Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Intest Res : Intestinal Research

Search
Advanced Search
IMPACT FACTOR
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Intest Res > Volume 15(3); 2017 > Article
Original Article Miss rate of colorectal neoplastic polyps and risk factors for missed polyps in consecutive colonoscopies
Nam Hee Kim, Yoon Suk Jung, Woo Shin Jeong, Hyo-Joon Yang, Soo-Kyung Park, Kyuyong Choi, Dong Il Park
Intestinal Research 2017;15(3):411-418.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2017.15.3.411
Published online: June 12, 2017

Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Correspondence to Dong Il Park, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 29 Saemunan-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03181, Korea. Tel: +82-2-2001-2059, Fax: +82-2-2001-2049, diksmc.park@samsung.com
*These authors contributed equally to this study.
• Received: March 21, 2016   • Revised: July 3, 2016   • Accepted: July 4, 2016

© Copyright 2017. Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 10,608 Views
  • 101 Download
  • 81 Web of Science
  • 68 Crossref
  • 94 Scopus
prev next
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Background/Aims
    Colonoscopic polypectomy is the best diagnostic and therapeutic tool to detect and prevent colorectal neoplasms. However, previous studies have reported that 17% to 28% of colorectal polyps are missed during colonoscopy. We investigated the miss rate of neoplastic polyps and the factors associated with missed polyps from quality-adjusted consecutive colonoscopies.
  • Methods
    We reviewed the medical records of patients who were found to have colorectal polyps at a medical examination center of the Kangbuk Samsung Hospital between March 2012 and February 2013. Patients who were referred to a single tertiary academic medical center and underwent colonoscopic polypectomy on the same day were enrolled in our study. The odds ratios (ORs) associated with polyp-related and patient-related factors were evaluated using logistic regression analyses.
  • Results
    A total of 463 patients and 1,294 neoplastic polyps were analyzed. The miss rates for adenomas, advanced adenomas, and carcinomas were 24.1% (312/1,294), 1.2% (15/1,294), and 0% (0/1,294), respectively. Flat/sessile-shaped adenomas (adjusted OR, 3.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.40–5.46) and smaller adenomas (adjusted OR, 5.63; 95% CI, 2.84– 11.15 for ≤5 mm; adjusted OR, 3.18; 95% CI, 1.60–6.30 for 6–9 mm, respectively) were more frequently missed than pedunculated/sub-pedunculated adenomas and larger adenomas. In patients with 2 or more polyps compared with only one detected (adjusted OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.55–3.61 for 2–4 polyps; adjusted OR, 11.52; 95% CI, 4.61–28.79 for ≥5 polyps, respectively) during the first endoscopy, the risk of missing an additional polyp was significantly higher.
  • Conclusions
    One-quarter of neoplastic polyps was missed during colonoscopy. We encourage endoscopists to detect smaller and flat or sessile polyps by using the optimal withdrawal technique.
  • Keywords: Colorectal polyp; Miss rate; Consecutive colonoscopies
The National Polyp Study (NPS) was the first to report that colonoscopic polypectomy reduced the incidence of colorectal cancer.1 A recent, long-term, follow-up cohort study of the NPS demonstrated that colonoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps prevents death from colorectal cancer.2 Colonoscopic polypectomy is the best diagnostic and therapeutic tool to detect and prevent colorectal neoplasms. Nevertheless, interval cancers occur, especially in the right colon, and the rate of interval cancer has been reported to be approximately 2% to 6%.34 There are several possible reasons for the occurrence of interval cancers after negative colonoscopy, including biological variation in tumor growth rates, incomplete removal of polyps, inadequate bowel preparation, technical limitations, and suboptimal examination techniques.56 To reduce interval cancers, quality assurance programs have been introduced worldwide. Cecal intubation, adequate bowel preparation, and a colonoscopic withdrawal time of 6 minutes or more are suggested to ensure complete removal of polyps and improvement of polyp detection based on previous studies.78 Despite these efforts, it has been reported that a significant number of polyps are missed during surveillance colonoscopy,91011121314151617 thereby leading to the development of interval cancers from the missed neoplastic polyps.18 Based on several tandem or consecutive colonoscopy studies,912131415 the miss rate of polyps is reported to be 16.8% to 28%. However, these studies had several limitations, such as small polyp and patient sample sizes, repeat use of examiners, high variability in time between the 2 procedures (more than 1 day, up to 3 months), or heterogeneity in study design (e.g., different colonoscopy device used for the patient's 2 procedures). Additionally, data on risk factors for missing polyps during colonoscopy are extremely limited.
We performed this retrospective study to investigate the miss rate of neoplastic polyps using quality-adjusted, same-day, consecutive colonoscopies. We also analyzed the characteristics of missed neoplastic polyps and patients with missed polyps to determine polyp-related and patient-related factors that influence the likelihood of missed polyps.
1. Study Population
Study subjects visited the Comprehensive Medical Examination Center of the Kangbuk Samsung Hospital and underwent colonoscopy as part of a regular health check-up between March 2012 and February 2013. Before undergoing surveillance colonoscopy, all subjects were asked to complete a questionnaire independently. The questionnaire included demographic characteristics, medical history, and surgical history. Old age was defined as 60 years or older and obesity was defined as having a BMI ≥25 kg/m2. All surveillance colonoscopies were performed by 13 colonoscopists who had each performed at least 1,000 colonoscopies. The colonoscopists at this medical examination center usually do not perform therapeutic colonoscopies, with the exception of diminutive polyp removal with biopsy forceps. Patients who had polyps that were 5 mm or larger and who wanted to undergo a polypectomy on the same day were referred to the endoscopy center at the Kangbuk Samsung Hospital within hours of the first procedure. A total of 669 patients were referred for polypectomy and provided informed consent. Patients were excluded if they met one of the following criteria: cecal intubation failure, poor bowel preparation,19 withdrawal time of 6 minutes or less from the surveillance colonoscopy, or history of bowel resection or IBD.
2. Consecutive Colonoscopy and Polypectomy
Patients referred from the Comprehensive Medical Examination Center underwent same-day, consecutive colonoscopies and polypectomy performed by one of 9 colonoscopists who had performed at least 1,000 colonoscopies. All endoscopists were staff members and senior fellows who performed colonoscopies not only for screening but also for endoscopic therapy. All colorectal polyps found during the consecutive colonoscopies were completely removed by biopsy forceps, endoscopic mucosal resection, or endoscopic submucosal dissection. Non-missed polyps were defined as polyps found during both the first colonoscopy and the second colonoscopy; missed polyps were defined as polyps found only during the second colonoscopy.
