scholarly journals Improved detection of colorectal adenomas by high-quality colon cleansing

2020 ◽  
Vol 08 (07) ◽  
pp. E928-E937
Author(s):  
Cesare Hassan ◽  
Jonathan Manning ◽  
Marco Antonio Álvarez González ◽  
Prateek Sharma ◽  
Michael Epstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Colorectal Adenomas ◽  
Additional Patient ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Colon Cleansing ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Adequate Quality ◽  
Bowel Preparations ◽  
Post Hoc

Abstract Background and study aims Reliable adenoma detection requires “adequate” bowel preparation. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) was assessed in patients with high-quality (stool-free) cleansing versus adequate cleansing. Patients and methods This study was a post-hoc combined analysis of three randomized trials individually powered for cleansing quality assessment. Treatment-independent ADR was assessed versus colon cleansing quality by central readers using the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS) and the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). The number needed to treat (NNT) to find an additional patient with at least one adenoma was calculated for high-quality versus adequate-quality cleansing. Results A total of 1749 patients were included. ADR increased with high-quality versus adequate-quality cleansing: HCS grade A versus B, 39 % (94/242) versus 27 % (336/1229); NNT = 8.7; P < 0.001. ADR also increased with high-quality versus uniform adequate segmental cleansing scores: HCS grade A versus uniform segmental scores 2, 39 % (94/242) versus 26 % (97/379); NNT = 7.5; P < 0.001. ADR increased with top-quality versus adequate segmental cleansing scores: HCS uniform segmental scores 4 versus 2, 54 % (21/39) versus 26 % (97/379); NNT = 3.6; P < 0.001. ADR increased with BBPS 9 versus 6, 43 % (71/166) versus 26 % (247/950); NNT = 6.0; P < 0.001. Right colon ADR increased with top-quality versus adequate cleansing: HCS 4 versus 2, 20 % (25/122) versus 11 % (121/1117); NNT = 10.4; P < 0.001 and BBPS 3 versus 2, 15 % (42/284) versus 11 % (130/1192); NNT = 25.8; P = 0.033. Conclusions High-quality colon cleansing improves adenoma detection, and it should be a priority for bowel preparations for colonoscopy.

scholarly journals High-quality colon cleansing and multiple neoplasia detection with 1L NER1006 versus mid-volume options: Post hoc analysis of phase 3 clinical trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 08 (05) ◽  
pp. E628-E635
Author(s):  
Michael S. Epstein ◽  
Robert Benamouzig ◽  
Juha Halonen ◽  
Raf Bisschops
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Combined Treatment ◽  
Sulfate Solution ◽  
Lesion Detection ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Post Hoc Analysis ◽  
Colon Cleansing ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Post Hoc

Abstract Background and study aims Multiple neoplasia increase the risk of colorectal cancer. High-quality cleansing may improve adenoma detection. We assessed whether a new bowel preparation can improve colon cleansing and multiple lesion detection. Patients and methods This post hoc analysis of two randomized clinical trials in Europe and the US assessed the per study and combined cleansing efficacy of overnight split dosing with (preparation + clear fluids) 1 + 1 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) NER1006 versus 2 + 1 L PEG + ascorbate (2LPEG) or 1 + 2 L oral sulfate solution (OSS) combined. Treatment-blinded central readers assessed cleansing quality using the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS). Patients with full segmental scoring were included. HCS segmental scores 0–4 (high-quality = HCS 3–4) were analyzed for NER1006 versus 2LPEG/OSS. Mean number of polyps or adenomas per patient (MPP/MAP) was calculated for treatments in patients with at least one polyp or adenoma. Results In 1037 patients, NER1006 attained a greater rate of HCS 3 scores (29 % vs. 20 %; P < 0.001) and HCS 4 scores (20 % vs. 17 %; P = 0.007) versus 2LPEG/OSS. More polyps (678 versus 585) and adenomas (397 versus 331) were detected with NER1006 (N = 517) versus 2LPEG/OSS (N = 520). In all neoplasia-positive patients, with increasing minimal per-patient neoplasia multiplicity from 1 to 10, NER1006 numerically improved MPP (difference ± SE: 0.48 ± 0.24 to 3.89 ± 3.37) and MAP (0.47 ± 0.26 to 7.50 ± 9.00) versus 2LPEG/OSS. Conclusions Low-volume NER1006 enhances high-quality cleansing versus medium-volume 2LPEG or OSS, individually and when combined. NER1006 may consequently facilitate the detection of multiple neoplasia in patients.

scholarly journals The importance of colonoscopy bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal lesions and colorectal cancer prevention

2020 ◽  
Vol 08 (05) ◽  
pp. E673-E683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prateek Sharma ◽  
Carol A. Burke ◽  
David A. Johnson ◽  
Brooks D. Cash
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Clinical Importance ◽  
High Volume ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Crc Screening ◽  
Incidence And Mortality ◽  
Low Volume ◽  
Split Dosing ◽  
Bowel Preparations

Abstract Background and study aims Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has reduced CRC incidence and mortality and improved prognosis. Optimal bowel preparation and high-quality endoscopic technique facilitate early CRC detection.This review provides a narrative on the clinical importance of bowel preparation for colonoscopy and highlights available bowel preparations. Methods A PubMed search was conducted through June 2019 to identify studies evaluating clinical outcomes, efficacy, safety, and tolerability associated with bowel preparation for CRC screening-related colonoscopy. Results Selecting the optimal bowel preparation regimen is based on considerations of efficacy, safety, and tolerability, in conjunction with individual patient characteristics and preferences. Available bowel preparations include high-volume (4 L) and low-volume (2 L and 1 L), polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions, sodium sulfate, sodium picosulfate/magnesium oxide plus anhydrous citric acid, sodium phosphate tablets, and the over-the-counter preparations magnesium citrate and PEG-3350. These preparations may be administered as a single dose on the same day or evening before, or as two doses administered the same day or evening before/morning of colonoscopy. Ingesting at least half the bowel preparation on the day of colonoscopy (split-dosing) is associated with higher adequate bowel preparation quality versus evening-before dosing (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.9−3.4). Conclusions High-quality bowel preparation is integral for optimal CRC screening/surveillance by colonoscopy. Over the last 30 years, patients and providers have gained more options for bowel preparation, including low-volume agents with enhanced tolerability and cleansing quality that are equivalent to 4 L preparations. Split-dosing is preferred for achieving a high-quality preparation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document