Impact of the Quality of Bowel Cleansing on the Efficacy of Colonic Cancer Screening: a Prospective, Randomized, Blinded Study

Overview

Journal PLoS One

Specialties General Medicine
Science

Date 2015 May 8

PMID 25950434

Citations 18

Authors

Jurgen Pohl

Marc Halphen

Hans Rudolf Kloess

Wolfgang Fischbach

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Efficacy of two low volume bowel cleansing preparations, polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG + Asc) and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (NaPic/MgCit), were compared for polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR) and overall cleansing ability. Primary endpoint was PDR (the number of patients with ≥ 1 polypoid or flat lesion recorded by the colonoscopist).

Methods: Diagnostic, surveillance or screening colonoscopy patients were enrolled into this investigator-blinded, multi-center Phase IV study and randomized 1:1 to receive PEG + Asc (administered the evening before and the morning of colonoscopy, per label) or NaPic/MgCit (administered in the morning and afternoon the day before colonoscopy, per label). The blinded colonoscopist documented any lesion and assessed cleansing quality (Harefield Cleansing Scale).

Results: Of 394 patients who completed the study, 393 (PEG + Asc, N = 200; NaPic/MgCit, N = 193) had a colonoscopy. Overall PDR for PEG+Asc versus NaPic/MgCit was 51.5% versus 44.0%, p = 0.139. PDR and ADR on the right side of the bowel were significantly higher with PEG + Asc versus NaPic/MgCit (PDR: 56[28.0%] versus 32[16.6%], p = 0.007; ADR: 42[21.0%] versus 23[11.9%], p = 0.015), as was detection of flat lesions (43[21.5%] versus 25[13.0%], p = 0.025). Cleansing quality was better with PEG + Asc than NaPic/MgCit (98.5% versus 57.5% considered successful cleansing). Overall, there were 132 treatment-emergent adverse events (93 versus 39 for PEG+Asc and NaPic/MgCit, respectively). These were mainly mild abdominal symptoms, all of which were reported for higher proportions of patients in the PEG+Asc than NaPic/MgCit group. Twice as many patients in the NaPic/MgCit versus the PEG + Asc group reported tolerance of cleansing solution as 'very good'.

Conclusions: Compared with NaPic/MgCit, PEG + Asc may be more efficacious for overall cleansing ability, and subsequent detection of right-sided and flat lesions. This is likely attributable to the different administration schedules of the two bowel cleansing preparations, which may positively impact the detection and prevention of colorectal cancer, thereby improving mortality rates.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01689792.

Citing Articles

A prospective, single-blinded, non-inferiority, randomized controlled study comparing the effectiveness and safety of oral lactulose combined with carbohydrate-containing clear liquids versus 3-L polyethylene glycol electrolyte for colonoscopy bowel....

Huang C, Liu H, Luo J, Xu Z, Li J, Tian X Eur J Med Res. 2025; 30(1):105.

PMID: 39955567 PMC: 11829565. DOI: 10.1186/s40001-025-02365-1.

Novel regimen for colonoscopy bowel preparation with oral lactulose: a prospective comparative study.

Ramos J, Carvalho D, Arantes V Clin Endosc. 2024; 57(6):775-782.

PMID: 39434557 PMC: 11637660. DOI: 10.5946/ce.2024.056.

Colon Bowel Preparation in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Is There Potential for Enhancing Colon Bowel Cleansing?.

Gimeno-Garcia A, Benitez-Zafra F, Nicolas-Perez D, Hernandez-Guerra M Medicina (Kaunas). 2023; 59(10).

PMID: 37893552 PMC: 10608636. DOI: 10.3390/medicina59101834.

Factors affecting the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in hard-to-prepare patients: Evidence from the literature.

Shahini E, Sinagra E, Vitello A, Ranaldo R, Contaldo A, Facciorusso A World J Gastroenterol. 2023; 29(11):1685-1707.

PMID: 37077514 PMC: 10107216. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i11.1685.

Comparison of optimal bowel cleansing effects of 1L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate: A randomized controlled study.

Lee J, Kim S, Kim S, Song H, Seo G, Kim D PLoS One. 2022; 17(12):e0279631.

PMID: 36584216 PMC: 9803231. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279631.