Bowel cleansing was accomplished by using 4 L of polyethylene glycol (Taejoon Pharm, Seoul, Korea). The quality of bowel preparation was assessed by the Aronchick scale as excellent (a small volume of clear liquid or more than 95% of the surface seen), good (a large volume of clear liquid covering 5% to 25% of the surface but more than 90% of the surface was seen), fair (some semi-solid stool that could be suctioned or washed away but more than 90% of the surface was seen), or poor (semi-solid stool that could not be suctioned or washed away and less than 90% of the surface was seen).15
Conventional colonoscopes (CF-Q260AI and CF-H260AI; Olympus Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan; same models as used during the first colonoscopy) were used for all procedures. Procedures were performed with the patient under conscious sedation. The colonoscopists who performed consecutive colonoscopies often used a transparent cap (D-201-13404 or D-201-14304; Olympus Medical Systems) to detect polyps more easily.
All polyps were described by their location, shape, and size. Polyps of the cecum, the ascending colon, or the transverse colon were defined as polyps of the right colon, and those found in the descending colon, the sigmoid colon, or the rectum were defined as polyps of the left colon. Polyp shape was classified either as pedunculated or sub-pedunculated or as flat or sessile. Polyp size was measured indirectly with biopsy forceps and was recorded as ≤5 mm, 6 to 9 mm, or ≥10 mm.
All endoscopically removed specimens were reviewed by 5 experienced gastrointestinal pathologists. We limited our analyses to only neoplastic polyps, and excluded inflammatory polyps, hyperplastic polyps, and subepithelial lesions. Neoplastic polyps included traditional or sessile serrated adenomas; tubular, villous, or tubulovillous adenomas; and carcinomas. Advanced adenoma was defined as the presence of one of the following features: >10 mm diameter, tubulovillous or villous structure, and high-grade dysplasia.
3. Calculation of Miss Rate
The miss rates were calculated for overall neoplastic polyps, adenomas, advanced adenomas, and carcinomas, respectively. After the 2 consecutive colonoscopies had been completed, we categorized the missed neoplastic polyps according to their location, shape, and size. The miss rate of adenomas was defined as the proportion of missed adenomas among all neoplastic polyps. The miss rate of advanced adenomas was defined as the proportion of missed advanced adenomas among all neoplastic polyps. A per-patient miss rate was calculated as the number of patients with at least one neoplastic polyp missed by the first colonoscopy divided by the number of patients with at least one neoplastic polyp found during either the first or the second colonoscopy.13
4. Statistical Analyses
The Student t-test was used to compare numerical variables between groups. The chi-square or Fisher exact test was used to compare categorical variables. The multivariate logistic regression model was used to identify independent variables associated with missed polyps or patients with missed polyps. ORs and 95% CIs and their associated P-values were calculated for per-polyp and per-patient associations. Values were considered statistically significant when P<0.05. All statistics were performed using predictive analytics software PASW version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
5. Ethics
This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration. The Institutional Review Board of Kangbuk Samsung Hospital approved this study, and informed consent was obtained from all subjects.
1. Study Subjects
A total of 620 patients underwent colonoscopy as part of their regular health check-up and were subsequently referred for colonoscopic polypectomy. Ninety-one patients were excluded because of cecal intubation failure (n=3), poor bowel preparation (n=81), or termination of the examination because there were too many polyps to proceed (n=7). Thus, 529 patients who underwent consecutive colonoscopies and polypectomy were enrolled. Of these patients, 66 had only non-neoplastic polyps (inflammatory polyps, hyperplastic polyps, or subepithelial lesions); these patients were excluded from the final analysis. Ultimately, 463 patients were included in the final analysis of the rate of and risk factors for missed neoplastic polyps (Fig. 1). Among the 463 patients enrolled, 381 (82.3%) were male. The mean age was 49.8±9.8 years and the mean BMI was 24.6±3.1 kg/m2. Bowel preparation was described as excellent for 112 (24.2%), good for 294 (63.5%), and fair for 57 patients (12.3%). The median duration of withdrawal time for the first colonoscopy was 8.5 minutes (range, 6–22 minutes). Interval time between the first and second colonoscopies was short (mean, 2.4±0.8 hours).
2. Polyp Characteristics
Overall, 1,368 polyps and 5 subepithelial lesions (neuro-endocrine tumors or leiomyomas) were detected during the consecutive colonoscopies. Of 1,368 polyps, 1,294 were neoplastic polyps (1,287 adenomas, 235 advanced adenomas, and 7 carcinomas). The adenomas included tubular adenomas (n=1,247), tubulovillous adenomas (n=7), and serrated adenomas (n=33). Dysplasia of adenoma was classified as either low-grade (n=1,270) or high-grade (n=17). Neoplastic polyp location was classified as being in the ascending colon (n=313), transverse colon (n=344), descending colon (n=171), sigmoid colon (n=342), or rectum (n=124). In other words, 657 polyps were on the right colon and 637 polyps were on the left colon. Neoplastic polyp shape was classified either as pedunculated or subpedunculated (n=442) or as flat or sessile (n=852). Neoplastic polyp size was recorded as ≤5 mm (n=604), 6 to 9 mm (n=464), and ≥10 mm (n=226) (Fig. 2).
3. Polyp Miss Rate and Polyp-Related Factors
Among all 1,294 neoplastic polyps that were detected during the first and second colonoscopies, 312 of these were detected only during the second colonoscopy. The miss rate for adenomas was 24.1% (312/1,294) and the miss rate for advanced adenomas was 1.2% (15/1,294), respectively. There were no carcinomas that were missed during the first colonoscopy.
Polyp factors associated with missed lesions are shown in Table 1. The miss rates for polyps located on the right colon and left colon were 26.8% and 21.4%, respectively. The risk of missing neoplastic polyps on the right colon was higher than that for missing those on the left colon, but not significantly so after adjusting for other factors (adjusted OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.96–1.64). The miss rates for pedunculated or sub-pedunculated polyps and for flat or sessile polyps were 7.5% and 32.7%, respectively. Flat or sessile polyps were missed more frequently than pedunculated or sub-pedunculated polyps (adjusted OR, 3.62; 95% CI, 2.40–5.46). The miss rates of ≤5 mm, 6 to 9 mm, and ≥10 mm polyps were 35.4%, 18.8%, and 4.9%, respectively. The risk of missing neoplastic polyps 6 to 9 mm and ≤5 mm was significantly higher compared with the risk of missing neoplastic polyps that were ≥10 mm (adjusted OR, 3.18; 95% CI, 1.60–6.30; adjusted OR, 5.63; 95% CI, 2.84–11.15, respectively).
The total number of missed advanced adenomas was 15. The proportion of missed advanced adenomas was higher for the right colon, flat or sessile polyps, and polyps ≥10 mm than for the left colon, pedunculated or sub-pedunculated polyps, and polyps <10 mm (10 vs. 5, 12 vs. 3, and 11 vs. 4, respectively).
4. Per-Patient Miss Rate and Patient-Related Factors
Among the 463 total patients with at least one neoplastic polyp found during the first or second colonoscopy, 182 (39.3%) were found to have at least one missed neoplastic polyp during the second colonoscopy. The per-patient miss rates of adenomas, advanced adenomas, and carcinomas were 39.7%, 6.1%, and 0%, respectively (Table 2).
