ColonoscopyNCT04482452
Percentage Visualized Mucosa as a Marker for the Quality of Colonoscopy
An observational study of Colonoscopy, run by Insel Gruppe AG, University Hospital Bern at 1 site in Switzerland.
Trial summary
Primary hypothesis: The percentage of mucosa visualized during the withdrawal of a colonoscopy with reference to the position in the colon by means of the scope-guide is an appropriate parameter for assessment of the quality of colonoscopy and correlates with the probability of the detection of adenomas. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Colonoscopy
- What is being tested?
- Colonoscopy
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- How many people
- 500 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSwitzerland
- Study dates
- 8 Jun 2020to 19 May 2022
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Individuals undergoing colonoscopy at Dept. of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Inselspital Bern
Who may be able to join
- Signed informed consent.
- Ability to understand and follow study procedures and understand informed consent.
- Complete colonoscopy.
- Age at least 18 years.
Who cannot join
- Participation in another clinical study interfering with study procedures.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Switzerland1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Inselspital
Bern, 3010
Benjamin Misselwitz, Prof., +41316325719, benjamin.misselwitz@insel.ch
Thrasyvoulos Gkrezios, MD, +41316325940, thrasyvoulos.gkrezios@insel.ch
About this study
Primary hypothesis: The percentage of mucosa visualized during the withdrawal of a colonoscopy with reference to the position in the colon by means of the scope-guide is an appropriate parameter for assessment of the quality of colonoscopy and correlates with the probability of the detection of adenomas.
Secondary hypothesis:
Read more
The investigators hypothesize that the percentage of visualized mucosa differs according patient specific parameters (e.g. gender, age, BMI, bowel preparation), procedure specific parameters (e.g. patient position, device, buscopan, fentanyl, withdrawal time) and investigator specific parameters (professional experience as resident and consultant).
Study Procedure/Evaluation:
The endoscopic images and scope guide from colonoscopy of 500 patients will be filmed. The investigators will correlate the detection of at least one adenoma in the cohort of included patients with the percentage of visualized mucosa during the withdrawal of a colonoscopy. Additional endpoints concerning the quality of the colonoscopy will be assessed as well.
Read the detailed description
PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN 1.1 Hypothesis Primary hypothesis: The percentage of mucosa visualized during the withdrawal of a colonoscopy with reference to the position in the colon by means of the scope-guide is an appropriate parameter for assessment of the quality of colonoscopy and correlates with the probability of the detection of adenomas.
Secondary hypothesis:
The investigators hypothesize that the percentage of visualized mucosa differs according patient specific parameters (e.g. gender, age, BMI, bowel preparation), procedure specific parameters (e.g. patient position, device, buscopan, fentanyl, withdrawal time) and investigator specific parameters (professional experience as resident and consultant).
STUDY DESIGN AND PROCEDURES 2.1 Study Design: The investigators will perform a non-interventional, single center exploratory study. Only total colonoscopies will be included. All of the examinations will be performed by board-certified specialists or fellows in training, supervised by the former. The investigators will enroll only participants who will have an explicit indication, in other words who will get a colonoscopy anyway. Therefore, colonoscopies will be conducted for a wide variety of indications including, but not limited, to CRC screening, CRC/ adenoma surveillance, abdominal symptoms such as pain, irregular defecation (diarrhea or constipation), gastrointestinal occult or overt bleeding, family history of polyps or CRC, prior colonic resection, hereditary polyposis syndromes and inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Since the study does not pose any additional risk to the participants (the only thing which changes for the patient is that the endoscopic images from colonoscopy and scope guide will be filmed), the enrollment can be done during consultation hour, at the ward or shortly before a colonoscopy.
2.2 Recruitment, screening and informed consent procedure: Patients will be recruited by the project team in the Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine at the Inselspital. The patient will be provided with information regarding the study. If the patient shows interest, the investigator will explain the study protocol, answer questions and check inclusion and exclusion criteria. For this study, no compensatory fee will be paid.
