Effect of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy on adenoma detection rate: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Background Yield of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) compared with standard colonoscopy is conflicting in terms of adenoma detection rate (ADR). A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) appears necessary.

Methods PubMed and Google Scholar were searched in December 2017. Abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week meetings were also searched to 2017. All RCTs comparing EAC with standard colonoscopy were included. Analysis was conducted by using the Mantel–Haenszel models. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I ² test.

Results Of the 265 articles reviewed, 12 RCTs were included, with a total of 8376 patients (EAC group 4225; standard colonoscopy group 4151). In the meta-analysis, ADR was significantly increased in the EAC group vs. the standard colonoscopy group (41.3 % vs. 34.2 %; risk ratio [RR] = 1.20, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.06 to 1.36; P = 0.003; I ² = 79 %), especially for operators with low-to-moderate ADRs (< 35 %): RR = 1.51, 95 %CI 1.35 to 1.69; P < 0.001; I ² = 43 %). In contrast, this benefit was not reached for operators with high ADRs (> 45 %): RR = 1.01, 95 %CI 0.93 to 1.09; P = 0.87; I ² = 0.0 %). The mean number of adenomas per patient tended to be higher with EAC (mean difference = 0.11 adenomas/patient, 95 %CI – 0.17 to 0.38). Similar results were shown for polyp detection rates (61.6 % vs. 51.4 %; RR = 1.20, 95 %CI 1.06 to 1.36; P = 0.004). Use of the Endocuff did not impact the cecal intubation rate (95.1 % vs. 95.7 %; P = 0.08), or the procedure time compared with standard colonoscopy. Adverse events related to Endocuff were rare and exclusively mild mucosal erosion (4.0 %; 95 %CI 2.0 % to 8.0 %).

Conclusion With moderate-quality evidence, this study showed an improvement in ADR with EAC without major adverse events, especially for operators with low-to-moderate ADRs.

• References

• 1 Cooper GS, Xu F, Barnholtz Sloan JS. et al. Prevalence and predictors of interval colorectal cancers in medicare beneficiaries. Cancer 2012; 118: 3044-3052
• 2 Singh S, Singh PP, Murad MH. et al. Prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of interval colorectal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 1375-1389
• 3 Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, Forbes SS. et al. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 65-72
• 4 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
• 5 Uraoka T, Tanaka S, Matsumoto T. et al. A novel extra-wide-angle-view colonoscope: a simulated pilot study using anatomic colorectal models. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 480-483
• 6 Uraoka T, Tanaka S, Oka S. et al. Feasibility of a novel colonoscope with extra-wide angle of view: a clinical study. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 444-448
• 7 Gralnek IM, Suissa A, Domanov S. Safety and efficacy of a novel balloon colonoscope: a prospective cohort study. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 883-887
• 8 Pohl H, Bensen SP, Toor A. et al. Cap-assisted colonoscopy and detection of Adenomatous Polyps (CAP) study: a randomized trial. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 891-897
• 9 Lenze F, Beyna T, Lenz P. et al. Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy: a new accessory to improve adenoma detection rate? Technical aspects and first clinical experiences. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 610-614
• 10 Chin M, Karnes W, Jamal MM. et al. Use of the Endocuff during routine colonoscopy examination improves adenoma detection: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22: 9642-9649
• 11 Pioche M, Matsumoto M, Takamaru H. et al. Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy increases polyp detection rate: a simulated randomized study involving an anatomic colorectal model and 32 international endoscopists. Surg Endosc 2016; 30: 288-295
• 12 Cattau E, Leal R, Ormseth E. et al. The effect of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy on adenoma detection rate: a randomized trial in community ambulatory surgical centers. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: S602
• 13 van Doorn SC, van der Vlugt M, Depla A. et al. Adenoma detection with Endocuff colonoscopy versus conventional colonoscopy: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Gut 2017; 66: 438-445
• 14 Floer M, Biecker E, Fitzlaff R. et al. Higher adenoma detection rates with endocuff-assisted colonoscopy – a randomized controlled multicenter trial. PLoS One 2014; 9: e114267
• 15 Biecker E, Floer M, Heinecke A. et al. Novel endocuff-assisted colonoscopy significantly increases the polyp detection rate: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Gastroenterol 2015; 49: 413-418
• 16 Facciorusso A, Del Prete V, Buccino RV. et al. Comparative efficacy of colonoscope distal attachment devices in increasing rates of adenoma detection: a network meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; pii: S1542-3565(17)31318-6
• 17 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. et al. Pre-ferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. The PRISMA Group PLoS Med 2009; 6: 07e1000097
• 18 Harzing AW. Publish or Perish. 2007 Available from: http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm
• 19 Wan X, Wang W, Liu J. et al. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 135
• 20 Available from: Higgins JPT, Green S. , eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011 http://handbook.cochrane.org
• 21 Riley RD, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ 2011; 342: d549
• 22 R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2014 Available from: http://www.R-project.org/
• 23 Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010 36. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v036.i03 Available from: https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v036i03
• 24 De Palma GD, Giglio MC, Bruzzese D. et al. Cap cuff-assisted colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy for adenoma detection: a randomized back-to-back study. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 232-240
• 25 Bhattacharyya R, Chedgy F, Kandiah K. et al. Endocuff-assisted vs. standard colonoscopy in the fecal occult blood test-based UK Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (E-cap study): a randomized trial. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 1043-1050
• 26 Triantafyllou K, Polymeros D, Apostolopoulos P. et al. Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy is associated with a lower adenoma miss rate: a multicenter randomized tandem study. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 1051-1060
• 27 González-Fernández C, García-Rangel D, Aguilar-Olivos NE. et al. Higher adenoma detection rate with the endocuff: a randomized trial. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 1061-1068
• 28 Wada Y, Wada Y, Wada M. et al. OP169 Efficacy of endocuff-assisted colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal polyps. Abstr UEGW. 2016
• 29 Hass D, Jaffe C, Malangone L. et al. Endocuff (EC) increases adenoma detection rates on surveillance colonoscopy and improves efficiency of colonoscopy by shortening of withdrawal times. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: S28
• 30 Ngu WS, Bevan R, Tsiamoulos ZP. et al. Improving colorectal adenoma detection rate with Endocuff Vision. Results of the Adenoma Randomised Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology 2017; 152: S1313-S1314
• 31 Catalano MF, Khan N, Lajin M. et al. Increase in adenoma detection rate (ADR) using endocuff (EC) assisted colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: AB495
• 32 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
• 33 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298-1306