Background/AimsColonoscopy is considered to be the gold standard for detecting adenomatous polyps. Polyps are missed during colonoscopic examination at a rate that varies from 6% to 27%. The adenoma miss rate affects colonoscopic surveillance intervals and procedural quality. We aimed to assess the adenoma miss rate and the variables affecting the rate using same-day, quality-adjusted, back-to-back colonoscopies.MethodsThis prospective study was performed at a single institution and included 149 patients. Two consecutive same-day colonoscopies were performed by two experienced endoscopists. The adenoma miss rates and variables affecting the missed adenomas, including polyp characteristics and procedure times, were evaluated.ResultsThe miss rates of polyps, adenomas, and advanced adenomas were 16.8%, 17%, and 5.4%, respectively. The smaller polyps and increased number of polyps detected during the first colonoscopy were more likely to be missed. A longer insertion time during the colonoscopy was correlated with an increased adenoma detection rate.ConclusionsThere was a significant miss rate in the detection of colonic adenomas even in quality-adjusted, back-to-back colonoscopies. The adenoma miss rate can be reduced with a sufficient observation time during colonoscopic insertion. The development of specific technological methods to reduce the adenoma miss rate is necessary.

The time of day at which colonoscopy is performed, whether during the morning or the afternoon, does not have a significant impact on the quality of bowel preparation. The quality of bowel preparation is significantly better in patients with a shorter time between bowel preparation and the start of colonoscopy.

We aimed to investigate whether postconization human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing can predict treatment failure and improve the accuracy of conventional follow-up in women with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Between March 2001 and October 2005, 120 patients with confirmed CIN 2 or 3 were treated with loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) and were enrolled. Six patients were lost to the follow-up. Postconization follow-up was performed at every 3-6 months during the first year and then annually. Specimens were tested for the presence of HPV, using the Hybrid Capture 2 (Digene Co, Gaithersburg, MD) and HPV DNA chip (Mygene Co, Seoul, Korea) test. Persistent HPV infection was defined as persistently (two times or more) positive HPV tests with the same HPV subtype(s) at initial diagnosis. Twenty-two (19.3%) patients showed treatment failure after conization. The only significant risk factor for redevelopment of CIN after conization was persistence of the same HPV subtype (P < 0.0001). And women with recurrent or residual CIN had higher HPV load during the 6-month follow-up postconization. In conclusion, the persistence of the same HPV subtype after LEEP conization was an important predictor of treatment failure. The follow-up protocol after conization of CIN should include both cervical cytology and HPV test, and HPV DNA chip test is needed to detect a persistent HPV infection.

No abstract