Patient factors associated with missed lesions are shown in Table 3. Only the number of neoplastic polyps found during the first colonoscopy was independently associated with the per-patient miss rate. In patients with 2 or more polyps (especially 5 or more polyps) detected during the first endoscopy, the risk of missing an additional polyp increased significantly (adjusted OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.55–3.61; adjusted OR, 11.52; 95% CI, 4.61–28.79 when comparing 0–1 polyp with 2–4 polyps and ≥5 polyps, respectively). Sex, age, BMI, quality of bowel preparation, withdrawal time during the first colonoscopy, and transparent cap use during the second colonoscopy did not affect the per-patient miss rate.
In this quality-adjusted, consecutive colonoscopy study, we found that the miss rate for adenomas was 24.1% and that for advanced adenomas was 1.2%. Flat or sessile shape and small size (<10 mm) were independent risk factors for missed adenomas. With regard to patient-related factors, patients with 2 or more polyps during the first colonoscopy had a higher miss rate.
Several previous studies reported that the miss rates for total polyps, adenomas, and advanced adenomas were 16.8% to 28%, 16% to 26%, and 1.7% to 11%, respectively.910111213141517 The variation in adenoma miss rates between studies may be caused by heterogeneity in study design. The adenoma miss rates found in our study were comparable to previously published results. However, we suspect that the miss rate from our study is lower than that of previous studies because we excluded patients with cecal intubation failure, poor bowel preparation, and a withdrawal time of 6 minutes or less at the first examination for colonoscopic quality adjustment.6 Contrary to expectations, our study's miss rate for adenoma was not lower than those of previous studies; instead, it was slightly higher. One possible reason may be the use of the transparent cap during the second colonoscopy. More than 80% of patients in our study underwent transparent cap-assisted colonoscopy. The use of the transparent cap has been known to improve polyp detection and shorten the time required for cecal intubation in several studies.2021 Although use of the transparent cap during the second colonoscopy was not significantly associated with the per-patient miss rate in our study, we think that it might contribute to an increased miss rate.
In the present study, polyp shape, size, and number of polyps found during the first colonoscopy were associated with the miss rate. We found that flat or sessile polyps were missed significantly more often than pedunculated or sub-pedunculated polyps. Similarly, Heresbach et al.13 reported that sessile or flat polyps were significantly associated with a higher miss rate. These results suggest that the present colonoscopic technique is insufficient for the detection of flat lesions. Special colonoscopic techniques, such as narrow band imaging, autofluorescence, chromoendoscopy, and third-eye retroscope, should be considered as alternatives to improve detection of flat polyps.
In our study, smaller neoplastic polyps (<10 mm, especially ≤5 mm) were more frequently missed than large neoplastic polyps (≥10 mm). Polyp size has also been associated with miss rate in other studies. Several previous studies have also found that the miss rate increases significantly in smaller polyps.9121317 A systematic review that included 6 tandem colonoscopy studies with a total of 465 patients reported that colonoscopy rarely misses polyps ≥10 mm, but the miss rate increases significantly for smaller polyps.9 Heresbach et al.13 demonstrated that the diameter (1-mm increments) was associated with a lower miss rate. Diminutive polyps are often neglected because they pose no immediate threat to patients. Although advanced adenomas smaller than 10 mm were very rare in our study, one recent study reported that 10% of diminutive polyps were advanced adenomas;22 therefore, endoscopists also need to focus on the detection of small polyps.
In the present study, the miss rate of neoplastic polyps on the right colon was higher than that for those on the left colon, although the difference was not statistically significant after adjustment. Our findings are consistent with those of Rex et al.23 and Ahn et al.12 In contrast, Heresbach et al.13 and Leufkens et al.14 reported a significantly increased miss rate of left-side versus right-side adenomas. In our study, 69% of neoplastic polyps on the right colon were flat or sessile polyps, and 63% of neoplastic polyps on the left colon were flat or sessile polyps; therefore, our result may be partly explained by the higher rate of flat lesions on the right colon. A recent study also revealed that nonpolypoid lesions (measuring less than 2.5 mm in height) were more predominant in the proximal colon.24 Moreover, the use of the transparent cap during the second colonoscopy might have increased the detection of flat lesions in the right colon. Our findings may partly explain the observation in previous studies that proximally located adenomas are the main predictor of recurrence of advanced lesions.2526
The greater number of adenomas detected during the initial examination is a significant predictor of a higher adenoma miss rate.1213141723 Our study showed that in patients with 2 or more polyps detected during the first endoscopy, the risk of missing an additional polyp was increased. One possible reason for this may be that when the endoscopists at the medical examination center detected the polyps (especially if they detected a large number of polyps), they might not have been very observant or may not have correctly recorded information about polyps because they knew they would refer the patient to follow-up care.
Our study has several limitations. First, most patients who had only diminutive polyps were not included in our study because the colonoscopists of the medical examination center usually removed polyps with biopsy forceps instead of referring the patients for further polypectomy. Therefore, there is a selection bias in this study that may affect our results. Second, a total of 22 endoscopists performed the colonoscopies that were analyzed in our study, which might cause heterogeneity in our results, and we did not analyze for differences between endoscopists. Third, although all endoscopists had performed at least 1,000 colonoscopies, a different endoscopist performed the first and second colonoscopies for each patient. Therefore, the differences in skill, experience, and technique between 2 endoscopists were not controlled for. Finally, because this was not a planned prospective study, it is possible that when the colonoscopists detected the polyps, they might not have meticulously reported detection because they knew they would refer the patient. This might have resulted in an overestimation of the miss rate of neoplastic polyps. However, the strength of our study is that it reflects situations in real clinical practice without the intention of studying missed polyps.
In conclusion, a significant proportion of adenomas were missed by quality-adjusted surveillance colonoscopy. The flat or sessile adenomas and smaller adenomas (<10 mm, especially ≤5 mm) were more frequently missed than pedunculated or subpedunculated adenomas and larger adenomas (≥10 mm). Additionally, patients with 2 or more neoplastic polyps found during their colonoscopy were more likely to have an additional neoplastic polyp missed. Endoscopists should be careful not to miss small and flat or sessile polyps, and they should focus on the detection of polyps that are difficult to see when some have already been detected during colonoscopy.

