PTH-039 The First Randomised Controlled Trial of Endocuff Vision® Assisted Colonoscopy Versus Standard Colonoscopy for Polyp Detection in Bowel Cancer Screening Patients (E-Cap Study): Abstract PTH-039 Table 1

Gut ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 65 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A237.1-A237 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Bhattacharyya ◽  
F Chedgy ◽  
K Kandiah ◽  
C Fogg ◽  
B Higgins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Bowel Cancer ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Bowel Cancer Screening ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Standard Colonoscopy

scholarly journals A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial

BMJ ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 341 (oct26 2) ◽  
pp. c5370-c5370 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. K. Smith ◽  
L. Trevena ◽  
J. M. Simpson ◽  
A. Barratt ◽  
D. Nutbeam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Bowel Cancer ◽  
Low Education ◽  
Bowel Cancer Screening ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Improved adenoma detection with Endocuff Vision: the ADENOMA randomised controlled trial

Gut ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wee Sing Ngu ◽  
Roisin Bevan ◽  
Zacharias P Tsiamoulos ◽  
Paul Bassett ◽  
Zoë Hoare ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Removal Rate ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Bowel Cancer ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
Serrated Polyps ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Bowel Cancer Screening ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveLow adenoma detection rates (ADR) are linked to increased postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates and reduced cancer survival. Devices to enhance mucosal visualisation such as Endocuff Vision (EV) may improve ADR. This multicentre randomised controlled trial compared ADR between EV-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and standard colonoscopy (SC).DesignPatients referred because of symptoms, surveillance or following a positive faecal occult blood test (FOBt) as part of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme were recruited from seven hospitals. ADR, mean adenomas per procedure, size and location of adenomas, sessile serrated polyps, EV removal rate, caecal intubation rate, procedural time, patient experience, effect of EV on workload and adverse events were measured.Results1772 patients (57% male, mean age 62 years) were recruited over 16 months with 45% recruited through screening. EAC increased ADR globally from 36.2% to 40.9% (P=0.02). The increase was driven by a 10.8% increase in FOBt-positive screening patients (50.9% SC vs 61.7% EAC, P<0.001). EV patients had higher detection of mean adenomas per procedure, sessile serrated polyps, left-sided, diminutive, small adenomas and cancers (cancer 4.1% vs 2.3%, P=0.02). EV removal rate was 4.1%. Median intubation was a minute quicker with EAC (P=0.001), with no difference in caecal intubation rate or withdrawal time. EAC was well tolerated but caused a minor increase in discomfort on anal intubation in patients undergoing colonoscopy with no or minimal sedation. There were no significant EV adverse events.ConclusionEV significantly improved ADR in bowel cancer screening patients and should be used to improve colonoscopic detection.Trial registration numberNCT02552017, Results; ISRCTN11821044, Results.

scholarly journals Using primary care-based paper and telephone interventions to increase uptake of bowel scope screening in Yorkshire: a protocol of a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. e024616
Author(s):  
Lesley M McGregor ◽  
Robert S Kerrison ◽  
Trish Green ◽  
Una Macleod ◽  
Mark Hughes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Patient Navigation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Bowel Cancer ◽  
Referral Letter ◽  
Bowel Cancer Screening ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionEvidence suggests bowel scope screening (BSS) can significantly reduce an individual’s risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC). BSS for 55 year olds was therefore introduced to the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in 2013. However, the benefits are only gained from test completion and uptake is low (43%). Primary care involvement has consistently shown benefits to cancer screening uptake and so this study aims to build on this knowledge and evaluate general practitioner (GP) practice led interventions designed to increase BSS attendance.Methods and analysisA three-arm randomised controlled trial will be conducted to evaluate three interventions: one intervention for prospective BSS invitees (primer letter with locally tailored leaflet sent by an individual’s GP practice) and two interventions for those who do not attend their BSS appointment (a self-referral letter sent by an individual’s GP practice and a patient navigation call made on behalf of an individual’s GP practice). The trial will be set in Yorkshire. Individuals soon to receive their invitation to attend BSS at one of the Hull and East Yorkshire Bowel Cancer Screening centre sites, will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: control (usual care; no input from GP practice), Intervention group A (primer letter/leaflet and a self-referral letter), Intervention group B (primer letter/leaflet and a patient navigation call). Attendance data will be obtained from the BCSP database (via National Health Service (NHS) Digital) 3 months after the last intervention. Regression analysis will compare uptake, and additional clinical outcomes, across the three groups. The analysis will be multivariate and adjust for several covariates including gender and area-level deprivation.Ethics and disseminationNHS ethical approval has been obtained from London-Harrow Research Ethics Committee. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.Trial registration numberISRCTN16252122; Pre-results.

scholarly journals PTU-123 Endorings assisted colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy for polyp detection: a randomised controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sreedhari Thayalasekaran ◽  
Rupam Bhattacharyya ◽  
Fergus Chedgy ◽  
Peter Basford ◽  
Asma Alkandari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Standard Colonoscopy

480 ENDORINGSTM ASSISTED COLONOSCOPY VERSUS STANDARD COLONOSCOPY FOR POLYP DETECTION IN SYMPTOMATIC AND ASYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS: A RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL

2019 ◽  
Vol 89 (6) ◽  
pp. AB88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sreedhari Thayalasekaran ◽  
Rupam Bhattacharyya ◽  
Fergus Chedgy ◽  
Peter Basford ◽  
Asma A. Alkandari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Standard Colonoscopy

scholarly journals Standard versus Endocuff versus cap-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection: A randomised controlled clinical trial

2020 ◽  
pp. 205064062098295
Author(s):  
Martin Floer ◽  
Laura Tschaikowski ◽  
Michael Schepke ◽  
Radoslaw Kempinski ◽  
Katarzyna Neubauer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Withdrawal Time ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Standard Colonoscopy

Background and aims Adenoma detection rate (ADR) in colon cancer screening is most important for cancer prophylaxis. This work is the first three-armed randomised controlled clinical trial aimed at comparing a head-to-head setting standard colonoscopy (SC) with Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EC) and cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) for improvement of ADR. Methods Patients from Poland and Germany with independent indication for colonoscopy were randomised into three arms of this trial: EC, CAC and SC. Exclusion criteria were age <18 years, active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, known stenosis and post-colonic resection status. Results A total of 585 patients (195 SC, 189 EC and 186 CAC) were enrolled in this study. Indications were not different between the groups (colorectal cancer screening 51%, diagnostic colonoscopy in 31% and post polypectomy follow-up in 18%; p=0.94). Withdrawal time was a mean of seven minutes in all groups ( p=0.658), and bowel preparation did not differ between the groups. The time to reach the caecum was significantly reduced when using the cap (a mean of six minutes for CAC vs. seven minutes for SC; p=0.0001). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of the ADR between the groups (EC 32%, CAC 30%, SC 30%; p=0.815). EC proved to be superior (EC vs. SC) in the sigmoid colon and transverse colon for polyp detection. Conclusion The use of EC increased the total number of polyps seen during colonoscopy. In contrast to recent studies, no significant improvement of the ADR was detected.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document