2.3 Study procedures: If the patient agrees to participate in the study and has signed the informed consent the colonoscopy will be performed in the usual setting and using general safety measures. The endoscopist will start filming all the phases of the colonoscopy and the position of the scope-guide simultaneously. Both films will be uploaded to the local server and then cut and analyzed with the help of iMovie. The only study procedure specific for the study is the filming and no other study specific measures will be taken.
Basic parameters of patient history and colonoscopy procedure will be recorded (compare CRF). As always, any findings of the colonoscopy will be reported to the participant/ patient after the procedure.
2.4 Withdrawal and discontinuation: If an individual withdraws informed consent after the colonoscopy or during the analysis of the data, he/she will be withdrawn from the project. All videos will be anonymized. In case of withdrawal, patient data and videos will not be considered for study purposes and will be deleted completely.
STATISTICS AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 Evaluation of Videos: All videos will be anonymized. Then the percentage of visible mucosa and lumen during withdrawal will be determined in each video. The scope-guide will allow to correlate the images with the position of the colonoscope within the colon. The investigators will record the amount of time spend in colon segments such as the cecum, ascending colon, right flexure, right transverse colon, left transverse colon, left flexure, descending colon, sigma and rectum. For each of these segments, the investigators will record the amount of time with good mucosa visibility and poor mucosa visibility.
In addition to manual analysis, computer-aided analysis and artificial intelligence methods will be developed to assist the evaluation of the videos. The development of computer-aided methods consists of two phases. In the first phase, frames in the video will be extracted as individual images. Experienced physicians will be assigned to annotate the images. The position of the scope-guide will be extracted for the annotation. Then a classifier based on deep neural network will be trained on these annotated images. The percentage of visible mucosa and lumen during withdrawal will be determined in each video based on the classification results of each individual frame. The classification according to the scope-guide will allow to correlate the images with the position of the colonoscope within the colon. The amount of time spending in colon segments such as the cecum, ascending colon, right flexure, right transverse colon, left transverse colon, left flexure, descending colon, sigma and rectum will be determined based on deep learning prediction results. Each frame will be classified to good mucosa visibility and poor mucosa visibility and the amount of time with good mucosa visibility and poor mucosa visibility of each of the segments will be determined accordingly. In the second phase, videos will be analysed directly with deep learning methods and the consistency between the frames will be explored during the analysis to improve the accuracy.
The investigators will also analyse advancements of the endoscope from the anus to the cecum. To this end, the time until each of the segments is reached will be recorded as well as all loops which have formed within the colon.
3.2 Statistical analysis plan 3.2.1. Statistical evaluation of the primary endpoint For evaluation of the primary endpoint (adenoma detection rate as a function of mucosa visibility) the investigators will rank all investigations regarding mucosa visibility and will divide the study population in 50% individuals with the best mucosa visibility and compare this number to the 50% of individuals with the worst mucosa visibility. They will compare the fraction of individuals with at least 1 detected adenoma to individuals without a detected adenoma (Fisher exact test). They will subsequently use multivariate logistic regression to correct for confounders (age, gender, family history of CRC, personal history of adenomas, advanced adenomas, carcinomas, BMI and bowel preparation).
3.2.2. Power analysis Our study is exploratory and no proper power analysis is possible. To provide an estimation the investigators assume that the effect of poor vs. good mucosa visibility will be as good as the effect of one of a number of technical devices recently tested in clinical studies to improve adenoma detection during colonoscopy. Such new technical devices (NTDs) include mucosa caps attached to the tips of the endoscope which flatten and stretch the mucosa or lenses to improve the field and angle of view. In a recent meta-analysis, NTDs increased the odds of adenoma detection by 35% (odds ratio 1.35) 25. In a screening colonoscopy, an adenoma detection rate of at least 20% would be expected 26 (i.e. 50 individuals with at least one adenoma among 250 individuals). In individuals with optimal mucosa visibility, this number would be 35% higher (i.e. 68 in 250 individuals). According to the power analysis using G* Power 3.1 27, 419 individuals would be needed to detect such a difference (i.e. 20% vs. 27% adenoma detection) with a power of 80% at an alpha level of 5%. The Investigators are aiming to include 500 individuals to account for an estimated 15% of investigations which could not be evaluated due to incomplete examinations or technical problems.
