» Articles » PMID: 26769408

Yield of Repeat Forward-view Examination of the Right Side of the Colon in Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy

Overview
Date 2016 Jan 16
PMID 26769408
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background And Aims: Colonoscopy is less protective for cancers of the right side of the colon than for distal colon cancers. Repeat examination of the right side of the colon has been suggested to increase adenoma detection and potentially provide greater protection against the development of cancers of the right side of the colon. Our prospective study assessed the yield of a second forward-view examination of the right side of the colon done immediately after the initial examination.

Methods: All men 50 to 75 years of age undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy at the West Haven Veterans Affairs Medical Center were invited to participate. A second forward-view examination was performed if the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score was 8 to 9 (scale = 0-9) with right a side of the colon segment score of 2 to 3 (scale = 0-3). The primary outcome was the per-patient adenoma detection rate (including sessile serrated polyps) on a repeated examination of the right side of the colon, defined as the number of patients with ≥1 adenoma on the second examination of the right side of the colon divided by total number of patients. An increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR) was a secondary outcome.

Results: Repeated examination of the right side of the colon, performed in 280 patients, revealed additional adenomas in 43 patients (15.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] of difference, 11.3%-21.0%). The overall ADR increased by 3.2% (95% CI, 1.1%-5.3%) after the second examination of the right side of the colon; the ADR for the right side of the colon increased by 6.7% (95% CI, 3.8%-9.7%). Ten patients (3.6%) had a change in their screening/surveillance interval with the addition of findings on the second examination of the right side of the colon.

Conclusion: A substantial 15.4% of patients had additional adenomas detected on a second forward-view examination of the right side of the colon, whereas the overall ADR increased significantly by 3.2%. Given the lack of additional training or equipment required, repeated forward-view examination of the right side of the colon is a simple, readily available method to achieve a modest improvement in the ADR.

Citing Articles

The Effect of the Second Forward View on the Detection Rate of Sessile Serrated Lesions in the Proximal Colon: A Single-Center Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.

Wu J, Zhang Q, Li X, Bai T, Hou X, Li G Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2024; 16(2):e00805.

PMID: 39688959 PMC: 11845190. DOI: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000805.


Association Between Longer Cecal Intubation Time and Detection and Miss Rate of Colorectal Neoplasms.

Choi J, Lim S, Han Y, Lee J, Jin E, Seo J J Clin Med. 2024; 13(23).

PMID: 39685539 PMC: 11642371. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13237080.


Efficacy of colonoscopic re-examination across the entire colon: a randomized controlled trial.

Lee D, Ji J, Gweon T, Seo M, Choi H Surg Endosc. 2024; 38(11):6711-6717.

PMID: 39327294 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11298-5.


Second exam of right colon improves adenoma detection rate: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Kamal F, Khan M, Lee-Smith W, Sharma S, Acharya A, Imam Z Endosc Int Open. 2022; 10(10):E1391-E1398.

PMID: 36262512 PMC: 9576333. DOI: 10.1055/a-1896-4499.


Impact of second forward-view examination on adenoma detection rate during unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

Shan K, Lu H, Zhang Z, Xie J, Xu L, Wang W BMC Gastroenterol. 2021; 21(1):213.

PMID: 33971824 PMC: 8111781. DOI: 10.1186/s12876-021-01783-9.


References
1.
Harrison M, Singh N, Rex D . Impact of proximal colon retroflexion on adenoma miss rates. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004; 99(3):519-22. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.04070.x. View

2.
Rex D, Ahnen D, Baron J, Batts K, Burke C, Burt R . Serrated lesions of the colorectum: review and recommendations from an expert panel. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012; 107(9):1315-29. PMC: 3629844. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2012.161. View

3.
Lieberman D, Rex D, Winawer S, Giardiello F, Johnson D, Levin T . Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2012; 143(3):844-857. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.06.001. View

4.
Rex D, Vemulapalli K . Retroflexion in colonoscopy: why? Where? When? How? What value?. Gastroenterology. 2013; 144(5):882-3. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.01.077. View

5.
Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers A, Bernstein C . Rate and predictors of early/missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy in Manitoba: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010; 105(12):2588-96. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2010.390. View