Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The use of high definition colonoscopy versus standard definition: does it affect polyp detection rate?

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Polyp detection rate (PDR) during lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (LGIE) is of clinical importance. Detecting adenomatous polyps early in the adenoma–carcinoma sequence can halt disease progression, enabling treatment at a favourable stage. High definition colonoscopy (HDC) has been used in our hospital alongside standard definition equipment since 2011. We aim to determine what affect the use of HDC has on PDR.

Methods

Post-hoc analysis of a prospectively maintained database on all patients undergoing LGIE was performed (01/01/2012–31/12/2015), n = 15,448. Analysis tested the primary outcome of HD’s effect on PDR across LGIE and secondary outcome stratified this by endoscopist group (Physician (PE), Surgeon (SE) and Nurse Endoscopist (NE)).

Results

Of 15,448 patients, 1353 underwent HDC. Unmatched analysis showed PDR increased by 5.3% in this group (p < 0.001). Matched analysis considered 2288 patients from the total cohort (1144 HDC) and showed an increase of 1% in PDR with HDC (p = 0.578). Further unmatched analysis stratified by endoscopist groups showed a PDR increase of 1.8% (p = 0.375), 5.4% (p = 0.008) and 4.6% (p = 0.021) by PE, SE and NE respectively. Matched analysis demonstrated an increase of 1% (p = 0.734) and 1.5% (p = 0.701) amongst PE and NE, with a decrease of 0.6% (p = 0.883) by SE.

Conclusion

The introduction of HDC increased PDR across all LGIE in our hospital, though this was not clinically significant. This marginal benefit was present across all endoscopist groups with no group benefiting over another in matched analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Marks G (1979) Guidelines for use of flexible fiberoptic colonoscopy in management of patients with colorectal neoplasia. Dis Colon Rectum 22(5):302–305

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wolff WI (1989) Colonoscopy: history and development. Am J Gastroenterol 84(9):1017–1025

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Shinya H, Wolff WI (1979) Morphology, anatomic distribution and cancer potential of colonic polyps. Ann Surg 190(6):679–683

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Morson BC (1974) Evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer 34(suppl3):845–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Muto T, Bussey HJ, Morson BC (1975) The evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer 36(6):2251–2270

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Stryker SJ, Wolff BG, Culp CE, Libbe SD, Ilstrup DM, MacCarty RL (1987) Natural history of untreated colonic polyps. Gastroenterology 93(5):1009–1013

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Haggitt RC, Reid BJ (1986) Hereditary gastrointestinal polyposis syndromes. Am J Surg Pathol 10(12):871–887

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cannon-Albright LA, Skolnick MH, Bishop DT, Lee RG, Burt RW (1988) Common inheritance of susceptibility to colonic adenomatous polyps and associated colorectal cancers. N Engl J Med 319(9):533–537

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Atkin WS, Cook CF, Cuzick J, Edwards R, Northover JM, Wardle J et al (2002) Single flexible sigmoidoscopy screening to prevent colorectal cancer: baseline findings of a UK multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 359(9314):1291 – 300

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. West NJ, Poullis AP, Leicester RJ (2008) The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: a realistic approach with additional benefits. Colorectal Dis 10(7):708–714

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I, Wooldrage K, Hart AR, Northover JM et al (2010) Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 375(9726):1624–1633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Logan RF, Patnick J, Nickerson C, Coleman L, Rutter MD, von Wagner C et al (2012) Outcomes of the bowel cancer screening programme (BCSP) in England after the first 1 million tests. Gut 61(10):1439–1446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McGregor LM, Bonello B, Kerrison RS, Nickerson C, Baio G, Berkman L et al (2015) Uptake of Bowel Scope (Flexible Sigmoidoscopy) Screening in the English National Programme: the first 14 months. J Med Screen 23:77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rutter MD, Chattree A, Barbour JA, Thomas-Gibson S, Bhandari P, Saunders BP et al (2015) British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland guidelines for the management of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. Gut 64(12):1847–1873

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Francis DL, Rodriguez-Correa DT, Buchner A, Harewood GC, Wallace M (2011) Application of a conversion factor to estimate the adenoma detection rate from the polyp detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 73(3):493–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Patel NC, Islam RS, Wu Q, Gurudu SR, Ramirez FC, Crowell MD et al (2013) Measurement of polypectomy rate by using administrative claims data with validation against the adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 77(3):390–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gohel TD, Burke CA, Lankaala P, Podugu A, Kiran RP, Thota PN et al (2014) Polypectomy rate: a surrogate for adenoma detection rate varies by colon segment, gender, and endoscopist. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 12(7):1137–1142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Atkin W, Rogers P, Cardwell C, Cook C, Cuzick J, Wardle J et al (2004) Wide variation in adenoma detection rates at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gastroenterology 126(5):1247–1256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Heresbach D, Barrioz T, Lapalus MG, Coumaros D, Bauret P, Potier P et al (2008) Miss rate for colorectal neoplastic polyps: a prospective multicenter study of back-to-back video colonoscopies. Endoscopy 40(4):284–290