3.2.3 Statistical analysis of the secondary endpoints For the secondary outcomes, observed effects and interactions will be statistically substantiated by parametric and non-parametric tests and/ or multivariate analyses considering confounders as appropriate. A p-value <0.05 will be considered significant.
3.3 Handling of missing data: The nature of this exploratory study allows for some tolerance regarding missing data. Patients with incomplete or missing data/videos due to technical problems will be excluded from the study.
- Conditions
- Colonoscopy
- Being tested
- Colonoscopy
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
ColonoscopyProcedure or surgery
Diagnostic colonoscopy will be performed
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Correlation of detection of at least one adenoma with the percentage of visualized mucosa
The investigators will correlate the detection of at least one adenoma in the cohort of included patients with the percentage of visualized mucosa during the withdrawal of a colonoscopy. In the Analysis of the investigators, the ADR will be corrected for confounders (age, gender, family history of CRC, personal history of adenomas, advanced adenomas, carcinomas, BMI and bowel preparation).
Mucosa visualization will be defined as the average of the visualized mucosa over all segments of the colon.
Measured: During the procedure
Secondary outcomes (9)
Correlation of the percentage of visualized mucosa (see above) with the number of polyps, number of adenomas, number of advanced adenomas
Correlation of the percentage of visualized mucosa (see above) with the number of polyps, number of adenomas, number of advanced adenomas
Measured: During the procedure
In which segment of the colon is the visualization worst
In which segment of the colon is the visualization worst
Measured: During the procedure
Which factors influence the visualization of the colon mucosa
Which factors influence the visualization of the colon mucosa (bowel preparation, withdrawal time, device (colonoscope) selection, water vs. air immersion technique, buscopan, fentanyl, change of position of patient (supine position, lateral position) etc.)
Measured: During the procedure
Change of visualized mucosa during training of a gastroenterology resident (learning curve)
Change of visualized mucosa during training of a gastroenterology resident
Measured: During the procedure
Differences in percentage visualized mucosa between individual board-certified gastroenterologists according to years of professional experience and numbers of previous endoscopies
Differences in percentage visualized mucosa between individual board-certified gastroenterologists according to years of professional experience and numbers of previous endoscopies
Measured: During the procedure
Differences in percentage of visualized mucosa in men vs. women
Differences in percentage of visualized mucosa in men vs. women
Measured: During the procedure
Speed of advancing the endoscope during the first phase of colonoscopy under the conditions mentioned above (bowel preparation, sedation parameters, position, gender, level of professional experience).
Speed of advancing the endoscope during the first phase of colonoscopy
Measured: During the procedure
Loops in the colon (alpha-loop, reverse alpha-loop, N-loop) during advancing the endoscope and the influence of the parameters described under outcome 8)
Loops in the colon (alpha-loop, reverse alpha-loop, N-loop) during advancing the endoscope and the influence of the parameters described under outcome 8)
Measured: During the procedure
9) The above mentioned primary and secondary end-points will also be assessed using automated image analysis algorithms and artificial intelligence
- The above mentioned primary and secondary end-points will also be assessed using automated image analysis algorithms and artificial intelligence
Measured: During the procedure
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Jul 2020
- Study start8 Jun 2020
- Primary completion19 May 2022 (estimated)
- Study completion19 May 2022 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (24)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for ColonoscopyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Insel Gruppe AG, University Hospital BernThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 500 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Insel Gruppe AG, University Hospital Bern
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Benjamin Misselwitz, Prof., Study director, Insel Gruppe AG, University Hospital Bern
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04482452
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2020-00074
- Status last verified
- Jul 2020
- First submitted
- 7 Jul 2020
- Last updated
- 22 Jul 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 Jan;69(1):7-34. doi: 10.3322/caac.21551. Epub 2019 Jan 8.
