Detection and miss rates of autofluorescence imaging of adenomatous and polypoid lesions during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims: Autofluorescence imaging (AFI) is an endoscopic imaging technique used to increase the detection of premalignant gastrointestinal lesions, and it has gradually become popular in recent years. This meta-analysis was performed to examine whether AFI provides greater efficacy in the detection of adenomatous and polypoid lesions and can even prevent the failure to detect a single adenoma or polyp. The aim of the study was to systematically review the efficacy of AFI in increasing detection rates and decreasing miss rates.

Methods: Pertinent articles were identified through a search of databases up to December 2013 that included patients who had undergone two same-day colonoscopies (AFI and white light endoscopy [WLE]), followed by polypectomy. Fixed and random effects models were used to detect significant differences between AFI and WLE in regard to adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma miss rate (AMR), polyp miss rate (PMR), and procedural time.

Results: A total of 1199 patients from six eligible studies met the inclusion criteria. No significant differences were found in ADR (odds ratio [OR] 1.01; 95 % confidence interval [95 %CI] 0.74 – 1.37), PDR (OR 0.86; 95 %CI 0.57 – 1.30), or advanced ADR (OR 1.22; 95 %CI 0.69 – 2.17). The AMR (OR 0.62; 95 %CI 0.44 – 0.86) and PMR (OR 0.64; 95 %CI 0.48 – 0.85) by AFI were significantly lower than those by WLE. The procedural time of AFI was significantly longer than that of WLE (mean 8.00 minutes; 95 %CI 1.59 – 14.41). Subgroup meta-analysis for the other characteristics was not performed because of insufficiency of the primary data.

Conclusions: AFI decreases AMR and PMR significantly compared with WLE but does not improve ADR or PDR. AMR and PMR may be decreased by using AFI in flat and small lesions or when less experienced endoscopists perform the procedure.

• References

• 1 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
• 2 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: 687-696
• 3 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264-269, W64
• 4 Higgins JP, Green S eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2009
• 5 Matsumoto T, Nakamura S, Moriyama T et al. Autofluorescence imaging colonoscopy for the detection of dysplastic lesions in ulcerative colitis: a pilot study. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12: e291-e297
• 6 van den Broek FJ, Fockens P, van Eeden S et al. Endoscopic tri-modal imaging for surveillance in ulcerative colitis: randomised comparison of high-resolution endoscopy and autofluorescence imaging for neoplasia detection; and evaluation of narrow-band imaging for classification of lesions. Gut 2008; 57: 1083-1089
• 7 Ignjatovic A, East JE, Guenther T et al. What is the most reliable imaging modality for small colonic polyp characterization? Study of white-light, autofluorescence, and narrow-band imaging. . Endoscopy 2011; 43: 94-99
• 8 Sato R, Fujiya M, Watari J et al. The diagnostic accuracy of high-resolution endoscopy, autofluorescence imaging and narrow-band imaging for differentially diagnosing colon adenoma. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 862-868
• 9 Moriichi K, Fujiya M, Sato R et al. Autofluorescence imaging and the quantitative intensity of fluorescence for evaluating the dysplastic grade of colonic neoplasms. Int J Colorectal Dis 2012; 27: 325-330
• 10 Takeuchi Y, Inoue T, Hanaoka N et al. Surveillance colonoscopy using a transparent hood and image-enhanced endoscopy. Dig Endosc 2010; 22: S47-S53
• 11 Takeuchi Y, Inoue T, Hanaoka N et al. Autofluorescence imaging with a transparent hood for detection of colorectal neoplasms: a prospective, randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 1006-1013
• 12 Folli S, Wagnieres G, Pelegrin A et al. Immunophotodiagnosis of colon carcinomas in patients injected with fluoresceinated chimeric antibodies against carcinoembryonic antigen. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1992; 89: 7973-7977
• 13 Moriichi K, Fujiya M, Sato R et al. Back-to-back comparison of auto-fluorescence imaging (AFI) versus high resolution white light colonoscopy for adenoma detection. BMC Gastroenterol 2012; 12: 75
• 14 Matsuda T, Saito Y, Fu KI et al. Does autofluorescence imaging videoendoscopy system improve the colonoscopic polyp detection rate? – a pilot study. . Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 1926-1932
• 15 van den Broek FJ, Fockens P, Van Eeden S et al. Clinical evaluation of endoscopic trimodal imaging for the detection and differentiation of colonic polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 288-295
• 16 Kuiper T, van den Broek FJ, Naber AH et al. Endoscopic trimodal imaging detects colonic neoplasia as well as standard video endoscopy. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 1887-1894
• 17 Rotondano G, Bianco MA, Sansone S et al. Trimodal endoscopic imaging for the detection and differentiation of colorectal adenomas: a prospective single-centre clinical evaluation. Int J Colorectal Dis 2012; 27: 331-336
• 18 Jiang Z, Ge Z, Dai J et al. Comparison of autofluorescence imaging (AFI) and white light (WL) endoscopy in screening of colon polyps [in Chinese]. Chin J Dig Endosc 2010; 27: 173-178
• 19 Brown SR, Baraza W. Chromoscopy versus conventional endoscopy for the detection of polyps in the colon and rectum. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010. CD006439
• 20 Nagorni A, Bjelakovic G, Petrovic B. Narrow band imaging versus conventional white light colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2012 CD008361
• 21 Sabbagh LC, Reveiz L, Aponte D et al. Narrow-band imaging does not improve detection of colorectal polyps when compared to conventional colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial and meta-analysis of published studies. BMC Gastroenterol 2011; 11: 100
• 22 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: 363-370 quiz 371
• 23 Dinesen L, Chua TJ, Kaffes AJ. Meta-analysis of narrow-band imaging versus conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 604-611
• 24 van den Broek FJ, Reitsma JB, Curvers WL et al. Systematic review of narrow-band imaging for the detection and differentiation of neoplastic and nonneoplastic lesions in the colon (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 124-135
• 25 van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 343-350
• 26 Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 2191-2200
• 27 van den Broek FJ, van Soest EJ, Naber AH et al. Combining autofluorescence imaging and narrow-band imaging for the differentiation of adenomas from non-neoplastic colonic polyps among experienced and non-experienced endoscopists. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 1498-1507