Financial support: None.

Conflict of interest: None.

  • 1. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1977–1981.PMID: 8247072.ArticlePubMed
  • 2. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012;366:687–696.PMID: 22356322.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 3. Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM, Hoffmeister M. Interval cancers after negative colonoscopy: population-based case-control study. Gut 2012;61:1576–1582.PMID: 22200840.ArticlePubMed
  • 4. Bressler B, Paszat LF, Chen Z, Rothwell DM, Vinden C, Rabeneck L. Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology 2007;132:96–102.PMID: 17241863.ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Rex DK. Maximizing detection of adenomas and cancers during colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:2866–2877.PMID: 17227527.ArticlePubMed
  • 6. Cha JM. Interval cancers after a negative colonoscopy finding in a Korean population: a small step for gastroenterologists but one giant leap for Koreans. Intest Res 2014;12:169–170.PMID: 25349587.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 7. Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, Johanson JF, Greenlaw RL. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2533–2541.PMID: 17167136.ArticlePubMed
  • 8. Robertson DJ, Lieberman DA, Winawer SJ, et al. Colorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: a pooled multicohort analysis. Gut 2014;63:949–956.PMID: 23793224.ArticlePubMed
  • 9. van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J, Bossuyt PM, van Deventer SJ, Dekker E. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:343–350.PMID: 16454841.ArticlePubMed
  • 10. Shehadeh I, Rebala S, Kumar R, Markert RJ, Barde C, Gopalswamy N. Retrospective analysis of missed advanced adenomas on surveillance colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:1143–1147.PMID: 12014718.ArticlePubMed
  • 11. Kasugai K, Miyata M, Hashimoto T, et al. Assessment of miss and incidence rates of neoplastic polyps at colonoscopy. Dig Endosc 2005;17:44–49.Article
  • 12. Ahn SB, Han DS, Bae JH, Byun TJ, Kim JP, Eun CS. The miss rate for colorectal adenoma determined by quality-adjusted, back-to-back colonoscopies. Gut Liver 2012;6:64–70.PMID: 22375173.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 13. Heresbach D, Barrioz T, Lapalus MG, et al. Miss rate for colorectal neoplastic polyps: a prospective multicenter study of back-to-back video colonoscopies. Endoscopy 2008;40:284–290.PMID: 18389446.ArticlePubMed
  • 14. Leufkens AM, van Oijen MG, Vleggaar FP, Siersema PD. Factors influencing the miss rate of polyps in a back-to-back colonoscopy study. Endoscopy 2012;44:470–475.PMID: 22441756.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 15. Hong SN, Sung IK, Kim JH, et al. The effect of the bowel preparation status on the risk of missing polyp and adenoma during screening colonoscopy: a tandem colonoscopic study. Clin Endosc 2012;45:404–411.PMID: 23251889.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 16. Ferrández A, Navarro M, Díez M, et al. Risk factors for advanced lesions undetected at prior colonoscopy: not always poor preparation. Endoscopy 2010;42:1071–1076.PMID: 20960390.ArticlePubMed
  • 17. Kim JH, Kim YS, Cheon JH, et al. Influence of the insertion time and number of polyps on miss rate in colonoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011;46:634–639.PMID: 21370993.ArticlePubMed
  • 18. Pohl H, Robertson DJ. Colorectal cancers detected after colonoscopy frequently result from missed lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;8:858–864.PMID: 20655393.ArticlePubMed
  • 19. Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, Dufrayne F, Bergman G. A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:346–352.PMID: 10968848.ArticlePubMed
  • 20. Ng SC, Tsoi KK, Hirai HW, et al. The efficacy of cap-assisted colonoscopy in polyp detection and cecal intubation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:1165–1173.PMID: 22664471.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 21. Kondo S, Yamaji Y, Watabe H, et al. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the usefulness of a transparent hood attached to the tip of the colonoscope. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:75–81.PMID: 17100978.ArticlePubMed
  • 22. Tsai FC, Strum WB. Prevalence of advanced adenomas in small and diminutive colon polyps using direct measurement of size. Dig Dis Sci 2011;56:2384–2388.PMID: 21318587.ArticlePubMed
  • 23. Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997;112:24–28.PMID: 8978338.ArticlePubMed
  • 24. Bianco MA, Cipolletta L, Rotondano G, et al. Prevalence of nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasia: an Italian multicenter observational study. Endoscopy 2010;42:279–285.PMID: 20235006.ArticlePubMed
  • 25. Martínez ME, Sampliner R, Marshall JR, Bhattacharyya AK, Reid ME, Alberts DS. Adenoma characteristics as risk factors for recurrence of advanced adenomas. Gastroenterology 2001;120:1077–1083.PMID: 11266371.ArticlePubMed
  • 26. Bonithon-Kopp C, Piard F, Fenger C, et al. Colorectal adenoma characteristics as predictors of recurrence. Dis Colon Rectum 2004;47:323–333.PMID: 14991494.ArticlePubMed
Fig. 1

Flow diagram illustrating the selection of study subjects.

ir-15-411-g001.jpg
Fig. 2

Characteristics of overall neoplastic polyps detected during the first or second colonoscopy. R, rectum; SC, sigmoid colon; DC, descending colon; TC, transverse colon; AC, ascending colon; Is, sessile type; Ip, pedunculated type; Isp, subpedunculated type.

ir-15-411-g002.jpg
Table 1

Characteristics of Missed Neoplastic Polyps and Polyp-Related Factors Affected by Missed Neoplastic Polyps

ir-15-411-i001.jpg
Non-missed neoplastic polyp (n=982) Missed neoplastic polyp (n=312) Univariate Multivariatea
OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Location
 Left colon 501 (51.0) 136 (43.6) 1.0 1.0
 Right colon 481 (49.0) 176 (56.4) 1.35 (1.04–1.74)b 1.25 (0.96–1.64)
Shape
 Ip or Isp 409 (41.6) 33 (10.6) 1.0 1.0
 Flat or Is 573 (58.4) 279 (89.4) 6.04 (4.12–8.85)b 3.62 (2.40–5.46)b
Size (mm)
 ≥10 215 (21.9) 11 (3.5) 1.0 1.0
 6–9 377 (38.4) 87 (27.9) 4.51 (2.36–8.63)b 3.18 (1.60–6.30)b
 ≤5 390 (39.7) 214 (68.6) 10.73 (5.72–20.11)b 5.63 (2.84–11.15)b
Histology
 Tubular 940 (95.7) 307 (98.4) NA NA
 Tubulovillous 7 (0.7) 0
 Serrated 28 (2.9) 5 (1.6)
 Carcinoma 7 (0.7) 0
Dysplasia
 Low 963 (98.1) 307 (98.4) NA NA
 High 12 (1.2) 5 (1.6)
 Carcinoma 7 (0.7) 0

Values are presented as number (%).

aAdjusted for location, shape, and size.

bP<0.05.

Ip, pedunculated type; Isp, subpedunculated type; Is, sessile type; NA, not available.

Table 2

The Per-Patient Miss Rate of Neoplastic Polyps at First Colonoscopy

ir-15-411-i002.jpg
Patients with at least 1 neoplastic polyp Patients with at least 1 missed neoplastic polyp Per-patient miss rate (%)
Overall neoplastic polyp 463 182 39.3
Adenoma 459 182 39.7
Advanced adenoma 180 11 6.1
Carcinoma 7 0 0
Table 3

Patient-Related Factors Affected with Missed Neoplastic Polyps

ir-15-411-i003.jpg
Patients without missed polyp (n=281) Patients with missed polyp (n=182) Univariate Multivariatea
OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Sex
 Female 52 (18.5) 30 (16.5) 1.0 1.0
 Male 229 (81.5) 152 (83.5) 1.15 (0.70–1.89) 0.94 (0.56–1.59)
Age (yr)
 <60 223 (79.4) 143 (78.6) 1.0 1.0
 ≥60 58 (20.6) 39 (21.4) 1.05 (0.66–1.66) 0.91 (0.56–1.49)
BMI (kg/m2)
 ≥25 121 (43.1) 107 (58.8) 1.0 1.0
 <25 160 (56.9) 75 (41.2) 1.08 (0.74–1.58) 1.17 (0.78–1.75)
Bowel preparation
 Excellent 74 (26.3) 38 (20.9) 1.0 1.0
 Good 173 (61.6) 121 (66.5) 1.36 (0.86–2.15) 1.53 (0.94–2.48)
 Fair 34 (12.1) 23 (12.6) 1.31 (0.68–2.54) 1.37 (0.68–2.76)
Withdrawal time (min)b
 6–10 199 (70.8) 118 (64.8) 1.0 1.0
 >10 82 (29.2) 64 (35.2) 1.32 (0.88–1.96) 0.97 (0.62–1.50)
Cap usec
 No 51 (18.1) 22 (12.1) 1.0 1.0
 Yes 230 (81.9) 160 (87.9) 1.61 (0.94–2.77) 1.61 (0.91–2.83)
Neoplastic polyp numberb
 0 or 1 155 (55.2) 58 (31.9) 1.0 1.0
 2–4 119 (42.3) 96 (52.7) 2.16 (1.44–3.23)d 2.37 (1.55–3.61)d
 ≥5 7 (2.5) 28 (15.4) 10.69 (4.43–25.81)d 11.52 (4.61–28.79)d

Values are presented as number (%).

aAdjusted for sex, age, BMI, bowel preparation scale, withdrawal time, cap use, and neoplastic polyp number.

bWithdrawal time and neoplastic polyp number during first colonoscopy.

cCap use during second colonoscopy.

dP<0.05.