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Tribonias G, Chlouverakis G, Paspatis GA (2010) How strong is the evidence that high-definition colonoscopy improves polyp detection rate compared with standard white-light colonoscopy? Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 8(10):903 (author reply 4)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Subramanian V, Mannath J, Hawkey CJ, Ragunath K (2011) High definition colonoscopy vs. standard video endoscopy for the detection of colonic polyps: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 43(6):499–505

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Tribonias G, Theodoropoulou A, Konstantinidis K, Vardas E, Karmiris K, Chroniaris N et al (2010) Comparison of standard vs high-definition, wide-angle colonoscopy for polyp detection: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 12(10 Online):e260-6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pellise M, Fernandez-Esparrach G, Cardenas A, Sendino O, Ricart E, Vaquero E et al (2008) Impact of wide-angle, high-definition endoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology 135(4):1062–1068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Le Rhun M, Coron E, Parlier D, Nguyen JM, Canard JM, Alamdari A et al (2006) High resolution colonoscopy with chromoscopy versus standard colonoscopy for the detection of colonic neoplasia: a randomized study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 4(3):349–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Machida H, Sano Y, Hamamoto Y, Muto M, Kozu T, Tajiri H et al (2004) Narrow-band imaging in the diagnosis of colorectal mucosal lesions: a pilot study. Endoscopy 36(12):1094–1098

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Chiu HM, Chang CY, Chen CC, Lee YC, Wu MS, Lin JT et al (2007) A prospective comparative study of narrow-band imaging, chromoendoscopy, and conventional colonoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Gut 56(3):373–379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Adler A, Pohl H, Papanikolaou IS, Abou-Rebyeh H, Schachschal G, Veltzke-Schlieker W et al (2008) A prospective randomised study on narrow-band imaging versus conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection: does narrow-band imaging induce a learning effect? Gut 57(1):59–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Gavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT, Donnelly MT, Williams JG, Swarbrick ET (2013) The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut 62(2):242–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P (2003) Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 58(1):76–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cirocco WC, Rusin LC (1995) Confirmation of cecal intubation during colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 38(4):402–406

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Buchner AM, Shahid MW, Heckman MG, McNeil RB, Cleveland P, Gill KR et al (2010) High-definition colonoscopy detects colorectal polyps at a higher rate than standard white-light colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 8(4):364–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Waldmann E, Britto-Arias M, Gessl I, Heinze G, Salzl P, Sallinger D et al (2015) Endoscopists with low adenoma detection rates benefit from high-definition endoscopy. Surg Endosc 29(2):466–473

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Read TE, Read JD, Butterly LF (1997) Importance of adenomas 5 mm or less in diameter that are detected by sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med 336(1):8–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Gurudu SR, Ramirez FC (2013) Quality metrics in endoscopy. Gastroenterol Hepatol 9(4):228–233

    Google Scholar 

  35. Williams JE, Holub JL, Faigel DO (2012) Polypectomy rate is a valid quality measure for colonoscopy: results from a national endoscopy database. Gastrointest Endosc 75(3):576–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Johnson DA, Gurney MS, Volpe RJ, Jones DM, VanNess MM, Chobanian SJ et al (1990) A prospective study of the prevalence of colonic neoplasms in asymptomatic patients with an age-related risk. Am J Gastroenterol 85(8):969–974

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Schoenfeld P, Cash B, Flood A, Dobhan R, Eastone J, Coyle W et al (2005) Colonoscopic screening of average-risk women for colorectal neoplasia. N Engl J Med 352(20):2061–2068

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Williams Avenue, Dorchester, DT1 2JY, UK

    John Richardson, Anthony Thaventhiran, Hugh Mackenzie & Benjamin Stubbs

Authors
  1. John Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anthony Thaventhiran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hugh Mackenzie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Benjamin Stubbs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Richardson.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

Drs. John Richardson, Anthony Thaventhiran, Hugh Mackenzie and Benjamin Stubbs have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 494 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Richardson, J., Thaventhiran, A., Mackenzie, H. et al. The use of high definition colonoscopy versus standard definition: does it affect polyp detection rate?. Surg Endosc 32, 2676–2682 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5962-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5962-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation