Adenoma detection by Endocuff-assisted versus standard colonoscopy in an organized screening program: the "ItaVision" randomized controlled trial.


Journal

Endoscopy
ISSN: 1438-8812
Titre abrégé: Endoscopy
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0215166

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 2022
Historique:
aheadofprint: 01 02 2021
pubmed: 2 2 2021
medline: 26 3 2022
entrez: 1 2 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The Endocuff Vision device (Arc Medical Design Ltd., Leeds, UK) has been shown to increase mucosal exposure, and consequently adenoma detection rate (ADR), during colonoscopy. This nationwide multicenter study assessed possible benefits and harms of using Endocuff Vision in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program. Patients undergoing colonoscopy after a FIT-positive test were randomized 1:1 to undergo Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy or standard colonoscopy, stratified by sex, age, and screening history. Primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were ADR stratified by endoscopists' ADR, advanced ADR (AADR), adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), withdrawal time, and adverse events. 1866 patients were enrolled across 13 centers. After exclusions, 1813 (mean age 60.1 years; male 53.8 %) were randomized (908 Endocuff Vision, 905 standard colonoscopy). ADR was significantly higher in the Endocuff Vision arm (47.8 % vs. 40.8 %; relative risk [RR] 1.17, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.30), with no differences between arms regarding size or morphology. When stratifying for endoscopists' ADR, only low detectors (ADR < 33.3 %) showed a statistically significant ADR increase (Endocuff Vision 41.1 % [95 %CI 35.7-46.7] vs. standard colonoscopy 26.0 % [95 %CI 21.3-31.4]). AADR (24.8 % vs. 20.5 %, RR 1.21, 95 %CI 1.02-1.43) and APC (0.94 vs. 0.77; Endocuff Vision increased ADR in a FIT-based screening program by improving examination of the whole colonic mucosa. Utility was highest among endoscopists with a low ADR.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The Endocuff Vision device (Arc Medical Design Ltd., Leeds, UK) has been shown to increase mucosal exposure, and consequently adenoma detection rate (ADR), during colonoscopy. This nationwide multicenter study assessed possible benefits and harms of using Endocuff Vision in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program.
METHODS
Patients undergoing colonoscopy after a FIT-positive test were randomized 1:1 to undergo Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy or standard colonoscopy, stratified by sex, age, and screening history. Primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were ADR stratified by endoscopists' ADR, advanced ADR (AADR), adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), withdrawal time, and adverse events.
RESULTS
1866 patients were enrolled across 13 centers. After exclusions, 1813 (mean age 60.1 years; male 53.8 %) were randomized (908 Endocuff Vision, 905 standard colonoscopy). ADR was significantly higher in the Endocuff Vision arm (47.8 % vs. 40.8 %; relative risk [RR] 1.17, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.30), with no differences between arms regarding size or morphology. When stratifying for endoscopists' ADR, only low detectors (ADR < 33.3 %) showed a statistically significant ADR increase (Endocuff Vision 41.1 % [95 %CI 35.7-46.7] vs. standard colonoscopy 26.0 % [95 %CI 21.3-31.4]). AADR (24.8 % vs. 20.5 %, RR 1.21, 95 %CI 1.02-1.43) and APC (0.94 vs. 0.77;
CONCLUSION
Endocuff Vision increased ADR in a FIT-based screening program by improving examination of the whole colonic mucosa. Utility was highest among endoscopists with a low ADR.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33524994
doi: 10.1055/a-1379-6868
doi:

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03612674']

Types de publication

Clinical Trial Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

138-147

Investigateurs

Angelo Bellumat (A)
Andrea Buda (A)
Elisabetta Buscarini (E)
Lucas Cavallaro (L)
Aldo Ceriani (A)
Franca De Lazzari (F)
Angelo Dezi (A)
Ennio Guido (E)
Giuseppe Iabichino (G)
Claudio Londoni (C)
Nicoletta Merlini (N)
Francesca Murer (F)
Neri Nardini (N)
Ephrem Ntakirutimana (E)
Emma Paulon (E)
Anna Rostello (A)
Marco Silvani (M)
Nicoletta Stefani (N)
Paolo Viaggi (P)

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Thieme. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Auteurs

Manuel Zorzi (M)

Veneto Tumor Registry, Azienda Zero, Padova, Italy.

Cesare Hassan (C)

Gastroenterology Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy.

Jessica Battagello (J)

Veneto Tumor Registry, Azienda Zero, Padova, Italy.

Giulio Antonelli (G)

Gastroenterology Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Department of Translational and Precision Medicine, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Italy.
Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Ospedale dei Castelli (N.O.C.), ASL Roma 6, Ariccia, Rome, Italy.

Maurizio Pantalena (M)

Gastroenterology Unit, Cazzavillan Hospital, ULSS 8 Berica, Arzignano, Italy.

Gianmarco Bulighin (G)

Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Fracastoro Hospital, ULSS 9 Scaligera, San Bonifacio, Italy.

Saverio Alicante (S)

Gastroenterology Department, ASST-Crema, Maggiore Hospital, Crema, Italy.

Tamara Meggiato (T)

Department of Gastroenterology, Rovigo General Hospital, ULSS 5 Polesana, Rovigo, Italy.

Erik Rosa-Rizzotto (E)

Gastroenterology Unit, St. Anthony Hospital, Azienda Ospedale-Università, Padua, Italy.

Federico Iacopini (F)

Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Ospedale dei Castelli (N.O.C.), ASL Roma 6, Ariccia, Rome, Italy.

Carmelo Luigiano (C)

Unit of Digestive Endoscopy, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, Milan, Italy.

Fabio Monica (F)

Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Cattinara University Hospital, Trieste, Italy.

Arrigo Arrigoni (A)

Gastroenterology Unit, University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.

Bastianello Germanà (B)

Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, San Martino Hospital, ULSS 1 Dolomiti, Belluno, Italy.

Flavio Valiante (F)

Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Santa Maria del Prato Hospital, ULSS 1 Dolomiti, Feltre, Italy.

Beatrice Mallardi (B)

Screening Unit, Institute for Cancer Research, Prevention and Oncological Network (ISPRO), Florence, Italy.

Carlo Senore (C)

Epidemiology and Screening Unit - CPO, University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.

Grazia Grazzini (G)

Screening Unit, Institute for Cancer Research, Prevention and Oncological Network (ISPRO), Florence, Italy.

Paola Mantellini (P)

Screening Unit, Institute for Cancer Research, Prevention and Oncological Network (ISPRO), Florence, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH