Download PDF
Endoscopy 2013; 45(09): 756-761
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1344630
DDW Highlights
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Colonoscopy

Douglas K. Rex
Indiana University School of Medicine, Indiana University Hospital, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 August 2013 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

A large number of high-quality studies important to colonoscopy were presented at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2013, and the topics addressed by these studies reflect current controversies in colonoscopic practice. Thus, bowel preparation, quality measurements (particularly factors affecting adenoma detection), polypectomy technique, serrated polyps, real-time histology, and water immersion were covered in great detail. Studies covered here reflect the author’s perception of those providing new data or describing new approaches to current controversies in colonoscopy.

 

  • References

  • 1 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: 1296-1308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Corley DA, Jensen C, Marks AR et al. Physician adenoma detection rate variability and subsequent colorectal cancer risk following a negative colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 2-S3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF et al. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150: 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA et al. The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer. Gastroenterology 2010; 139: 1128-1137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Singh H, Nugent Z, Mahmud SM et al. Predictors of colorectal cancer after negative colonoscopy: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 663-673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Baxter N, Sutradhar R, Forbes DD et al. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 65-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM et al. Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case-control study. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 22-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Baxter NN, Warren JL, Barrett MJ et al. Association between colonoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality in a US cohort according to site of cancer and colonoscopist specialty. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 2664-2669
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kahi C, Myers LJ, Slaven JE et al. Endoscopic prevention of colorectal cancer in older individuals. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: S19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Shergill A, Conners E, McQuaid KR et al. Protective effect of open access colonoscopy against the development of right and left sided colon cancers. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: S20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Doubeni C, Weinmann S, Adams KF et al. Screening colonoscopy and risk of incident late-stage colorectal cancer diagnosis in average-risk adults: a nested case-control study (abstract). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Samadder NJ, Curtin K, Tuohy T et al. Prevalence and predictors of missed or interval colorectal cancer: a population-based study in Utah. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 1-S2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lieberman D, Williams JL, Holub JL. Risk based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in blacks versus whites less than age 60 years: analysis of a national endoscopic database. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: S41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Imperiale T, Monahan PO, Stump TE et al. A risk index to stratify the risk of advanced colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 138-S139
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gralnek IM, Siersema PD, Halpern Z et al. Comparing Traditional Forward-Viewing Colonoscopy with “Full Spectrum Endoscopy”: A Randomized, Multicenter Tandem Colonoscopy Study-The FUSE Study (abstract). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB2
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Rex DK, Adler SN, Aisenberg J et al. Accuracy of PillCam Colon 2 for detecting subjects with adenomas >6 mm (abstract). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Spada C, Hassan C, Cesaro P et al. Prospective trial of PillCam colon capsule (CCE) vs CT-colonography (CTC) in the evaluation of patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopy (CC): an interim analysis (abstract). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB163
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 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. Colorectal Dis 2011; 13: e345-e348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 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: 118-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lee CK, Kim J-W, Jang J-Y et al. Cold SNARE polypectomy versus cold forceps polypectomy using double biopsy technique for removal of diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized controlled trial (abstract). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB2
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Aslan F, Alper E, Vatansever S et al. Cold SNARE polypectomy versus standard SNARE polypectomy in endoscopic treatment of small polyps (abstract). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB561
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y. Prospective randomized comparison of cold SNARE polypectomy and conventional polypectomy for small colorectal polyps in patients receiving anticoagulation therapy (abstract). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB174
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Aadam A, Kahi CJ, Oh Y et al. Determinants of endoscopic versus surgical management of complex colorectal polyps: a multicenter video-based survey study (abstract). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB540-AB541
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hetzel J, 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: 2656-2664
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kahi CJ, Hewett DG, Norton DL et al. Prevalence and variable detection of proximal colon serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 9: 42-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Arain MA, Sawhney M, Sheikh S et al. CIMP status of interval colon cancers: another piece to the puzzle. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1189-1195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 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: 844-857
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Khalid O, Radaideh S, Cummings OW et al. Reinterpretation of histology of proximal colon polyps called hyperplastic in 2001. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15: 3767-3770
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Morales S, Kolb JM, Bodian CA et al. Modifications to serrated polyp handling after polypectomy improve histopathologic section quality and raise the diagnostic rate for advanced lesions (abstract). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB558
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Burgess N, Nanda KS, Williams SJ et al. Comparison of large sessile serrated adenoma characteristics with conventional advanced mucosal neoplasia resected by wide field endoscopic mucosal resection in a multicenter prospective cohort (abstract). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Burgess N, 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: results from a multicenter cohort of 1050 patients (abstract). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB158
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 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: 419-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Patel S, Rastogi A, Austin GL et al. Learning curves using cumulative sum analysis (CUSUM) for the histological characterization of diminutive colorectal polyps using a computer-based teaching module and narrow band imaging (NBI) videos: implications for resect and discard strategy (abstract). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB145
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Basford P, Longcroft-Wheaton GR, Bhandari P. The learning curve for in-vivo characterisation of small colonic polyps: number needed to train (NNT) is 200 polyps (abstract). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB528
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Rex DK. Narrow-band imaging without optical magnification for histologic analysis of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 1174-1181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Gupta N, Kaltenbach T, Sato T et al. Diagnosis time determines the accuracy of optical diagnosis of diminutive polyp histology (abstract). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB553-AB554
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 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: 516-522
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Agrawal D, Robbins R, Rockey DC. Gastric residual volume is trivial soon after polyethylene glycol bowel preparation (abstract). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB149-AB150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Mahadev S, Green PH, Lebwohl B. Rates of suboptimal preparation differ markedly between providers; impact on adenoma detection rates (abstract). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB510-AB511
    PubMedGoogle Scholar