Compared Abilities of Endoscopic Techniques to Increase Colon Adenoma Detection Rates: A Network Meta-analysis

Antonio Facciorusso, Konstantinos Triantafyllou, Mohammad H Murad, Larry J. Prokop, Georgios Tziatzios, Nicola Muscatiello, Siddharth Singh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Aims: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality metric for colorectal cancer screening. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the overall and comparative efficacies of different endoscopic techniques in adenoma detection. Methods: We performed a systematic review of published articles and abstracts, through March 15, 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing colonoscopy that compared the efficacy of different devices in detection of adenomas. Our final analysis included 74 2-arm trials that comprised 44948 patients. These studies compared efficacies of add-on devices (cap, endocuff, endo-rings, G-EYE), enhanced imaging techniques (chromoendoscopy, narrow-band imaging, flexible spectral imaging color enhancement, blue laser imaging), new scopes (full-spectrum endoscopy, extra-wide-angle-view colonoscopy, dual focus), and low-cost optimizing existing resources (water-aided colonoscopy, second observer, dynamic position change), alone or in combination with high-definition colonoscopy or each other. Primary outcome was increase in ADR. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, and appraised quality of evidence using GRADE. Results: Low-cost optimizing existing resources (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI,1.17–1.43), enhanced imaging techniques (OR,1.21; 95% CI, 1.09–1.35), and add-on devices (OR,1.18; 95% CI, 1.07–1.29) were associated with a moderate increase in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy; there was low to moderate confidence in estimates. Use of newer scopes was not associated with significant increases in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79–1.21). In our comparative efficacy analysis, no specific technology for increasing ADR was superior to others. We did not find significant differences between technologies in detection of advanced ADR, polyp detection rate, or mean number of adenomas/patient. Conclusions: In a network meta-analysis of published trials, we found that low-cost optimization of existing resources to be as effective as enhanced endoscopic imaging, or add-on devices, in increasing ADR during high-definition colonoscopy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalClinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Adenoma
Colon
Colonoscopy
Odds Ratio
Equipment and Supplies
Costs and Cost Analysis
Narrow Band Imaging
Network Meta-Analysis
Technology
Water Resources
Polyps
Early Detection of Cancer
Endoscopy
Colorectal Neoplasms
Lasers
Randomized Controlled Trials
Color

Keywords

  • Colon Cancer
  • Endoscopist
  • Guidelines
  • Standard Colonoscopy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hepatology
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Compared Abilities of Endoscopic Techniques to Increase Colon Adenoma Detection Rates : A Network Meta-analysis. / Facciorusso, Antonio; Triantafyllou, Konstantinos; Murad, Mohammad H; Prokop, Larry J.; Tziatzios, Georgios; Muscatiello, Nicola; Singh, Siddharth.

In: Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Facciorusso, Antonio ; Triantafyllou, Konstantinos ; Murad, Mohammad H ; Prokop, Larry J. ; Tziatzios, Georgios ; Muscatiello, Nicola ; Singh, Siddharth. / Compared Abilities of Endoscopic Techniques to Increase Colon Adenoma Detection Rates : A Network Meta-analysis. In: Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2019.
@article{b041ed346c86483c8e89d04a2f608b7c,
title = "Compared Abilities of Endoscopic Techniques to Increase Colon Adenoma Detection Rates: A Network Meta-analysis",
abstract = "Background and Aims: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality metric for colorectal cancer screening. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the overall and comparative efficacies of different endoscopic techniques in adenoma detection. Methods: We performed a systematic review of published articles and abstracts, through March 15, 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing colonoscopy that compared the efficacy of different devices in detection of adenomas. Our final analysis included 74 2-arm trials that comprised 44948 patients. These studies compared efficacies of add-on devices (cap, endocuff, endo-rings, G-EYE), enhanced imaging techniques (chromoendoscopy, narrow-band imaging, flexible spectral imaging color enhancement, blue laser imaging), new scopes (full-spectrum endoscopy, extra-wide-angle-view colonoscopy, dual focus), and low-cost optimizing existing resources (water-aided colonoscopy, second observer, dynamic position change), alone or in combination with high-definition colonoscopy or each other. Primary outcome was increase in ADR. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, and appraised quality of evidence using GRADE. Results: Low-cost optimizing existing resources (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95{\%} CI,1.17–1.43), enhanced imaging techniques (OR,1.21; 95{\%} CI, 1.09–1.35), and add-on devices (OR,1.18; 95{\%} CI, 1.07–1.29) were associated with a moderate increase in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy; there was low to moderate confidence in estimates. Use of newer scopes was not associated with significant increases in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy (OR, 0.98; 95{\%} CI, 0.79–1.21). In our comparative efficacy analysis, no specific technology for increasing ADR was superior to others. We did not find significant differences between technologies in detection of advanced ADR, polyp detection rate, or mean number of adenomas/patient. Conclusions: In a network meta-analysis of published trials, we found that low-cost optimization of existing resources to be as effective as enhanced endoscopic imaging, or add-on devices, in increasing ADR during high-definition colonoscopy.",
keywords = "Colon Cancer, Endoscopist, Guidelines, Standard Colonoscopy",
author = "Antonio Facciorusso and Konstantinos Triantafyllou and Murad, {Mohammad H} and Prokop, {Larry J.} and Georgios Tziatzios and Nicola Muscatiello and Siddharth Singh",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cgh.2018.11.058",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology",
issn = "1542-3565",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Compared Abilities of Endoscopic Techniques to Increase Colon Adenoma Detection Rates

