Improved detection of colorectal adenomas by high-quality colon cleansing

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Reliable adenoma detection requires “adequate” bowel preparation. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) was assessed in patients with high-quality (stool-free) cleansing versus adequate cleansing.

Patients and methods This study was a post-hoc combined analysis of three randomized trials individually powered for cleansing quality assessment. Treatment-independent ADR was assessed versus colon cleansing quality by central readers using the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS) and the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). The number needed to treat (NNT) to find an additional patient with at least one adenoma was calculated for high-quality versus adequate-quality cleansing.

Results A total of 1749 patients were included. ADR increased with high-quality versus adequate-quality cleansing: HCS grade A versus B, 39 % (94/242) versus 27 % (336/1229); NNT = 8.7; P < 0.001. ADR also increased with high-quality versus uniform adequate segmental cleansing scores: HCS grade A versus uniform segmental scores 2, 39 % (94/242) versus 26 % (97/379); NNT = 7.5; P < 0.001. ADR increased with top-quality versus adequate segmental cleansing scores: HCS uniform segmental scores 4 versus 2, 54 % (21/39) versus 26 % (97/379); NNT = 3.6; P < 0.001. ADR increased with BBPS 9 versus 6, 43 % (71/166) versus 26 % (247/950); NNT = 6.0; P < 0.001. Right colon ADR increased with top-quality versus adequate cleansing: HCS 4 versus 2, 20 % (25/122) versus 11 % (121/1117); NNT = 10.4; P < 0.001 and BBPS 3 versus 2, 15 % (42/284) versus 11 % (130/1192); NNT = 25.8; P = 0.033.

Conclusions High-quality colon cleansing improves adenoma detection, and it should be a priority for bowel preparations for colonoscopy.

Publication History

Received: 13 December 2019

Accepted: 09 April 2020

Article published online:
16 June 2020

© 2020. Owner and Copyright ©

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

• References

• 1 Brenner H, Stock C, Hoffmeister M. Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ 2014; 348: g2467
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA. et al. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2016 Available from Internet (cited 2017 Apr 25): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK373584/
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Doubeni CA, Corley DA, Quinn VP. et al. Effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in reducing the risk of death from right and left colon cancer: a large community-based study. Gut 2018; 67: 291-298
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P. et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1095-1105
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Oh CH, Lee CK, Kim J-W. et al. Suboptimal bowel preparation significantly impairs colonoscopic detection of non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms. Dig Dis Sci 2015; 60: 2294-2303
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Clark BT, Protiva P, Nagar A. et al. Quantification of Adequate bowel preparation for screening or surveillance colonoscopy in men. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 396-405 ; quiz e14–15
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Clark BT, Laine L. High-quality bowel preparation is required for detection of sessile serrated polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 14: 1155-1162
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Robinson CM. et al. Impact of fair bowel preparation quality on adenoma and serrated polyp detection: data from the New Hampshire colonoscopy registry by using a standardized preparation-quality rating. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 463-470
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 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
• 10 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
• 11 Pontone S, Hassan C, Maselli R. et al. Multiple, zonal and multi-zone adenoma detection rates according to quality of cleansing during colonoscopy. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2016; 4: 778-783
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G. et al. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 620-625
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Meester RGS, Doubeni CA, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I. et al. Variation in adenoma detection rate and the lifetime benefits and cost of colorectal cancer screening: a microsimulation model. JAMA 2015; 313: 2349
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Lieberman D, Sullivan BA, Hauser ER. et al. Baseline colonoscopy findings associated with 10-year outcomes in a screening cohort undergoing colonoscopy surveillance. Gastroenterology; 2019 Available from Internet (cited 2019 Aug 13): https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016508519411499
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Bonnington S, Sharp L, Rutter M. Post-polypectomy surveillance in the English bowel cancer screening programme: results of first surveillance. Prague, Czech Republic: Endoscopy; 2019: S1-S273 . Available from Internet (cited 2019 Aug 13): http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0039-1681511
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Bonnington S, Sharp L, Rutter M. Post-polypectomy surveillance in the English bowel cancer screening programme: multivariate logistic regression of factors influencing advanced adenoma detection at first surveillance. Prague, Czech Republic: Endoscopy; 2019: S1-S273 . Available from Internet (cited 2019 Aug 13): http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0039-1681622
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 DeMicco MP, Clayton LB, Pilot J. et al. Novel 1 L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation NER1006 for overall and right-sided colon cleansing: a randomized controlled phase 3 trial versus trisulfate. Gastrointest. Endosc 2018; 87: 677-687.e3
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Bisschops R, Manning J, Clayton LB. et al. Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1 L NER1006 versus 2 L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate: a randomized phase 3 trial. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 60-72
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Schreiber S, Baumgart DC, Drenth JPH. et al. Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1 L NER1006 versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate: a randomized phase 3 trial. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 73-84
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Halphen M, Heresbach D, Gruss H-J. et al. Validation of the Harefield Cleansing Scale: a tool for the evaluation of bowel cleansing quality in both research and clinical practice. Gastrointest. Endosc 2013; 78: 121-131
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Repici A, Amlani B, Uebel P. et al. P0159 Superior high-quality colon cleansing with 1L NER1006 versus sodium picosulfate + magnesium citrate, 2L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate, or oral sulfate solution: Post hoc combined analysis of three randomised phase 3 clinical trials. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2018; 6: A183
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Repici A, Coron E, Sharma P. et al. Improved high-quality colon cleansing with 1L NER1006 versus 2L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate or oral sulfate solution. Dig Liver Dis 2019; 51: 1671-1677
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M. et al. Increased rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 98-105
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Guo R, Wang Y-J, Liu M. et al. The effect of quality of segmental bowel preparation on adenoma detection rate. BMC Gastroenterol; 2019 19. Available from Internet (cited 2019 Aug 13): https://bmcgastroenterol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12876-019-1019-8
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Ell C, Fischbach W, Bronisch H-J. et al. Randomized trial of low-volume PEG solution versus standard PEG + electrolytes for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 883-893
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Zhao S, Wang S, Pan P. et al. Magnitude, risk factors, and factors associated with adenoma miss rate of tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 1661-1674.e11
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar