One in three adenomas could be missed by white-light colonoscopy - findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY BMC Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2025-03-13 DOI:10.1186/s12876-025-03679-4
Beate Jahn, Marvin Bundo, Marjan Arvandi, Monika Schaffner, Jovan Todorovic, Gaby Sroczynski, Amy Knudsen, Timo Fischer, Irmgard Schiller-Fruehwirth, Dietmar Öfner, Friedrich Renner, Michael Jonas, Igor Kuchin, Julia Kruse, Júlia Santamaria, Monika Ferlitsch, Uwe Siebert
{"title":"One in three adenomas could be missed by white-light colonoscopy - findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Beate Jahn, Marvin Bundo, Marjan Arvandi, Monika Schaffner, Jovan Todorovic, Gaby Sroczynski, Amy Knudsen, Timo Fischer, Irmgard Schiller-Fruehwirth, Dietmar Öfner, Friedrich Renner, Michael Jonas, Igor Kuchin, Julia Kruse, Júlia Santamaria, Monika Ferlitsch, Uwe Siebert","doi":"10.1186/s12876-025-03679-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>White light (conventional) colonoscopy (WLC) is widely used for colorectal cancer screening, diagnosis and surveillance but endoscopists may fail to detect adenomas. Our goal was to assess and synthesize overall and subgroup-specific adenoma miss rates (AMR) of WLC in daily practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and grey literature on studies evaluating diagnostic WLC accuracy in tandem studies with novel-colonoscopic technologies (NCT) in subjects undergoing screening, diagnostic or surveillance colonoscopy. Information on study design, AMR overall and specific for adenoma size, histology, location, morphology and further outcomes were extracted and reported in standardized evidence tables. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression were performed to estimate pooled estimates for AMR with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and to explain heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 5,963 identified studies, we included sixteen studies with 4,101 individuals in our meta-analysis. One in three adenomas (34%; 95% CI: 30-38%) was missed by WLC in daily practice individuals. Subgroup analyses showed significant AMR differences by size (36%, adenomas 1-5 mm; 27%, adenomas 6-9 mm; 12%, adenomas ≥ 10 mm), histology (non-advanced: 42%, advanced: 21%), morphology (flat: 50%, polypoid: 27%), but not by location (distal: 36%, proximal: 36%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on our meta-analysis, one in three adenomas could be missed by WLC. This may significantly contribute to interval cancers. Our results should be considered in health technology assessment when interpreting sensitivity of fecal occult blood or other screening tests derived from studies using WLC as \"gold standard\".</p>","PeriodicalId":9129,"journal":{"name":"BMC Gastroenterology","volume":"25 1","pages":"170"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11908064/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-025-03679-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: White light (conventional) colonoscopy (WLC) is widely used for colorectal cancer screening, diagnosis and surveillance but endoscopists may fail to detect adenomas. Our goal was to assess and synthesize overall and subgroup-specific adenoma miss rates (AMR) of WLC in daily practice.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and grey literature on studies evaluating diagnostic WLC accuracy in tandem studies with novel-colonoscopic technologies (NCT) in subjects undergoing screening, diagnostic or surveillance colonoscopy. Information on study design, AMR overall and specific for adenoma size, histology, location, morphology and further outcomes were extracted and reported in standardized evidence tables. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression were performed to estimate pooled estimates for AMR with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and to explain heterogeneity.

Results: Out of 5,963 identified studies, we included sixteen studies with 4,101 individuals in our meta-analysis. One in three adenomas (34%; 95% CI: 30-38%) was missed by WLC in daily practice individuals. Subgroup analyses showed significant AMR differences by size (36%, adenomas 1-5 mm; 27%, adenomas 6-9 mm; 12%, adenomas ≥ 10 mm), histology (non-advanced: 42%, advanced: 21%), morphology (flat: 50%, polypoid: 27%), but not by location (distal: 36%, proximal: 36%).

Conclusions: Based on our meta-analysis, one in three adenomas could be missed by WLC. This may significantly contribute to interval cancers. Our results should be considered in health technology assessment when interpreting sensitivity of fecal occult blood or other screening tests derived from studies using WLC as "gold standard".

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
三分之一的腺瘤可以通过白光结肠镜检查遗漏——来自系统回顾和荟萃分析的发现。
背景:白光(常规)结肠镜检查(WLC)广泛用于结直肠癌的筛查、诊断和监测,但内镜医师可能无法发现腺瘤。我们的目的是评估和综合日常实践中WLC的总体和亚组特异性腺瘤漏报率(AMR)。方法:我们对MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆和灰色文献进行了系统回顾,这些文献是关于在接受筛查、诊断或监测结肠镜检查的受试者中使用新型结肠镜技术(NCT)进行串联研究评估诊断WLC准确性的研究。提取并在标准化证据表中报告有关研究设计、总体和特异性腺瘤大小、组织学、位置、形态学和其他结果的AMR信息。使用QUADAS-2工具评估研究质量。随机效应荟萃分析和荟萃回归用于估计AMR的95%置信区间(95% CI)的汇总估计,并解释异质性。结果:在5963项确定的研究中,我们在meta分析中纳入了16项研究,涉及4101名个体。三分之一的腺瘤(34%;95% CI: 30-38%)在日常实践个体中被WLC遗漏。亚组分析显示不同大小的AMR差异显著(36%,腺瘤1-5 mm;27%,腺瘤6- 9mm;12%,腺瘤≥10 mm),组织学(非晚期:42%,晚期:21%),形态学(扁平:50%,息肉样:27%),但不按位置(远端:36%,近端:36%)。结论:根据我们的荟萃分析,三分之一的腺瘤可能被WLC遗漏。这可能会导致间隔期癌症。在解释粪便隐血或其他筛选试验的敏感性时,我们的结果应在卫生技术评估中加以考虑,这些试验来源于使用WLC作为“金标准”的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Gastroenterology
BMC Gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
465
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Gastroenterology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of swab-based RUT in detecting H. pylori infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis in the real world: clinical burden, disease progression, and risk stratification with non-invasive tests. Interpretable stacking model integrating intra-/peritumoral CT-radiomics and serum biomarkers for predicting microvascular invasion in HCC: a dual-center retrospective study. 10 year cumulative diagnostic radiation exposure after acute pancreatitis: a retrospective comparison of acute interstitial oedematous and necrotising pancreatitis. Development and validation of a novel risk score for predicting post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with choledocholithiasis: a retrospective study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1