G-EYE Improves Polyp, Adenoma, and Serrated Polyp Detection Rates in Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Journal
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
ISSN: 1539-2031
Titre abrégé: J Clin Gastroenterol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7910017
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Aug 2024
01 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
15
06
2023
accepted:
09
08
2023
medline:
5
7
2024
pubmed:
5
7
2024
entrez:
5
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Colonoscopy is the gold-standard test to decrease mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). G-EYE is an inflated balloon on the bending section of the scope with the ability to flatten the folds to improve the adenoma detection rate (ADR). We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of G-EYE in improving ADR and other quality indicators of colonoscopy. A literature search was performed through March 21, 2023, on databases including Embase, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science Core Collection, KCI-Korean Journal Index, and Global Index Medicus. Core concepts of G-EYE, colonoscopy, ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), serrated polyp detection rate (SPDR), and withdrawal time were searched. Statistical analysis was performed with OpenMeta[Analyst]. The odds ratio (OR) for the proportional variable and mean difference for the continuous variable along with 95% CI was used with a P-value <0.05 considered statistically significant. We used the DerSimonian-Laird method and random effects model for pooling data. The search strategy yielded a total of 143 articles. Three studies with 3868 total colonoscopies were finalized. The pooled ADR, PDR, and SPDR showed statistical improvement with G-EYE (OR: 1.744, 95% CI: 1.534-1.984, P<0.001; OR: 1.766, 95% CI: 1.547-2.015, P<0.001; and OR: 1.603, 95% CI: 1.176-2.185, P=0.003). The withdrawal time was also noted to be higher in the G-EYE group (mean difference: 0.114, CI: 0.041-0.186, P=0.002). This meta-analysis suggests that G-EYE can improve ADR, PDR, and SPDR. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of G-EYE on interval CRC and mortality rate.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Colonoscopy is the gold-standard test to decrease mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). G-EYE is an inflated balloon on the bending section of the scope with the ability to flatten the folds to improve the adenoma detection rate (ADR). We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of G-EYE in improving ADR and other quality indicators of colonoscopy.
METHODS
METHODS
A literature search was performed through March 21, 2023, on databases including Embase, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science Core Collection, KCI-Korean Journal Index, and Global Index Medicus. Core concepts of G-EYE, colonoscopy, ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), serrated polyp detection rate (SPDR), and withdrawal time were searched. Statistical analysis was performed with OpenMeta[Analyst]. The odds ratio (OR) for the proportional variable and mean difference for the continuous variable along with 95% CI was used with a P-value <0.05 considered statistically significant. We used the DerSimonian-Laird method and random effects model for pooling data.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The search strategy yielded a total of 143 articles. Three studies with 3868 total colonoscopies were finalized. The pooled ADR, PDR, and SPDR showed statistical improvement with G-EYE (OR: 1.744, 95% CI: 1.534-1.984, P<0.001; OR: 1.766, 95% CI: 1.547-2.015, P<0.001; and OR: 1.603, 95% CI: 1.176-2.185, P=0.003). The withdrawal time was also noted to be higher in the G-EYE group (mean difference: 0.114, CI: 0.041-0.186, P=0.002).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis suggests that G-EYE can improve ADR, PDR, and SPDR. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of G-EYE on interval CRC and mortality rate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38967382
doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001924
pii: 00004836-202408000-00007
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Meta-Analysis
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
668-673Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Shaukat A, Kahi CJ, Burke CA, et al. ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021;116:458–479.
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.
Aziz M, Thoguluva, Chandrasekar V. Improving the ADR: narrow band, broad benefits. Dig Dis Sci. 2020;65:1586–1587.
Gupta S, Lieberman D, Anderson JC, et al. Recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;91:463.e5–485.e5.
Aziz M, Haghbin H, Sayeh W, et al. Comparison of artificial intelligence with other interventions to improve adenoma detection rate for colonoscopy: a network meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2022. doi:10.1097/MCG.0000000000001813
doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001813
Kiesslich R, Teubner D, Hoffman A, et al. Retrospective comparison of balloon-colonoscopy with standard colonoscopy for increased adenoma detection rate and reduced polyp removal time. Endosc Int Open. 2022. doi:10.1055/a-2005-6934
doi: 10.1055/a-2005-6934
Shirin H, Shpak B, Epshtein J, et al. G-EYE colonoscopy is superior to standard colonoscopy for increasing adenoma detection rate: an international randomized controlled trial (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;89:545–553.
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. J Am Med Assoc. 2000;283:2008–2012.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906.
Rex DK. Key quality indicators in colonoscopy. Gastroenterol Rep. 2023:11.
Haghbin H, Zakirkhodjaev N, Aziz M. Withdrawal time in colonoscopy, past, present, and future, a narrative review. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;8:19.
Kim HY. Cecal intubation time in screening colonoscopy. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021;100:e25927.
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J. 2003;327:557.
Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:iii–x; 1–173.
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Br Med J. 2011;343:d5928.
Halpern Z, González AS, Ishaq S, et al. Balloon-assisted colonoscopy significantly improves adenoma detection rates—results of a multicenter prospective cohort study. Gastroenterology. 2015;148:S746–S747.
Pickhardt PJ, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA, et al. Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:352–359.
Liu W, Wu Y, Yuan X, et al. Artificial intelligence-based assessments of colonoscopic withdrawal technique: a new method for measuring and enhancing the quality of fold examination. Endoscopy. 2022;54:972–979.
Antonelli G, Zorzi M, Senore C, et al. Endocuff vision improves ADR in low detectors: results of the “itavision” randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2021;53(suppl 1):OP130.
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.
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.e1–80.e1.
Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63(supp l):S16–S28.
Zhao S, Yang X, Wang S, et al. Impact of 9-minute withdrawal time on the adenoma detection rate: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20:e168–e181.