• Gastrointest. Endosc. · Jul 2010

    Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study

    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.

    • Su Jin Chung, Donghee Kim, Ji Hyun Song, Min Jung Park, Young Sun Kim, Joo Sung Kim, Hyun Chae Jung, and In Sung Song.
    • Department of Internal Medicine, Healthcare Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul, South Korea.
    • Gastrointest. Endosc. 2010 Jul 1; 72 (1): 136-42.

    BackgroundColonoscopy is the criterion standard for screening of colorectal neoplasms. Nonetheless, a substantial miss rate with conventional, white-light colonoscopy (WL) remains a challenge.ObjectiveTo assess whether Fuji Intelligent Color Enhancement (FICE) can detect more adenomas than WL in screening colonoscopy.DesignProspective, randomized trial of tandem colonoscopy adjusted for withdrawal time and lavage effect.SettingSeoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Korea.PatientsThis study involved 359 average-risk adults undergoing screening colonoscopy.InterventionPatients were randomized to the first withdrawal with either FICE (FICE-WL group) or WL (WL-FICE group).Main Outcome MeasurementsThe primary end point measure was the difference in adenoma miss rates, and the secondary outcome measure was the adenoma detection rate.ResultsWe 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).LimitationsSingle-center study.ConclusionFICE at screening colonoscopy did not improve the adenoma miss rate or detection rate compared with WL.Copyright 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.