Efficacy of computed virtual chromoendoscopy on colorectal cancer screening: a prospective, randomized, back-to-back trial of Fuji Intelligent Color Enhancement versus conventional colonoscopy to compare adenoma miss rates.

Chung, Su Jin; Kim, Donghee; Song, Ji Hyun; Park, Min Jung; Kim, Young Sun; Kim, Joo Sung; Jung, Hyun Chae; Song, In Sung
Gastrointestinal endoscopy
2010Jul ; 72 ( 1 ) :136-42.
저자 상세정보
Chung, Su Jin -
Kim, Donghee -
Song, Ji Hyun -
Park, Min Jung -
Kim, Young Sun -
Kim, Joo Sung -
Jung, Hyun Chae -
Song, In Sung -
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the criterion standard for screening of colorectal neoplasms. Nonetheless, a substantial miss rate with conventional, white-light colonoscopy (WL) remains a challenge. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether Fuji Intelligent Color Enhancement (FICE) can detect more adenomas than WL in screening colonoscopy. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized trial of tandem colonoscopy adjusted for withdrawal time and lavage effect. SETTING: Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Korea. PATIENTS: This study involved 359 average-risk adults undergoing screening colonoscopy. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to the first withdrawal with either FICE (FICE-WL group) or WL (WL-FICE group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point measure was the difference in adenoma miss rates, and the secondary outcome measure was the adenoma detection rate.

RESULTS: We enrolled 359 patients (mean age 50.6 years, male 66.9%) and randomly assigned 181 to the WL-FICE group and 178 to the FICE-WL group. The number of adenomas detected by FICE and WL was 123 and 107, respectively. The adenoma miss rate with FICE showed no significant difference compared with that of WL (6.6% vs 8.3%, P = .59). Characteristics of lesions missed by use of FICE were similar to those missed by use of WL; 93% of overall missed polyps were < or =5 mm, and none were > or =1 cm. All missed adenomas were low grade and nonpedunculated. There was no significant difference between FICE and WL in adenoma detection rate (mean 0.64 vs 0.55 per patient, P = .65) nor percentage of patients with > or =1 adenoma (33.7% vs 30.4%, P = .74). LIMITATIONS: Single-center study. CONCLUSION: FICE at screening colonoscopy did not improve the adenoma miss rate or detection rate compared with WL. CI - Copyright 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
na
MESH
Adenoma/*diagnosis, Adult, Aged, Colonic Polyps/*diagnosis, Colonoscopy/*methods, Colorectal Neoplasms/*diagnosis, Early Detection of Cancer/*methods, Female, Humans, Image Enhancement/*methods, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted/*methods, Intestinal Mucosa/pathology, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Republic of Korea, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, *User-Computer Interface, Video Recording/*methods
링크

주제코드
주제명(Target field)
연구대상(Population)
연구참여(Sample size)
대상성별(Gender)
질병특성(Condition Category)
연구환경(Setting)
연구설계(Study Design)
연구기간(Period)
중재방법(Intervention Type)
중재명칭(Intervention Name)
키워드(Keyword)
유효성결과(Recomendation)
FICE at screening colonoscopy did not improve the adenoma miss rate or detection rate compared with WL.
연구비지원(Fund Source)
근거수준평가(Evidence Hierarchy)
출판년도(Year)
참여저자수(Authors)
대표저자
DOI
10.1016/j.gie.2010.01.055
KCD코드
ICD 03
건강보험코드