PubMed 30620402Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL, Yokochi LA, Church T, Laiyemo AO, Bresalier R, Andriole GL, Buys SS, Crawford ED, Fouad MN, Isaacs C, Johnson CC, Reding DJ, O'Brien B, Carrick DM, Wright P, Riley TL, Purdue MP, Izmirlian G, Kramer BS, Miller AB, Gohagan JK, Prorok PC, Berg CD; PLCO Project Team. Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2012 Jun 21;366(25):2345-57. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1114635. Epub 2012 May 21.
PubMed 22612596Holme O, Loberg M, Kalager M, Bretthauer M, Hernan MA, Aas E, Eide TJ, Skovlund E, Schneede J, Tveit KM, Hoff G. Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014 Aug 13;312(6):606-15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.8266.
PubMed 25117129Peery AF, Dellon ES, Lund J, Crockett SD, McGowan CE, Bulsiewicz WJ, Gangarosa LM, Thiny MT, Stizenberg K, Morgan DR, Ringel Y, Kim HP, DiBonaventura MD, Carroll CF, Allen JK, Cook SF, Sandler RS, Kappelman MD, Shaheen NJ. Burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States: 2012 update. Gastroenterology. 2012 Nov;143(5):1179-1187.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.08.002. Epub 2012 Aug 8.
PubMed 22885331Sonnenberg A, Amorosi SL, Lacey MJ, Lieberman DA. Patterns of endoscopy in the United States: analysis of data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Endoscopic Database. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Mar;67(3):489-96. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2007.08.041. Epub 2008 Jan 7.
PubMed 18179793Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, Levin TR, Burt RW, Johnson DA, Kirk LM, Litlin S, Lieberman DA, Waye JD, Church J, Marshall JB, Riddell RH; U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 Jun;97(6):1296-308. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05812.x. No abstract available.
PubMed 12094842Rees CJ, Thomas Gibson S, Rutter MD, Baragwanath P, Pullan R, Feeney M, Haslam N; British Society of Gastroenterology, the Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy, the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy. Gut. 2016 Dec;65(12):1923-1929. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312044. Epub 2016 Aug 16.
PubMed 27531829Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, Pike IM, Adler DG, Fennerty MB, Lieb JG 2nd, Park WG, Rizk MK, Sawhney MS, Shaheen NJ, Wani S, Weinberg DS. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jan;110(1):72-90. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2014.385. Epub 2014 Dec 2. No abstract available.
PubMed 25448873Lieberman D, Ladabaum U, Cruz-Correa M, Ginsburg C, Inadomi JM, Kim LS, Giardiello FM, Wender RC. Screening for Colorectal Cancer and Evolving Issues for Physicians and Patients: A Review. JAMA. 2016 Nov 22;316(20):2135-2145. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.17418.
PubMed 27893135Sulz MC, Kroger A, Prakash M, Manser CN, Heinrich H, Misselwitz B. Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Bowel Preparation on Adenoma Detection: Early Adenomas Affected Stronger than Advanced Adenomas. PLoS One. 2016 Jun 3;11(6):e0154149. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154149. eCollection 2016.
PubMed 27257916Lebwohl B, Kastrinos F, Glick M, Rosenbaum AJ, Wang T, Neugut AI. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Jun;73(6):1207-14. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.051. Epub 2011 Apr 8.
PubMed 21481857Calderwood AH, Schroy PC 3rd, Lieberman DA, Logan JR, Zurfluh M, Jacobson BC. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Aug;80(2):269-76. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.01.031. Epub 2014 Mar 12.
PubMed 24629422Kluge MA, Williams JL, Wu CK, Jacobson BC, Schroy PC 3rd, Lieberman DA, Calderwood AH. Inadequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores predict the risk of missed neoplasia on the next colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Mar;87(3):744-751. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.06.012. Epub 2017 Jun 23.