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Future Implications of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education
      Forrest Bohler, Nikhil Aggarwal, Garrett Peters, Varna Taranikanti
      Cureus.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Polyp Segmentation Using a Hybrid Vision Transformer and a Hybrid Loss Function
      Evgin Goceri
      Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine.2024; 37(2): 851.     CrossRef
    • SAEFormer: stepwise attention emphasis transformer for polyp segmentation
      Yicai Tan, Lei Chen, Chudong Zheng, Hui Ling, Xinshan Lai
      Multimedia Tools and Applications.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Polyp Segmentation With the FCB-SwinV2 Transformer
      Kerr Fitzgerald, Jorge Bernal, Aymeric Histace, Bogdan J. Matuszewski
      IEEE Access.2024; 12: 38927.     CrossRef
    • Leveraging a realistic synthetic database to learn Shape-from-Shading for estimating the colon depth in colonoscopy images
      Josué Ruano, Martín Gómez, Eduardo Romero, Antoine Manzanera
      Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics.2024; 115: 102390.     CrossRef
    • DHAFormer: Dual-channel hybrid attention network with transformer for polyp segmentation
      Xuejie Huang, Liejun Wang, Shaochen Jiang, Lianghui Xu, Chung-Ming Lo
      PLOS ONE.2024; 19(7): e0306596.     CrossRef
    • The Findings of Index Colonoscopy in Patients with Post-colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer (PCCRC)
      Seiji Kimura
      Nihon Daicho Komonbyo Gakkai Zasshi.2024; 77(8): 457.     CrossRef
    • Detection of various gastrointestinal tract diseases through a deep learning method with ensemble ELM and explainable AI
      Md. Faysal Ahamed, Md. Nahiduzzaman, Md. Rabiul Islam, Mansura Naznine, Mohamed Arselene Ayari, Amith Khandakar, Julfikar Haider
      Expert Systems with Applications.2024; 256: 124908.     CrossRef
    • A Hessian-Based Technique for Specular Reflection Detection and Inpainting in Colonoscopy Images
      Khaled ELKarazle, Valliappan Raman, Caslon Chua, Patrick Then
      IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics.2024; 28(8): 4724.     CrossRef
    • Trends in colorectal cancer surgical resection rates during the screening era: a retrospective study in Italy
      Manuel Zorzi, Lucia Calciano, Nicola Gennaro, Laura Memo, Silvia Rizzato, Carmen Stocco, Emanuele D L Urso, Silvia Negro, Gaya Spolverato, Salvatore Pucciarelli, Marta Sbaraglia, Stefano Guzzinati
      BMJ Open Gastroenterology.2024; 11(1): e001434.     CrossRef
    • The Interplay among Wnt/β-catenin Family Members in Colorectal Adenomas and Surrounding Tissues
      Domenica Lucia D’Antonio, Fabiana Fantini, Carmelo Moscatello, Alessio Ferrone, Stefano Scaringi, Rosa Valanzano, Ferdinando Ficari, Konstantinos Efthymakis, Matteo Neri, Gitana Maria Aceto, Maria Cristina Curia
      Biomedicines.2024; 12(8): 1730.     CrossRef
    • Review: Risk assessment of liver and biliary cancer mortality through detection of high risk polyps at colonoscopies
      Abeera Tariq, Fnu Hafeezullah, Abdul Basit Khan
      Digestive and Liver Disease.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • An ensemble framework of deep neural networks for colorectal polyp classification
      Farah Younas, Muhammad Usman, Wei Qi Yan
      Multimedia Tools and Applications.2023; 82(12): 18925.     CrossRef
    • Effect of computer‐aided colonoscopy on adenoma miss rates and polyp detection: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
      Sagar Shah, Nathan Park, Nabil El Hage Chehade, Anastasia Chahine, Marc Monachese, Amelie Tiritilli, Zain Moosvi, Ronald Ortizo, Jason Samarasena
      Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.2023; 38(2): 162.     CrossRef
    • Comparison of missed adenomas in deep-sedated and unsedated colonoscopy: A multicenter retrospective study
      Yue Sui, Yanhua Zheng, Qing Wang, Jieping Lv, Hongjin Wang, Qing Wen, Zhenzhen Wang, Guanfeng Wang, Hui Jia, Fengzhen Cao, Naping Wang, Junlian Hao, Yiping Zhang, Xiaopeng Wu, Haihua Chen, Junhui Lu, Xing Chen
      European Journal of Internal Medicine.2023; 110: 48.     CrossRef
    • A Real-Time Polyp-Detection System with Clinical Application in Colonoscopy Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks
      Adrian Krenzer, Michael Banck, Kevin Makowski, Amar Hekalo, Daniel Fitting, Joel Troya, Boban Sudarevic, Wolfgang G. Zoller, Alexander Hann, Frank Puppe
      Journal of Imaging.2023; 9(2): 26.     CrossRef
    • Robust real-time polyp detection system design based on YOLO algorithms by optimizing activation functions and hyper-parameters with artificial bee colony (ABC)
      Ahmet Karaman, Ishak Pacal, Alper Basturk, Bahriye Akay, Ufuk Nalbantoglu, Seymanur Coskun, Omur Sahin, Dervis Karaboga
      Expert Systems with Applications.2023; 221: 119741.     CrossRef
    • Efficient Gastrointestinal Disease Classification Using Pretrained Deep Convolutional Neural Network
      Muhammad Nouman Noor, Muhammad Nazir, Sajid Ali Khan, Oh-Young Song, Imran Ashraf
      Electronics.2023; 12(7): 1557.     CrossRef
    • The basis and implications of diverging approaches to colorectal adenoma surveillance in the West
      Tsai‐Wing Ow, Edmund Tse, Guru Iyngkaran, Finlay Macrae
      Internal Medicine Journal.2023; 53(4): 635.     CrossRef
    • Investigation of artificial intelligence integrated fluorescence endoscopy image analysis with indocyanine green for interpretation of precancerous lesions in colon cancer
      Jinhyeon Kim, Hajung Kim, Yong Sik Yoon, Chan Wook Kim, Seung-Mo Hong, Sungjee Kim, Doowon Choi, Jihyun Chun, Seung Wook Hong, Sung Wook Hwang, Sang Hyoung Park, Dong-Hoon Yang, Byong Duk Ye, Jeong-Sik Byeon, Suk-Kyun Yang, Sun Young Kim, Seung-Jae Myung,
      PLOS ONE.2023; 18(5): e0286189.     CrossRef
    • Linked color imaging versus conventional white light colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps
      Jun Watanabe, Takeshi Kanno, Eiichi Kakehi, Kazuma Rifu, Takehiro Kagaya, Kazuhiko Kotani, Yuki Kataoka
      Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • A dynamic loss function for improved semantic segmentation
      Haroon Haider Khan, Majid Iqbal Khan
      Soft Computing.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Improved Colorectal Polyp Segmentation Using Enhanced MA-NET and Modified Mix-ViT Transformer
      Khaled Elkarazle, Valliappan Raman, Patrick Then, Caslon Chua
      IEEE Access.2023; 11: 69295.     CrossRef
    • Localization and Classification of Gastrointestinal Tract Disorders Using Explainable AI from Endoscopic Images