References

Denters M, Deutekom M, Bossuyt P, Fockens P, Dekker E . Patient burden of colonoscopy after positive fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening. Endoscopy. 2013; 45(5):342-9. DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1326238. View

Chiu H, Lin J, Wang H, Lee Y, Wu M . The impact of colon preparation timing on colonoscopic detection of colorectal neoplasms--a prospective endoscopist-blinded randomized trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006; 101(12):2719-25. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00868.x. View

. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 58(6 Suppl):S3-43. DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02159-x. View

Chiu H, Lin J, Lee Y, Liang J, Shun C, Wang H . Different bowel preparation schedule leads to different diagnostic yield of proximal and nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm at screening colonoscopy in average-risk population. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011; 54(12):1570-7. DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e318231d667. View

Rex D, Cutler C, Lemmel G, Rahmani E, Clark D, Helper D . Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology. 1997; 112(1):24-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5085(97)70214-2. View

Adamcewicz M, Bearelly D, Porat G, Friedenberg F . Mechanism of action and toxicities of purgatives used for colonoscopy preparation. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2010; 7(1):89-101. PMC: 3030244. DOI: 10.1517/17425255.2011.542411. View

Matro R, Shnitser A, Spodik M, Daskalakis C, Katz L, Murtha A . Efficacy of morning-only compared with split-dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for afternoon colonoscopy: a randomized controlled single-blind study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010; 105(9):1954-61. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2010.160. View

Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh J, Comber H . Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer. 2013; 49(6):1374-403. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.12.027. View

Baxter N, Goldwasser M, Paszat L, Saskin R, Urbach D, Rabeneck L . Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 150(1):1-8. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-150-1-200901060-00306. View

10.

Singh H, Nugent Z, Mahmud S, Demers A, Bernstein C . Predictors of colorectal cancer after negative colonoscopy: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009; 105(3):663-73. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2009.650. View

11.

Hong S, Sung I, Kim J, Choe W, Kim B, Ko S . The Effect of the Bowel Preparation Status on the Risk of Missing Polyp and Adenoma during Screening Colonoscopy: A Tandem Colonoscopic Study. Clin Endosc. 2012; 45(4):404-11. PMC: 3521943. DOI: 10.5946/ce.2012.45.4.404. View

12.

Lasisi F, Rex D . Improving protection against proximal colon cancer by colonoscopy. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011; 5(6):745-54. DOI: 10.1586/egh.11.78. View

13.

West N, Boustiere C, Fischbach W, Parente F, Leicester R . Colorectal cancer screening in Europe: differences in approach; similar barriers to overcome. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009; 24(7):731-40. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-009-0690-6. View

14.

Ell C, Fischbach W, Layer P, Halphen M . Randomized, controlled trial of 2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate components versus sodium phosphate for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy for cancer screening. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014; 30(12):2493-503. DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2014.960513. View

15.

Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers A, Kliewer E, Mahmud S, Bernstein C . The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer. Gastroenterology. 2010; 139(4):1128-37. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2010.06.052. View

16.

Cohen L, Sanyal S, Von Althann C, Bodian C, Whitson M, Bamji N . Clinical trial: 2-L polyethylene glycol-based lavage solutions for colonoscopy preparation - a randomized, single-blind study of two formulations. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010; 32(5):637-44. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2010.04390.x. View

17.

Hoy S, Scott L, Wagstaff A . Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate: a review of its use as a colorectal cleanser. Drugs. 2009; 69(1):123-36. DOI: 10.2165/00003495-200969010-00009. View

18.

Lakoff J, Paszat L, Saskin R, Rabeneck L . Risk of developing proximal versus distal colorectal cancer after a negative colonoscopy: a population-based study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008; 6(10):1117-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2008.05.016. View

19.

Parra-Blanco A, Nicolas-Perez D, Gimeno-Garcia A, Grosso B, Jimenez A, Ortega J . The timing of bowel preparation before colonoscopy determines the quality of cleansing, and is a significant factor contributing to the detection of flat lesions: a randomized study. World J Gastroenterol. 2006; 12(38):6161-6. PMC: 4088110. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i38.6161. View

20.

Johnson D, Barkun A, Cohen L, Dominitz J, Kaltenbach T, Martel M . Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2014; 147(4):903-24. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.07.002. View