Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2019 Feb;68(2):280-288.
doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314889. Epub 2018 Jan 23.

Improved adenoma detection with Endocuff Vision: the ADENOMA randomised controlled trial

Wee Sing Ngu  1 , Roisin Bevan  2 , Zacharias P Tsiamoulos  3 , Paul Bassett  4 , Zoë Hoare  5 , Matthew D Rutter  2 , Gayle Clifford  1 , Nicola Totton  5 , Thomas J Lee  6 , Arvind Ramadas  7 , John G Silcock  8 , John Painter  9 , Laura J Neilson  1 , Brian P Saunders  3 , Colin J Rees  1   10
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Improved adenoma detection with Endocuff Vision: the ADENOMA randomised controlled trial

Wee Sing Ngu et al. Gut. 2019 Feb.

Abstract

Objective: Low adenoma detection rates (ADR) are linked to increased postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates and reduced cancer survival. Devices to enhance mucosal visualisation such as Endocuff Vision (EV) may improve ADR. This multicentre randomised controlled trial compared ADR between EV-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and standard colonoscopy (SC).

Design: Patients referred because of symptoms, surveillance or following a positive faecal occult blood test (FOBt) as part of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme were recruited from seven hospitals. ADR, mean adenomas per procedure, size and location of adenomas, sessile serrated polyps, EV removal rate, caecal intubation rate, procedural time, patient experience, effect of EV on workload and adverse events were measured.

Results: 1772 patients (57% male, mean age 62 years) were recruited over 16 months with 45% recruited through screening. EAC increased ADR globally from 36.2% to 40.9% (P=0.02). The increase was driven by a 10.8% increase in FOBt-positive screening patients (50.9% SC vs 61.7% EAC, P<0.001). EV patients had higher detection of mean adenomas per procedure, sessile serrated polyps, left-sided, diminutive, small adenomas and cancers (cancer 4.1% vs 2.3%, P=0.02). EV removal rate was 4.1%. Median intubation was a minute quicker with EAC (P=0.001), with no difference in caecal intubation rate or withdrawal time. EAC was well tolerated but caused a minor increase in discomfort on anal intubation in patients undergoing colonoscopy with no or minimal sedation. There were no significant EV adverse events.

Conclusion: EV significantly improved ADR in bowel cancer screening patients and should be used to improve colonoscopic detection.

Trial registration number: NCT02552017, Results; ISRCTN11821044, Results.

Keywords: colonic adenomas; colonoscopy; colorectal adenomas; colorectal cancer; colorectal cancer screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: CJR has received research grants from ARC Medical, Olympus Medical, Aquilant Endoscopy, Norgine and travel grants from Boston Scientific and Cook Medical. He is an advisory board member for Ai4Gi. BPS has received speaker grants from Olympus Medical and research support from Norgine, Aquilant and Diagmed. He is an advisory board member for Creo Medical. ZPT was a non-paid speaker for Norgine Pharmaceutical. He has received research and educational grants from Norgine Pharmaceutical and medical equipment support from Olympus. He holds a Consultant Agreement for Creo Medical.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Endocuff Vision (personal photograph by author).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Endocuff (personal photograph by author).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Trial profile. EAC, EV-assisted colonoscopy; SC, standard colonoscopy.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Lee TJ, Rutter MD, Blanks RG, et al. . Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel cancer screening programme. Gut 2012;61:1050–7. 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300651 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rees CJ, Thomas Gibson S, Rutter MD, et al. . UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy. Gut 2016;65:1923–9. 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312044 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. . Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1795–803. 10.1056/NEJMoa0907667 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. . Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1298–306. 10.1056/NEJMoa1309086 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bressler B, Paszat LF, Chen Z, et al. . Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology 2007;132:96–102. 10.1053/j.gastro.2006.10.027 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data