      Muhammad Nouman Noor, Muhammad Nazir, Sajid Ali Khan, Imran Ashraf, Oh-Young Song
      Applied Sciences.2023; 13(15): 9031.     CrossRef
    • Near-Infrared Imaging of Colonic Adenomas In Vivo Using Orthotopic Human Organoids for Early Cancer Detection
      Xiaoli Wu, Chun-Wei Chen, Sangeeta Jaiswal, Tse-Shao Chang, Ruoliu Zhang, Michael K. Dame, Yuting Duan, Hui Jiang, Jason R. Spence, Sen-Yung Hsieh, Thomas D. Wang
      Cancers.2023; 15(19): 4795.     CrossRef
    • Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Models for Image Detection of Colonic Polyps vs. Resected Polyps
      Adriel Abraham, Rejath Jose, Jawad Ahmad, Jai Joshi, Thomas Jacob, Aziz-ur-rahman Khalid, Hassam Ali, Pratik Patel, Jaspreet Singh, Milan Toma
      Journal of Imaging.2023; 9(10): 215.     CrossRef
    • Additional 30-Second Observation of the Right-Sided Colon for Missed Polyp Detection With Texture and Color Enhancement Imaging Compared with Narrow Band Imaging: A Randomized Trial
      Naohisa Yoshida, Yoshikazu Inagaki, Yutaka Inada, Reo Kobayashi, Yuri Tomita, Hikaru Hashimoto, Osamu Dohi, Ryohei Hirose, Ken Inoue, Takaaki Murakami, Yasutaka Morimoto, Yusuke Okuyama, Yukiko Morinaga, Yoshito Itoh
      American Journal of Gastroenterology.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Wide-field endoscope accessory for multiplexed fluorescence imaging
      Gaoming Li, Miki Lee, Tse-Shao Chang, Joonyoung Yu, Haijun Li, Xiyu Duan, Xiaoli Wu, Sangeeta Jaiswal, Shuo Feng, Kenn R. Oldham, Thomas D. Wang
      Scientific Reports.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Analysis and research on intelligent manufacturing medical product design and intelligent hospital system dynamics based on machine learning under big data
      Zongxin Liu, Jiaozi Pu
      Enterprise Information Systems.2022; 16(2): 193.     CrossRef
    • Application of multimedia network english listening model based on confidence learning algorithm for speech recognition
      Yingting Zhang, Zewei Huang
      International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management.2022; 13(S3): 1091.     CrossRef
    • Unified Focal loss: Generalising Dice and cross entropy-based losses to handle class imbalanced medical image segmentation
      Michael Yeung, Evis Sala, Carola-Bibiane Schönlieb, Leonardo Rundo
      Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics.2022; 95: 102026.     CrossRef
    • Colonoscopic image synthesis with generative adversarial network for enhanced detection of sessile serrated lesions using convolutional neural network
      Dan Yoon, Hyoun-Joong Kong, Byeong Soo Kim, Woo Sang Cho, Jung Chan Lee, Minwoo Cho, Min Hyuk Lim, Sun Young Yang, Seon Hee Lim, Jooyoung Lee, Ji Hyun Song, Goh Eun Chung, Ji Min Choi, Hae Yeon Kang, Jung Ho Bae, Sungwan Kim
      Scientific Reports.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Endo‐wing versus transparent hood‐assisted colonoscopy for colorectal adenoma detection: A randomized controlled trial
      Kazuya Miyaguchi, Yoshikazu Tsuzuki, Nobutaka Hirooka, Rie Shiomi, Hideki Ohgo, Hidetomo Nakamoto, Hiroyuki Imaeda
      Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.2022; 37(4): 766.     CrossRef
    • AI and Clinical Decision Making: The Limitations and Risks of Computational Reductionism in Bowel Cancer Screening
      Saleem Ameen, Ming-Chao Wong, Kwang-Chien Yee, Paul Turner
      Applied Sciences.2022; 12(7): 3341.     CrossRef
    • BlazeNeo: Blazing Fast Polyp Segmentation and Neoplasm Detection
      Nguyen S. An, Phan N. Lan, Dao V. Hang, Dao V. Long, Tran Q. Trung, Nguyen T. Thuy, Dinh V. Sang
      IEEE Access.2022; 10: 43669.     CrossRef
    • Establishment and evaluation of a nomogram predicting risks of missed diagnoses of colorectal polyps
      Xiaobo Wang, Haiyang Guo, Yong Tang, Lin Chen, Xianfei Wang
      BMC Gastroenterology.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Evaluation of the efficacy of 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid and an oral sodium sulfate solution: A multi-center, prospective randomized controlled trial
      Jung Hun Woo, Hoon Sup Koo, Dae Sung Kim, Jeong Eun Shin, Yunho Jung, Kyu Chan Huh
      Medicine.2022; 101(35): e30355.     CrossRef
    • Correlation between Surrogate Quality Indicators for Adenoma Detection Rate and Adenoma Miss Rate in Qualified Colonoscopy, CORE Study: KASID Multicenter Study
      Jae Hee Han, Hyun Gun Kim, Eu Mi Ahn, Suyeon Park, Seong Ran Jeon, Jae Myung Cha, Min Seob Kwak, Yunho Jung, Jeong Eun Shin, Hyun Deok Shin, Young-Seok Cho
      Gut and Liver.2022; 16(5): 716.     CrossRef
    • Endoscopy Lifetime Systems Architecture: Scoping Out the Past to Diagnose the Future Technology
      Craig M. Browning, Robert Cloutier, Thomas C. Rich, Silas J. Leavesley
      Systems.2022; 10(5): 189.     CrossRef
    • A stacking-based artificial intelligence framework for an effective detection and localization of colon polyps
      Carina Albuquerque, Roberto Henriques, Mauro Castelli
      Scientific Reports.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Effect of water exchange method on adenoma miss rate of patients undergoing selective polypectomy: A randomized controlled trial
      Gui Ren, Xiangping Wang, Hui Luo, Shaowei Yao, Shuhui Liang, Linhui Zhang, Tao Dong, Long Chen, Qin Tao, Xuegang Guo, Ying Han, Yanglin Pan
      Digestive and Liver Disease.2021; 53(5): 625.     CrossRef
    • Feature Point Tracking-Based Localization of Colon Capsule Endoscope
      Jürgen Herp, Ulrik Deding, Maria M. Buijs, Rasmus Kroijer, Gunnar Baatrup, Esmaeil S. Nadimi
      Diagnostics.2021; 11(2): 193.     CrossRef
    • Risk factors associated with missed colorectal lesions in colonoscopy and impact of colonoscopy with anesthesia on miss rate
      Haibin Dong, Yutang Ren, Bo Jiang
      Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology.2021; 56(4): 484.     CrossRef
    • Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence and Computer-Aided Diagnosis for the Detection and Characterization of Colorectal Polyps: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
      Scarlet Nazarian, Ben Glover, Hutan Ashrafian, Ara Darzi, Julian Teare
      Journal of Medical Internet Research.2021; 23(7): e27370.     CrossRef
    • Focus U-Net: A novel dual attention-gated CNN for polyp segmentation during colonoscopy
      Michael Yeung, Evis Sala, Carola-Bibiane Schönlieb, Leonardo Rundo
      Computers in Biology and Medicine.2021; 137: 104815.     CrossRef
    • Comparison of adenoma detection by colonoscopy between polypectomy performed during both insertion and withdrawal versus during withdrawal only: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial
