The aim of this international multicenter study is to compare the adenoma detection rate and adenoma miss rate of conventional and Endocuff Vision-assisted colonoscopy.
Rationale: Population screening programs for colorectal cancers (CRC) are increasingly adapted as a public health initiative with the primary goal to prevent CRC and CRC related deaths. \[2-4\] The ultimate benefit of CRC screening relies on the detection and resection of (pre-)malignant colon lesions, and for this colonoscopy is the preferred modality. Recently, concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of colonoscopy in the prevention of CRC after several studies reported unexpected high incidence rates of interval carcinomas (IC), especially in the proximal colon.\[5-9\] Most ICs are suspected to arise from missed colon lesions during colonoscopy. The retrograde approach of colonic inspections may contribute to colon lesions remaining undetected as it limits visualization of the proximal sides of haustral folds and flexures. Endocuff Vision® is a single-use, disposable medical device designed to improve the detection of colon lesions. The 'finger-like' projections of the device provide fold retraction allowing the visualization of otherwise hidden anatomical areas. Additionally, Endocuff Vision® may improve scope tip stability and prevent scope slippage. Objectives: 1. To compare adenoma miss rates (AMR) between Endocuff Vision®-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and conventional colonoscopy (CC) 2. To compare adenoma detection rates (ADR) between EAC and CC 3. To assess whether a proposed increased ADR and reduced AMR with EAC is indeed due to the fold-flattening device or merely a consequence of the second colonoscopy procedure performed. 4. To assess the clinical relevance of the polyps missed during the first colonoscopy procedure. Study design: This multicenter, randomized, same-day, back-to-back tandem colonoscopy trial will include four separate study groups: group A; CC followed by CC, Group B; CC followed by EAC, Group C; EAC followed by CC, and group D; EAC followed by EAC. Study population: Patients between the ages of 40 and 75-years referred for screening (non-IFOBT based), diagnostic or surveillance colonoscopy. Main study parameters/endpoints: The primary endpoint of the study will be AMR. Secondary endpoints include; ADR, mean number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy procedure, number of sessile serrated polyps, the total number of colon lesions found during the first and second examination (which will be compared for size, colon distribution, morphologic and histopathological characteristics), cecal intubation rates, bowel cleansing levels, procedure times, sedation use, (severe) adverse events, patient reported outcome (pain) and post-colonoscopy surveillance intervals applying European and United states surveillance guidelines.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
DOUBLE
Enrollment
708
CC = conventional colonoscopy EC = endocuff assisted colonoscopy
CC = conventional colonoscopy EC = endocuff assisted colonoscopy
EC = endocuff assisted colonoscopy
"Attikon" University General Hospital,
Athens, Haidari, Greece
RECRUITING417 Army Veterans Hospital
Athens, Greece
RECRUITINGRadboud University Medical Center
Nijmegen, Gelderland, Netherlands
RECRUITINGAdenoma miss rate (%)
To compare adenoma miss rates (AMR) between Endocuff Vision®-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and conventional colonoscopy (CC)
Time frame: 18 months
Adenoma detection rate (%)
To compare adenoma detection rates (ADR) between Endocuff Vision®-assisted and CC.
Time frame: 18 months
Mean number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy procedure
Mean number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy procedure. This will be calculated after the first and second procedure to assess if there is a significant increase.
Time frame: 18 months
Number of sessile serrated lesions per procedure
Number of sessile serrated lesions per procedure. This will be calculated after the first and second procedure to assess if there is a significant increase.
Time frame: 18 months
Total number of colon lesions found during first and second examination
These polyps will be compared for size, colon distribution (coecum, ascending, transversum, descending, sigmoïd or rectum), morphologic (Paris classification) and histopathological characteristics (Vienna classification)
Time frame: 18 months
Difference in ADR (learning curve first 20% and last 20% by each colonoscopist)
To compare the ADR of the first 20% of patients scoped by each colonoscopist with the last 20% of patients in each arm to identify any changes in ADR throughout the trial (to assess a learning curve) between CC and EC
Time frame: 18 months
Cecal intubation rate
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
CC = conventional colonoscopy
To compare cecal intubation rates between both techniques.
Time frame: 18 months
Bowel cleansing levels; using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) ranging from 0-9)
To compare BBPS scores between both techniques. A BBPS score of 2 or more in each colon segment is considered adequate.
Time frame: 18 months
Procedure times (minutes)
To compare procedure times; total procedure time, insertion time, mean polypectomy time, withdrawal time)
Time frame: 18 months
Number of severe adverse events
To compare the number of severe adverse events between study groups. 1 month follow-up
Time frame: 18 months
Sedation and analgesia use; type and amount
To compare the use of sedation and analgesia between study groups. Type of sedation and analgesia and amount will be compared
Time frame: 18 months
Post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines; difference in surveillance intervals after the first and second procedure.
To compare post-colonoscopy surveillance intervals applying European and US surveillance guidelines.
Time frame: 18 months
To compare patient reported outcomes e.g. pain
Visual Analog Scale 2 days and 1 month after the procedure
Time frame: 18 months