Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

BowelScope: Accuracy of Detection Using Endocuff Optimisation of Mucosal Abnormalities (the B-ADENOMA Study): A multicentre, randomised controlled flexible sigmoidoscopy trial

Lookup NU author(s): Professor Colin Rees, Professor Linda Sharp, Professor Matt Rutter

Downloads


Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).


Abstract

© 2020 Author(s) (or their employer(s)).Objectives: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality marker at lower GI endoscopy. Higher ADRs are associated with lower postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates. The English flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening programme (BowelScope), offers a one-off FS to individuals aged 55 years. However, variation in ADR exists. Large studies have demonstrated improved ADR using Endocuff Vision (EV) within colonoscopy screening, but there are no studies within FS. We sought to test the effect of EV on ADR in a national FS screening population. Design: BowelScope: Accuracy of Detection Using ENdocuff Optimisation of Mucosal Abnormalities was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial involving 16 English BowelScope screening centres. Individuals were randomised to Endocuff Vision-assisted BowelScope (EAB) or Standard BowelScope (SB). ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), mean adenomas per procedure (MAP), polyp characteristics and location, participant experience, procedural time and adverse events were measured. Comparison of ADR within the trial with national BowelScope ADR was also undertaken. Results: 3222 participants were randomised (53% male) to receive EAB (n=1610) or SB (n=1612). Baseline demographics were comparable between arms. ADR in the EAB arm was 13.3% and that in the SB arm was 12.2% (p=0.353). No statistically significant differences were found in PDR, MAP, polyp characteristics or location, participant experience, complications or procedural characteristics. ADR in the SB control arm was 3.1% higher than the national ADR. Conclusion: EV did not improve BowelScope ADR when compared with SB. ADR in both arms was higher than the national ADR. Where detection rates are already high, EV is unable to improve detection further. Trial registration numbers: NCT03072472, ISRCTN30005319 and CPMS ID 33224.


Publication metadata

Author(s): Rees CJ, Brand A, Ngu WS, Stokes C, Hoare Z, Totton N, Bhandari P, Sharp L, Bastable A, Rutter MD, Verma AM, Lee TJ, Walls M

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Gut

Year: 2020

Pages: ePub ahead of print

Online publication date: 03/04/2020

Acceptance date: 18/02/2020

Date deposited: 19/06/2020

ISSN (print): 0017-5749

ISSN (electronic): 1468-3288

Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group

URL: https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319621

DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319621

PubMed id: 32245908


Altmetrics

Altmetrics provided by Altmetric


Actions

Find at Newcastle University icon    Link to this publication


Share