      Tae-Geun Gweon, Seung-Woo Lee, Jeong-Seon Ji, Jeong Rok Lee, Joon Sung Kim, Byung-Wook Kim, Hwang Choi
      Surgical Endoscopy.2020; 34(12): 5461.     CrossRef
    • Water Exchange (WE) and Quality Improvement—Enhanced Advanced Adenoma Detection
      Felix W. Leung, Malcolm Koo, Hui Jia, Joseph W. Leung, Sergio Cadoni, Premysl Falt, Yu-Hsi Hsieh, Chi-Tan Hu, Yanglin Pan, Franco Radaelli
      Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.2020; 54(3): 212.     CrossRef
    • Tubular Locomotion and Positioning Using Tip Eversion for Endoscopy
      Ankit Saxena, Eric M. Pauli, Randy S. Haluck, Barry Fell, Jason Moore
      Journal of Medical Devices.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Molecular Aspects of Colorectal Adenomas: The Interplay among Microenvironment, Oxidative Stress, and Predisposition
      Gitana Maria Aceto, Teresa Catalano, Maria Cristina Curia
      BioMed Research International.2020; 2020: 1.     CrossRef
    • Impact of Inadequate Bowel Cleansing on Colonoscopic Findings in Routine Screening Practice
      Tobias Niedermaier, Efrat L. Amitay, Anton Gies, Korbinian Weigl, Michael Hoffmeister, Hermann Brenner
      Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology.2020; 11(4): e00169.     CrossRef
    • Polyp Segmentation with Fully Convolutional Deep Neural Networks—Extended Evaluation Study
      Yunbo Guo, Jorge Bernal, Bogdan J. Matuszewski
      Journal of Imaging.2020; 6(7): 69.     CrossRef
    • A comprehensive review of deep learning in colon cancer
      Ishak Pacal, Dervis Karaboga, Alper Basturk, Bahriye Akay, Ufuk Nalbantoglu
      Computers in Biology and Medicine.2020; 126: 104003.     CrossRef
    • Artificial intelligence technologies for the detection of colorectal lesions: The future is now
      Simona Attardo, Viveksandeep Thoguluva Chandrasekar, Marco Spadaccini, Roberta Maselli, Harsh K Patel, Madhav Desai, Antonio Capogreco, Matteo Badalamenti, Piera Alessia Galtieri, Gaia Pellegatta, Alessandro Fugazza, Silvia Carrara, Andrea Anderloni, Piet
      World Journal of Gastroenterology.2020; 26(37): 5606.     CrossRef
    • Training a computer-aided polyp detection system to detect sessile serrated adenomas using public domain colonoscopy videos
      Taibo Li, Jeremy R. Glissen Brown, Kelovoulos Tsourides, Nadim Mahmud, Jonah M. Cohen, Tyler M. Berzin
      Endoscopy International Open.2020; 08(10): E1448.     CrossRef
    • PICCOLO White-Light and Narrow-Band Imaging Colonoscopic Dataset: A Performance Comparative of Models and Datasets
      Luisa F. Sánchez-Peralta, J. Blas Pagador, Artzai Picón, Ángel José Calderón, Francisco Polo, Nagore Andraka, Roberto Bilbao, Ben Glover, Cristina L. Saratxaga, Francisco M. Sánchez-Margallo
      Applied Sciences.2020; 10(23): 8501.     CrossRef
    • Efficacy of 1.2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparations
      Hiroyuki Tamaki, Teruyo Noda, Masahiro Morita, Akina Omura, Atsushi Kubo, Chikara Ogawa, Toshihiro Matsunaka, Mitsushige Shibatoge
      World Journal of Clinical Cases.2019; 7(4): 452.     CrossRef
    • Multimodal endoscopic system based on multispectral and photometric stereo imaging and analysis
      Jihun Kim, Hasan Al Faruque, Sewoong Kim, Eunjoo Kim, Jae Youn Hwang
      Biomedical Optics Express.2019; 10(5): 2289.     CrossRef
    • Blue Laser Imaging, Blue Light Imaging, and Linked Color Imaging for the Detection and Characterization of Colorectal Tumors
      Naohisa Yoshida, Osamu Dohi, Ken Inoue, Ritsu Yasuda, Takaaki Murakami, Ryohei Hirose, Ken Inoue, Yuji Naito, Yutaka Inada, Kiyoshi Ogiso, Yukiko Morinaga, Mitsuo Kishimoto, Rafiz Abdul Rani, Yoshito Itoh
      Gut and Liver.2019; 13(2): 140.     CrossRef
    • Application of OCT in the Gastrointestinal Tract
      Nicholas S. Samel, Hiroshi Mashimo
      Applied Sciences.2019; 9(15): 2991.     CrossRef
    • Near-Infrared Fluorescent Activated Polymeric Probe for Imaging Intraluminal Colorectal Cancer Tumors
      Eva Kopansky-Groisman, Inga Kogan-Zviagin, Osnat Sella-Tavor, Mor Oron-Herman, Ayelet David
      Biomacromolecules.2019; 20(9): 3547.     CrossRef
    • Predictive factors for missed adenoma on repeat colonoscopy in patients with suboptimal bowel preparation on initial colonoscopy: A KASID multicenter study
      Ji Young Chang, Chang Mo Moon, Hyun Jung Lee, Hyo-Joon Yang, Yunho Jung, Sang Wook Kim, Sung-Ae Jung, Jeong-Sik Byeon, Frank T. Kolligs
      PLOS ONE.2018; 13(4): e0195709.     CrossRef
    • Cimetropium bromide does not improve polyp and adenoma detection during colonoscope withdrawal
      Peel Jung, Su B. Park, Hyung W. Kim, Dae H. Kang, Cheol W. Choi, Su J. Kim, Hyeong S. Nam, Dae G. Ryu, Joung B. Hong, Dong J. Kim
      Medicine.2018; 97(25): e11253.     CrossRef
    • Dielectric properties of colon polyps, cancer, and normal mucosa: Ex vivo measurements from 0.5 to 20 GHz
      Marta Guardiola, Santiago Buitrago, Glòria Fernández‐Esparrach, Joan M. O'Callaghan, Jordi Romeu, Miriam Cuatrecasas, Henry Córdova, Miguel Ángel González Ballester, Oscar Camara
      Medical Physics.2018; 45(8): 3768.     CrossRef
    • Quality is the key for emerging issues of population-based colonoscopy screening
      Jin Young Yoon, Jae Myung Cha, Yoon Tae Jeen
      Intestinal Research.2018; 16(1): 48.     CrossRef
    • An Additional 30-s Observation of the Right-Sided Colon with Narrow Band Imaging Decreases Missed Polyps: A Pilot Study
      Naohisa Yoshida, Ken Inoue, Ritsu Yasuda, Ryohei Hirose, Osamu Dohi, Yuji Naito, Takaaki Murakami, Yutaka Inada, Kiyoshi Ogiso, Yukiko Morinaga, Mitsuo Kishimoto, Rafiz Abdul Rani, Yoshito Itoh
      Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2018; 63(12): 3457.     CrossRef
    • Quality is the Key for Emerging Issues of Population-Based Colonoscopy Screening
      Jin Young Yoon, Jae Myung Cha, Yoon Tae Jeen
      Clinical Endoscopy.2018; 51(1): 50.     CrossRef
    • Additional Thirty Seconds Observation with Linked Color Imaging Improves Detection of Missed Polyps in the Right-Sided Colon
      Naohisa Yoshida, Yutaka Inada, Ritsu Yasuda, Takaaki Murakami, Ryohei Hirose, Ken Inoue, Osamu Dohi, Yuji Naito, Kiyoshi Ogiso, Yukiko Morinaga, Mitsuo Kishimoto, Eiichi Konishi, Yoshito Itoh
      Gastroenterology Research and Practice.2018; 2018: 1.     CrossRef
    • Molecular Imaging of Colorectal Tumors by Targeting Colon Cancer Secreted Protein-2 (CCSP-2)
      Jaeil Kim, Eun-ju Do, Helen Moinova, Sang Mun Bae, Ja Young Kang, Seung-Mo Hong, Stephen P. Fink, Jinmyoung Joo, Young-Ah Suh, Se Jin Jang, Sung Wook Hwang, Sang Hyoung Park, Dong-Hoon Yang, Byong Duk Ye, Jeong-Sik Byeon, Jaewon Choe, Suk-Kyun Yang, Sanfo
      Neoplasia.2017; 19(10): 805.     CrossRef