T2 - A Network Meta-analysis

AU - Facciorusso, Antonio

AU - Triantafyllou, Konstantinos

AU - Murad, Mohammad H

AU - Prokop, Larry J.

AU - Tziatzios, Georgios

AU - Muscatiello, Nicola

AU - Singh, Siddharth

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Background and Aims: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality metric for colorectal cancer screening. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the overall and comparative efficacies of different endoscopic techniques in adenoma detection. Methods: We performed a systematic review of published articles and abstracts, through March 15, 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing colonoscopy that compared the efficacy of different devices in detection of adenomas. Our final analysis included 74 2-arm trials that comprised 44948 patients. These studies compared efficacies of add-on devices (cap, endocuff, endo-rings, G-EYE), enhanced imaging techniques (chromoendoscopy, narrow-band imaging, flexible spectral imaging color enhancement, blue laser imaging), new scopes (full-spectrum endoscopy, extra-wide-angle-view colonoscopy, dual focus), and low-cost optimizing existing resources (water-aided colonoscopy, second observer, dynamic position change), alone or in combination with high-definition colonoscopy or each other. Primary outcome was increase in ADR. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, and appraised quality of evidence using GRADE. Results: Low-cost optimizing existing resources (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI,1.17–1.43), enhanced imaging techniques (OR,1.21; 95% CI, 1.09–1.35), and add-on devices (OR,1.18; 95% CI, 1.07–1.29) were associated with a moderate increase in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy; there was low to moderate confidence in estimates. Use of newer scopes was not associated with significant increases in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79–1.21). In our comparative efficacy analysis, no specific technology for increasing ADR was superior to others. We did not find significant differences between technologies in detection of advanced ADR, polyp detection rate, or mean number of adenomas/patient. Conclusions: In a network meta-analysis of published trials, we found that low-cost optimization of existing resources to be as effective as enhanced endoscopic imaging, or add-on devices, in increasing ADR during high-definition colonoscopy.

AB - Background and Aims: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality metric for colorectal cancer screening. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the overall and comparative efficacies of different endoscopic techniques in adenoma detection. Methods: We performed a systematic review of published articles and abstracts, through March 15, 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing colonoscopy that compared the efficacy of different devices in detection of adenomas. Our final analysis included 74 2-arm trials that comprised 44948 patients. These studies compared efficacies of add-on devices (cap, endocuff, endo-rings, G-EYE), enhanced imaging techniques (chromoendoscopy, narrow-band imaging, flexible spectral imaging color enhancement, blue laser imaging), new scopes (full-spectrum endoscopy, extra-wide-angle-view colonoscopy, dual focus), and low-cost optimizing existing resources (water-aided colonoscopy, second observer, dynamic position change), alone or in combination with high-definition colonoscopy or each other. Primary outcome was increase in ADR. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, and appraised quality of evidence using GRADE. Results: Low-cost optimizing existing resources (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI,1.17–1.43), enhanced imaging techniques (OR,1.21; 95% CI, 1.09–1.35), and add-on devices (OR,1.18; 95% CI, 1.07–1.29) were associated with a moderate increase in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy; there was low to moderate confidence in estimates. Use of newer scopes was not associated with significant increases in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79–1.21). In our comparative efficacy analysis, no specific technology for increasing ADR was superior to others. We did not find significant differences between technologies in detection of advanced ADR, polyp detection rate, or mean number of adenomas/patient. Conclusions: In a network meta-analysis of published trials, we found that low-cost optimization of existing resources to be as effective as enhanced endoscopic imaging, or add-on devices, in increasing ADR during high-definition colonoscopy.

KW - Colon Cancer

KW - Endoscopist

KW - Guidelines

KW - Standard Colonoscopy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062291241&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062291241&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.11.058

DO - 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.11.058

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85062291241

JO - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

JF - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

SN - 1542-3565

ER -