), Type of Study: Bicentric prospective clinical pilot trial
Abstract
Background
A model-based trial of a novel colonoscope with extra-wide field-of-view (EFOV) optics previously demonstrated a higher polyp detection rate compared with a standard colonoscope. We report on the first-in-human study assessing its clinical utility.
Methods
This two-center prospective pilot trial included patients scheduled for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, evaluation of a positive fecal immunochemical test, or polyp surveillance. The primary end point was the cecal intubation rate with the EFOV colonoscope. Secondary end points included terminal ileum intubation rate, procedure time, detection rates for polyps (PDR), adenomas (ADR), and sessile serrated lesions (SSLDR), adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), therapeutic success, and adverse events.
Results
64 patients were enrolled. Indications were CRC screening (n = 48) or polyp surveillance (n = 16). The cecum was reached in all patients (100%; 95%CI 94.4%–100%) within a median time of 5 (range 2–20) minutes. The terminal ileum was intubated in 96.9% (95%CI 89.2%–99.6%) of cases. A total of 84 polyps were detected and removed in 43/64 patients (PDR 67%). The ADR, SSLDR, and APC were 43.8%, 17.2%, and 0.81 (95%CI 0.5–1.1), respectively. No adverse events occurred.
Conclusions
This first-in-human study showed that the EFOV colonoscope can be effectively and safely used in clinical practice. It promises improved detection of hidden polyps.
Publikationsverlauf
Eingereicht: 12. April 2025
Angenommen nach Revision: 06. August 2025
Accepted Manuscript online:
06. August 2025
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
12. September 2025
© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Ladabaum U, Dominitz JA, Kahi C. et al. Strategies for colorectal cancer screening. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 418-432
- 2 Bretthauer M, Løberg M, Wieszcy P. et al. Effect of colonoscopy screening on risks of colorectal cancer and related death. N Engl J Med 2022; 387: 1547-1556
- 3 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: 1661-1674
- 4 Anderson R, Burr NE, Valori R. Causes of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers based on World Endoscopy Organization system of analysis. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 1287-1299
- 5 Anderson JC, Rex DK, Mackenzie TA. et al. Endoscopist adenomas-per-colonoscopy detection rates and risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2024; 99: 787-795
- 6 Keswani RN, Crockett SD, Calderwood AH. AGA clinical practice update on strategies to improve quality of screening and surveillance colonoscopy: expert review. Gastroenterology 2021; 161: 701-711
- 7 Shaukat A, Tuskey A, Rao VL. et al. Interventions to improve adenoma detection rates for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 96: 171-183
- 8 Van Keulen KE, Papanikolaou IS, Mak TWC. et al. Comparison of adenoma miss rate and adenoma detection rate between conventional colonoscopy and colonoscopy with second-generation distal attachment cuff: a multicenter, randomized, back-to-back trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2024; 99: 798-808
- 9 Facciorusso A, Konstantinos Triantafyllou K, Murad MH. et al. Compared abilities of endoscopic techniques to increase colon adenoma detection rates: a network meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17: 2439-2454
- 10 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
- 11 Bronzwaer MES, Dekker E, Weingart V. et al. Feasibility, safety, and diagnostic yield of the Extra Wide Angle View (EWAVE) colonoscope for the detection of colorectal lesions. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 63-68
- 12 Neuhaus H, Nowak T, Schmidt A. A novel colonoscope with an extra-wide field of view increases polyp detection rate compared with standard colonoscope: prospective model-based trial. Endosc Int Open 2024; 12: E1230-1236
- 13 Neuhaus H, Nguyen A, Grossmann J. A novel colonoscope with a wider field of view of 230° – first in human case. Endoscopy 2025; 57: E157-E158
- 14 Bisschops R, East JE, Hassan C. et al. Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – update 2019. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 1155-1179
- 15 Ferlitsch M, Hassan C, Bisschops R et. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – update 2024. Endoscopy 2024; 56: 516-545
- 16 Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G. et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 620-625
- 17 Denzer U, Beilenhoff U, Eickhoff A. et al. S2k guideline: quality requirements for gastrointestinal endoscopy, AWMF registry no. 021–022 [article in German]. Z Gastroenterol 2015; 53: E1-227
- 18 Rex DK, Repici A, Gross SA. et al. High-definition colonoscopy versus Endocuff versus EndoRings versus full-spectrum endoscopy for adenoma detection at colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 335-344
- 19 Fernandes C, Estevinho M, Marques Cruz M. et al. Adenoma detection rate by colonoscopy in real-world population-based studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2025; 57: 49-61