    • PubReader PubReader
    • ePub LinkePub Link
    • Cite
      CITE
      export Copy Download
      Close
      Download Citation
      Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
      Format:
      • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
      • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
      Include:
      • Citation for the content below
      Miss rate of colorectal neoplastic polyps and risk factors for missed polyps in consecutive colonoscopies
      Intest Res. 2017;15(3):411-418.   Published online June 12, 2017
      DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2017.15.3.411
      Close
    • XML DownloadXML Download
    Figure
    • 0
    • 1
    Miss rate of colorectal neoplastic polyps and risk factors for missed polyps in consecutive colonoscopies
    Image Image
    Fig. 1 Flow diagram illustrating the selection of study subjects.
    Fig. 2 Characteristics of overall neoplastic polyps detected during the first or second colonoscopy. R, rectum; SC, sigmoid colon; DC, descending colon; TC, transverse colon; AC, ascending colon; Is, sessile type; Ip, pedunculated type; Isp, subpedunculated type.

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

    Miss rate of colorectal neoplastic polyps and risk factors for missed polyps in consecutive colonoscopies

    Characteristics of Missed Neoplastic Polyps and Polyp-Related Factors Affected by Missed Neoplastic Polyps

    Non-missed neoplastic polyp (n=982)Missed neoplastic polyp (n=312)UnivariateMultivariatea
    OR (95% CI)OR (95% CI)
    Location
     Left colon501 (51.0)136 (43.6)1.01.0
     Right colon481 (49.0)176 (56.4)1.35 (1.04–1.74)b1.25 (0.96–1.64)
    Shape
     Ip or Isp409 (41.6)33 (10.6)1.01.0
     Flat or Is573 (58.4)279 (89.4)6.04 (4.12–8.85)b3.62 (2.40–5.46)b
    Size (mm)
     ≥10215 (21.9)11 (3.5)1.01.0
     6–9377 (38.4)87 (27.9)4.51 (2.36–8.63)b3.18 (1.60–6.30)b
     ≤5390 (39.7)214 (68.6)10.73 (5.72–20.11)b5.63 (2.84–11.15)b
    Histology
     Tubular940 (95.7)307 (98.4)NANA
     Tubulovillous7 (0.7)0
     Serrated28 (2.9)5 (1.6)
     Carcinoma7 (0.7)0
    Dysplasia
     Low963 (98.1)307 (98.4)NANA
     High12 (1.2)5 (1.6)
     Carcinoma7 (0.7)0

    Values are presented as number (%).

    aAdjusted for location, shape, and size.

    bP<0.05.

    Ip, pedunculated type; Isp, subpedunculated type; Is, sessile type; NA, not available.

    The Per-Patient Miss Rate of Neoplastic Polyps at First Colonoscopy

    Patients with at least 1 neoplastic polypPatients with at least 1 missed neoplastic polypPer-patient miss rate (%)
    Overall neoplastic polyp46318239.3
    Adenoma45918239.7
    Advanced adenoma180116.1
    Carcinoma700

    Patient-Related Factors Affected with Missed Neoplastic Polyps

    Patients without missed polyp (n=281)Patients with missed polyp (n=182)UnivariateMultivariatea
    OR (95% CI)OR (95% CI)
    Sex
     Female52 (18.5)30 (16.5)1.01.0
     Male229 (81.5)152 (83.5)1.15 (0.70–1.89)0.94 (0.56–1.59)
    Age (yr)
     <60223 (79.4)143 (78.6)1.01.0
     ≥6058 (20.6)39 (21.4)1.05 (0.66–1.66)0.91 (0.56–1.49)
    BMI (kg/m2)
     ≥25121 (43.1)107 (58.8)1.01.0
     <25160 (56.9)75 (41.2)1.08 (0.74–1.58)1.17 (0.78–1.75)
    Bowel preparation
     Excellent74 (26.3)38 (20.9)1.01.0
     Good173 (61.6)121 (66.5)1.36 (0.86–2.15)1.53 (0.94–2.48)
     Fair34 (12.1)23 (12.6)1.31 (0.68–2.54)1.37 (0.68–2.76)
    Withdrawal time (min)b
     6–10199 (70.8)118 (64.8)1.01.0
     >1082 (29.2)64 (35.2)1.32 (0.88–1.96)0.97 (0.62–1.50)
    Cap usec
     No51 (18.1)22 (12.1)1.01.0
     Yes230 (81.9)160 (87.9)1.61 (0.94–2.77)1.61 (0.91–2.83)
    Neoplastic polyp numberb
     0 or 1155 (55.2)58 (31.9)1.01.0
     2–4119 (42.3)96 (52.7)2.16 (1.44–3.23)d2.37 (1.55–3.61)d
     ≥57 (2.5)28 (15.4)10.69 (4.43–25.81)d11.52 (4.61–28.79)d

    Values are presented as number (%).

    aAdjusted for sex, age, BMI, bowel preparation scale, withdrawal time, cap use, and neoplastic polyp number.

    bWithdrawal time and neoplastic polyp number during first colonoscopy.

    cCap use during second colonoscopy.

    dP<0.05.
    Table 1 Characteristics of Missed Neoplastic Polyps and Polyp-Related Factors Affected by Missed Neoplastic Polyps

    Values are presented as number (%).

    aAdjusted for location, shape, and size.

    bP<0.05.

    Ip, pedunculated type; Isp, subpedunculated type; Is, sessile type; NA, not available.

    Table 2 The Per-Patient Miss Rate of Neoplastic Polyps at First Colonoscopy

    Table 3 Patient-Related Factors Affected with Missed Neoplastic Polyps

    Values are presented as number (%).

    aAdjusted for sex, age, BMI, bowel preparation scale, withdrawal time, cap use, and neoplastic polyp number.

    bWithdrawal time and neoplastic polyp number during first colonoscopy.

    cCap use during second colonoscopy.

    dP<0.05.

    Table 1

    Table 2

    Table 3

    Intest Res : Intestinal Research
    © Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases.
    Close layer
    TOP