PubMed 28648575Sawhney MS, Cury MS, Neeman N, Ngo LH, Lewis JM, Chuttani R, Pleskow DK, Aronson MD. Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 minutes on polyp detection. Gastroenterology. 2008 Dec;135(6):1892-8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.08.024. Epub 2008 Aug 27.
PubMed 18835390Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M, Bretthauer M, Rees CJ, Dekker E, Hoff G, Jover R, Suchanek S, Ferlitsch M, Anderson J, Roesch T, Hultcranz R, Racz I, Kuipers EJ, Garborg K, East JE, Rupinski M, Seip B, Bennett C, Senore C, Minozzi S, Bisschops R, Domagk D, Valori R, Spada C, Hassan C, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Rutter MD. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. United European Gastroenterol J. 2017 Apr;5(3):309-334. doi: 10.1177/2050640617700014. Epub 2017 Mar 16.
PubMed 28507745
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 Jul 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Percentage Visualized Mucosa as a Marker for the Quality of Colonoscopy
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04482452
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2020-00074
- Conditions
- Colonoscopy
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 500 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Insel Gruppe AG, University Hospital BernUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 8 Jun 2020 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 19 May 2022 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 19 May 2022 (estimated)
- First posted
- 22 Jul 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Primary hypothesis: The percentage of mucosa visualized during the withdrawal of a colonoscopy with reference to the position in the colon by means of the scope-guide is an appropriate parameter for assessment of the quality of colonoscopy and correlates with the probability of the detection of adenomas.
Secondary hypothesis:
The investigators hypothesize that the percentage of visualized mucosa differs according patient specific parameters (e.g. gender, age, BMI, bowel preparation), procedure specific parameters (e.g. patient position, device, buscopan, fentanyl, withdrawal time) and investigator specific parameters (professional experience as resident and consultant).
Study Procedure/Evaluation:
The endoscopic images and scope guide from colonoscopy of 500 patients will be filmed. The investigators will correlate the detection of at least one adenoma in the cohort of included patients with the percentage of visualized mucosa during the withdrawal of a colonoscopy. Additional endpoints concerning the quality of the colonoscopy will be assessed as well.
Detailed description
PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN 1.1 Hypothesis Primary hypothesis: The percentage of mucosa visualized during the withdrawal of a colonoscopy with reference to the position in the colon by means of the scope-guide is an appropriate parameter for assessment of the quality of colonoscopy and correlates with the probability of the detection of adenomas.
Secondary hypothesis:
The investigators hypothesize that the percentage of visualized mucosa differs according patient specific parameters (e.g. gender, age, BMI, bowel preparation), procedure specific parameters (e.g. patient position, device, buscopan, fentanyl, withdrawal time) and investigator specific parameters (professional experience as resident and consultant).
STUDY DESIGN AND PROCEDURES 2.1 Study Design: The investigators will perform a non-interventional, single center exploratory study. Only total colonoscopies will be included. All of the examinations will be performed by board-certified specialists or fellows in training, supervised by the former. The investigators will enroll only participants who will have an explicit indication, in other words who will get a colonoscopy anyway. Therefore, colonoscopies will be conducted for a wide variety of indications including, but not limited, to CRC screening, CRC/ adenoma surveillance, abdominal symptoms such as pain, irregular defecation (diarrhea or constipation), gastrointestinal occult or overt bleeding, family history of polyps or CRC, prior colonic resection, hereditary polyposis syndromes and inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Since the study does not pose any additional risk to the participants (the only thing which changes for the patient is that the endoscopic images from colonoscopy and scope guide will be filmed), the enrollment can be done during consultation hour, at the ward or shortly before a colonoscopy.
2.2 Recruitment, screening and informed consent procedure: Patients will be recruited by the project team in the Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine at the Inselspital. The patient will be provided with information regarding the study. If the patient shows interest, the investigator will explain the study protocol, answer questions and check inclusion and exclusion criteria. For this study, no compensatory fee will be paid.
