Suppr超能文献

计算虚拟 chromoendoscopy 在结直肠癌筛查中的疗效:前瞻性、随机、背靠背试验比较富士智能色彩增强与传统结肠镜检查对腺瘤漏诊率的影响。

Efficacy of computed virtual chromoendoscopy on colorectal cancer screening: a prospective, randomized, back-to-back trial of Fuji Intelligent Color Enhancement versus conventional colonoscopy to compare adenoma miss rates.

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Healthcare Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul, South Korea.

出版信息

Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Jul;72(1):136-42. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.01.055. Epub 2010 May 20.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the criterion standard for screening of colorectal neoplasms. Nonetheless, a substantial miss rate with conventional, white-light colonoscopy (WL) remains a challenge.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether Fuji Intelligent Color Enhancement (FICE) can detect more adenomas than WL in screening colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized trial of tandem colonoscopy adjusted for withdrawal time and lavage effect.

SETTING

Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Korea.

PATIENTS

This study involved 359 average-risk adults undergoing screening colonoscopy.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized to the first withdrawal with either FICE (FICE-WL group) or WL (WL-FICE group).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The primary end point measure was the difference in adenoma miss rates, and the secondary outcome measure was the adenoma detection rate.

RESULTS

We enrolled 359 patients (mean age 50.6 years, male 66.9%) and randomly assigned 181 to the WL-FICE group and 178 to the FICE-WL group. The number of adenomas detected by FICE and WL was 123 and 107, respectively. The adenoma miss rate with FICE showed no significant difference compared with that of WL (6.6% vs 8.3%, P = .59). Characteristics of lesions missed by use of FICE were similar to those missed by use of WL; 93% of overall missed polyps were < or =5 mm, and none were > or =1 cm. All missed adenomas were low grade and nonpedunculated. There was no significant difference between FICE and WL in adenoma detection rate (mean 0.64 vs 0.55 per patient, P = .65) nor percentage of patients with > or =1 adenoma (33.7% vs 30.4%, P = .74).

LIMITATIONS

Single-center study.

CONCLUSION

FICE at screening colonoscopy did not improve the adenoma miss rate or detection rate compared with WL.

摘要

背景

结肠镜检查是结直肠肿瘤筛查的金标准。然而,传统白光结肠镜检查(WL)仍存在相当大的漏诊率,这是一个挑战。

目的

评估富士智能色彩增强(FICE)是否能比 WL 在筛查结肠镜检查中检测到更多的腺瘤。

设计

经调整退镜时间和洗肠效果的串联结肠镜前瞻性随机试验。

地点

韩国首尔国立大学医院保健系统江南中心。

患者

这项研究纳入了 359 名接受筛查性结肠镜检查的普通风险成年人。

干预措施

患者被随机分为 FICE(FICE-WL 组)或 WL(WL-FICE 组)进行第一次退镜。

主要观察指标

主要终点测量指标是腺瘤漏诊率的差异,次要终点测量指标是腺瘤检出率。

结果

我们纳入了 359 例患者(平均年龄 50.6 岁,男性 66.9%),并将 181 例随机分配至 WL-FICE 组,178 例分配至 FICE-WL 组。FICE 和 WL 检出的腺瘤数量分别为 123 个和 107 个。FICE 组与 WL 组的腺瘤漏诊率无显著差异(6.6%比 8.3%,P=.59)。FICE 漏诊病变的特征与 WL 相似;93%的总体漏诊息肉<或=5mm,无>或=1cm。所有漏诊的腺瘤均为低级别且无蒂。FICE 和 WL 在腺瘤检出率(平均每位患者 0.64 个比 0.55 个,P=.65)和>或=1 个腺瘤的患者比例(33.7%比 30.4%,P=.74)方面均无显著差异。

局限性

单中心研究。

结论

与 WL 相比,筛查性结肠镜检查中使用 FICE 并未提高腺瘤的漏诊率或检出率。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验