Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy for surveillance of serrated polyposis syndrome: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Background and Study Aims: Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is a condition with high risk for colorectal cancer. The Endocuff device has been shown to increase adenoma detection in the general and screening population. We aimed to ascertain whether Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy increases detection of serrated lesions in comparison with standard colonoscopy during the surveillance of patients with SPS.  METHODS:  In a multicenter randomized controlled study, patients who met SPS criteria I and/or III under surveillance (previous resection of all serrated lesions ≥ 4 mm) were consecutively randomly allocated 1:1 to Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy or standard colonoscopy, performed by expert endoscopists. The main outcome was the mean number of serrated lesions detected per patient.
Results: 122 patients (standard colonoscopy n = 60; Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy n = 62; 59 % men; mean age 60.6 (standard deviation [SD] 7.5) were included at 4 centers. Baseline variables (demographic data, SPS phenotype, colorectal cancer [CRC] history, cumulative polyps, and follow-up), cecal intubation rate, and withdrawal time were similar between groups. There was no statistically significant difference between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy and standard colonoscopy for the mean number of serrated lesions detected per patient: 5.8 (95 % confidence interval [95 %CI] 4.4 - 7.2) and 5.0 (3.9 - 6.1), respectively ( P  = 0.36). There were also no differences between Endocuff-assisted and standard colonoscopy for detection of sessile serrated lesions (mean number per patient 2.5 [1.3 - 3.6] vs. 2.0 [1.1 - 3.0], P  = 0.54) and adenomas (0.9 [0.5 - 1.3] vs. 0.5 [0.3 - 0.7], P  = 0.12).
Conclusion: Use of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy did not significantly increase the number of serrated lesion detected per patient during surveillance of SPS.
Competing Interests: M. Pellisé is a consultant for Norgine Iberia; has received fees for conferences from Norgine, Olympus, and Casen Recordati; and receives an editorial fee from Thieme. Other authors do not have any conflict of interest.
(© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)