2.3 Study procedures: If the patient agrees to participate in the study and has signed the informed consent the colonoscopy will be performed in the usual setting and using general safety measures. The endoscopist will start filming all the phases of the colonoscopy and the position of the scope-guide simultaneously. Both films will be uploaded to the local server and then cut and analyzed with the help of iMovie. The only study procedure specific for the study is the filming and no other study specific measures will be taken.
Basic parameters of patient history and colonoscopy procedure will be recorded (compare CRF). As always, any findings of the colonoscopy will be reported to the participant/ patient after the procedure.
2.4 Withdrawal and discontinuation: If an individual withdraws informed consent after the colonoscopy or during the analysis of the data, he/she will be withdrawn from the project. All videos will be anonymized. In case of withdrawal, patient data and videos will not be considered for study purposes and will be deleted completely.
STATISTICS AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 Evaluation of Videos: All videos will be anonymized. Then the percentage of visible mucosa and lumen during withdrawal will be determined in each video. The scope-guide will allow to correlate the images with the position of the colonoscope within the colon. The investigators will record the amount of time spend in colon segments such as the cecum, ascending colon, right flexure, right transverse colon, left transverse colon, left flexure, descending colon, sigma and rectum. For each of these segments, the investigators will record the amount of time with good mucosa visibility and poor mucosa visibility.
In addition to manual analysis, computer-aided analysis and artificial intelligence methods will be developed to assist the evaluation of the videos. The development of computer-aided methods consists of two phases. In the first phase, frames in the video will be extracted as individual images. Experienced physicians will be assigned to annotate the images. The position of the scope-guide will be extracted for the annotation. Then a classifier based on deep neural network will be trained on these annotated images. The percentage of visible mucosa and lumen during withdrawal will be determined in each video based on the classification results of each individual frame. The classification according to the scope-guide will allow to correlate the images with the position of the colonoscope within the colon. The amount of time spending in colon segments such as the cecum, ascending colon, right flexure, right transverse colon, left transverse colon, left flexure, descending colon, sigma and rectum will be determined based on deep learning prediction results. Each frame will be classified to good mucosa visibility and poor mucosa visibility and the amount of time with good mucosa visibility and poor mucosa visibility of each of the segments will be determined accordingly. In the second phase, videos will be analysed directly with deep learning methods and the consistency between the frames will be explored during the analysis to improve the accuracy.
The investigators will also analyse advancements of the endoscope from the anus to the cecum. To this end, the time until each of the segments is reached will be recorded as well as all loops which have formed within the colon.
3.2 Statistical analysis plan 3.2.1. Statistical evaluation of the primary endpoint For evaluation of the primary endpoint (adenoma detection rate as a function of mucosa visibility) the investigators will rank all investigations regarding mucosa visibility and will divide the study population in 50% individuals with the best mucosa visibility and compare this number to the 50% of individuals with the worst mucosa visibility. They will compare the fraction of individuals with at least 1 detected adenoma to individuals without a detected adenoma (Fisher exact test). They will subsequently use multivariate logistic regression to correct for confounders (age, gender, family history of CRC, personal history of adenomas, advanced adenomas, carcinomas, BMI and bowel preparation).
3.2.2. Power analysis Our study is exploratory and no proper power analysis is possible. To provide an estimation the investigators assume that the effect of poor vs. good mucosa visibility will be as good as the effect of one of a number of technical devices recently tested in clinical studies to improve adenoma detection during colonoscopy. Such new technical devices (NTDs) include mucosa caps attached to the tips of the endoscope which flatten and stretch the mucosa or lenses to improve the field and angle of view. In a recent meta-analysis, NTDs increased the odds of adenoma detection by 35% (odds ratio 1.35) 25. In a screening colonoscopy, an adenoma detection rate of at least 20% would be expected 26 (i.e. 50 individuals with at least one adenoma among 250 individuals). In individuals with optimal mucosa visibility, this number would be 35% higher (i.e. 68 in 250 individuals). According to the power analysis using G* Power 3.1 27, 419 individuals would be needed to detect such a difference (i.e. 20% vs. 27% adenoma detection) with a power of 80% at an alpha level of 5%. The Investigators are aiming to include 500 individuals to account for an estimated 15% of investigations which could not be evaluated due to incomplete examinations or technical problems.
