Document Detail

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.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  20493487     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
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.
Su Jin Chung; Donghee Kim; Ji Hyun Song; Min Jung Park; Young Sun Kim; Joo Sung Kim; Hyun Chae Jung; In Sung Song
Related Documents :
23475697 - Systematic review and meta-analysis of the early and late outcomes of open and endovasc...
19352477 - Stereotactic radiosurgery with the cyberknife for pituitary adenomas.
17408017 - Ketoconazole therapy: an efficacious alternative to achieve eucortisolism in patients w...
7750917 - Treatment with two growth hormone regimens in girls with turner syndrome: final height ...
14633547 - Optimizing the dose of intrathecal morphine in older patients undergoing hip arthroplasty.
23508047 - The effect of platelet-rich plasma on flap survival in random extension of an axial pat...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Comparative Study; Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial     Date:  2010-05-20
Journal Detail:
Title:  Gastrointestinal endoscopy     Volume:  72     ISSN:  1097-6779     ISO Abbreviation:  Gastrointest. Endosc.     Publication Date:  2010 Jul 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2010-07-12     Completed Date:  2010-11-02     Revised Date:  2011-11-02    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  0010505     Medline TA:  Gastrointest Endosc     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  136-42     Citation Subset:  IM    
Copyright Information:
Copyright 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Department of Internal Medicine, Healthcare Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul, South Korea.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Adenoma / diagnosis*
Colonic Polyps / diagnosis*
Colonoscopy / methods*
Colorectal Neoplasms / diagnosis*
Early Detection of Cancer / methods*
Image Enhancement / methods*
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted / methods*
Intestinal Mucosa / pathology
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
Republic of Korea
Risk Factors
Sensitivity and Specificity
User-Computer Interface*
Video Recording / methods*
Comment In:
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Oct;74(4):940   [PMID:  21951482 ]

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Efficacy of a prototype endoscope with two deflecting working channels for endoscopic submucosal dis...
Next Document:  Anterior abdominal wall cervicopexy for treatment of stage III and stage IV uterine prolapse.