3.2.3 Statistical analysis of the secondary endpoints For the secondary outcomes, observed effects and interactions will be statistically substantiated by parametric and non-parametric tests and/ or multivariate analyses considering confounders as appropriate. A p-value <0.05 will be considered significant.
3.3 Handling of missing data: The nature of this exploratory study allows for some tolerance regarding missing data. Patients with incomplete or missing data/videos due to technical problems will be excluded from the study.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Individuals undergoing colonoscopy at Dept. of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Inselspital Bern
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Signed informed consent.
- Ability to understand and follow study procedures and understand informed consent.
- Complete colonoscopy.
- Age at least 18 years.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Participation in another clinical study interfering with study procedures.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| ColonoscopyDiagnostic colonoscopy will be performed | Procedure or surgery | – |
Primary outcome
Correlation of detection of at least one adenoma with the percentage of visualized mucosa
Time frame: During the procedure
The investigators will correlate the detection of at least one adenoma in the cohort of included patients with the percentage of visualized mucosa during the withdrawal of a colonoscopy. In the Analysis of the investigators, the ADR will be corrected for confounders (age, gender, family history of CRC, personal history of adenomas, advanced adenomas, carcinomas, BMI and bowel preparation). Mucosa visualization will be defined as the average of the visualized mucosa over all segments of the colon.
9 secondary outcomes
Correlation of the percentage of visualized mucosa (see above) with the number of polyps, number of adenomas, number of advanced adenomas
Time frame: During the procedure
In which segment of the colon is the visualization worst
Time frame: During the procedure
Which factors influence the visualization of the colon mucosa
Time frame: During the procedure
Change of visualized mucosa during training of a gastroenterology resident (learning curve)
Time frame: During the procedure
Differences in percentage visualized mucosa between individual board-certified gastroenterologists according to years of professional experience and numbers of previous endoscopies
Time frame: During the procedure
Differences in percentage of visualized mucosa in men vs. women
Time frame: During the procedure
Speed of advancing the endoscope during the first phase of colonoscopy under the conditions mentioned above (bowel preparation, sedation parameters, position, gender, level of professional experience).
Time frame: During the procedure
Loops in the colon (alpha-loop, reverse alpha-loop, N-loop) during advancing the endoscope and the influence of the parameters described under outcome 8)
Time frame: During the procedure
9) The above mentioned primary and secondary end-points will also be assessed using automated image analysis algorithms and artificial intelligence
Time frame: During the procedure
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 22 Jul 2020.
- Background: PubMed 30620402Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 Jan;69(1):7-34. doi: 10.3322/caac.21551. Epub 2019 Jan 8.
- Background: PubMed 22612596Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL, Yokochi LA, Church T, Laiyemo AO, Bresalier R, Andriole GL, Buys SS, Crawford ED, Fouad MN, Isaacs C, Johnson CC, Reding DJ, O'Brien B, Carrick DM, Wright P, Riley TL, Purdue MP, Izmirlian G, Kramer BS, Miller AB, Gohagan JK, Prorok PC, Berg CD; PLCO Project Team. Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2012 Jun 21;366(25):2345-57. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1114635. Epub 2012 May 21.
- Background: PubMed 25117129Holme O, Loberg M, Kalager M, Bretthauer M, Hernan MA, Aas E, Eide TJ, Skovlund E, Schneede J, Tveit KM, Hoff G. Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014 Aug 13;312(6):606-15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.8266.
- Background: PubMed 22885331Peery AF, Dellon ES, Lund J, Crockett SD, McGowan CE, Bulsiewicz WJ, Gangarosa LM, Thiny MT, Stizenberg K, Morgan DR, Ringel Y, Kim HP, DiBonaventura MD, Carroll CF, Allen JK, Cook SF, Sandler RS, Kappelman MD, Shaheen NJ. Burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States: 2012 update. Gastroenterology. 2012 Nov;143(5):1179-1187.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.08.002. Epub 2012 Aug 8.
- Background: PubMed 18179793Sonnenberg A, Amorosi SL, Lacey MJ, Lieberman DA. Patterns of endoscopy in the United States: analysis of data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Endoscopic Database. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Mar;67(3):489-96. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2007.08.041. Epub 2008 Jan 7.
- Background: PubMed 12094842Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, Levin TR, Burt RW, Johnson DA, Kirk LM, Litlin S, Lieberman DA, Waye JD, Church J, Marshall JB, Riddell RH; U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 Jun;97(6):1296-308. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05812.x. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 27531829Rees CJ, Thomas Gibson S, Rutter MD, Baragwanath P, Pullan R, Feeney M, Haslam N; British Society of Gastroenterology, the Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy, the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy. Gut. 2016 Dec;65(12):1923-1929. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312044. Epub 2016 Aug 16.
- Background: PubMed 25448873Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, Pike IM, Adler DG, Fennerty MB, Lieb JG 2nd, Park WG, Rizk MK, Sawhney MS, Shaheen NJ, Wani S, Weinberg DS. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jan;110(1):72-90. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2014.385. Epub 2014 Dec 2. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 27893135Lieberman D, Ladabaum U, Cruz-Correa M, Ginsburg C, Inadomi JM, Kim LS, Giardiello FM, Wender RC. Screening for Colorectal Cancer and Evolving Issues for Physicians and Patients: A Review. JAMA. 2016 Nov 22;316(20):2135-2145. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.17418.
- Background: PubMed 27257916Sulz MC, Kroger A, Prakash M, Manser CN, Heinrich H, Misselwitz B. Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Bowel Preparation on Adenoma Detection: Early Adenomas Affected Stronger than Advanced Adenomas. PLoS One. 2016 Jun 3;11(6):e0154149. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154149. eCollection 2016.
- Background: PubMed 21481857Lebwohl B, Kastrinos F, Glick M, Rosenbaum AJ, Wang T, Neugut AI. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Jun;73(6):1207-14. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.051. Epub 2011 Apr 8.
- Background: PubMed 24629422Calderwood AH, Schroy PC 3rd, Lieberman DA, Logan JR, Zurfluh M, Jacobson BC. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Aug;80(2):269-76. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.01.031. Epub 2014 Mar 12.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Colonoscopy
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Box Breathing Exercise on Anxiety, Pain, and Pulmonary Function Tests in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy
Colonoscopy
RecruitingObservational study
Characterization of Colorectal Dysplasic Lesions and Stratification of Their Evolving Risk in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: a Prospective, Observational and Multicenter Study
Crohn Disease (CD), Colitis Ulcerative
Not yet recruiting
HFNC vs Conventional Oxygen During Gastrocolonoscopy in Elderly Patients
Hypoxemia, Eldery People
Recruiting
Five or Ten Year Colonoscopy for 1-2 Non-Advanced Adenomatous Polyps
Adenocarcinoma of the Colon, Adenocarcinoma of the Rectum
Recruiting
Visual Aids for Colonoscopy Preparation: A Prospective Study on Patient Understanding and Bowel Cleanliness in Colonoscopy Patients
The Effect of Audio-visual Aids on Bowel Cleanliness, Audiovisual Aids
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Benjamin Misselwitz, Prof. study director
Insel Gruppe AG, University Hospital Bern
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Colonoscopy, run by Insel Gruppe AG, University Hospital Bern at 1 site in Switzerland.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 Jul 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Switzerland. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Benjamin Misselwitz, Prof. (+41 31 632 5719, benjamin.misselwitz@insel.ch), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Correlation of detection of at least one adenoma with the percentage of visualized mucosa (time frame: During the procedure). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04482452, which also lists 24 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 22 Jul 2020.