No abstract

OBJECTIVES:The objective of this study was to assess prospectively the diagnostic accuracy of computer-assisted computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in the detection of polypoid (pedunculated or sessile) and nonpolypoid neoplasms and compare the accuracy between gastroenterologists and radiologists.METHODS:This nationwide multicenter prospective controlled trial recruited 1,257 participants with average or high risk of colorectal cancer at 14 Japanese institutions. Participants had CTC and colonoscopy on the same day. CTC images were interpreted independently by trained gastroenterologists and radiologists. The main outcome was the accuracy of CTC in the detection of neoplasms ≥6 mm in diameter, with colonoscopy results as the reference standard. Detection sensitivities of polypoid vs. nonpolypoid lesions were also evaluated.RESULTS:Of the 1,257 participants, 1,177 were included in the final analysis: 42 (3.6%) were at average risk of colorectal cancer, 456 (38.7%) were at elevated risk, and 679 (57.7%) had recent positive immunochemical fecal occult blood tests. The overall per-participant sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for neoplasms ≥6 mm in diameter were 0.90, 0.93, 0.83, and 0.96, respectively, among gastroenterologists and 0.86, 0.90, 0.76, and 0.95 among radiologists (P<0.05 for gastroenterologists vs. radiologists). The sensitivity and specificity for neoplasms ≥10 mm in diameter were 0.93 and 0.99 among gastroenterologists and 0.91 and 0.98 among radiologists (not significant for gastroenterologists vs. radiologists). The CTC interpretation time by radiologists was shorter than that by gastroenterologists (9.97 vs. 15.8 min, P<0.05). Sensitivities for pedunculated and sessile lesions exceeded those for flat elevated lesions ≥10 mm in diameter in both groups (gastroenterologists 0.95, 0.92, and 0.68; radiologists: 0.94, 0.87, and 0.61; P<0.05 for polypoid vs. nonpolypoid), although not significant (P>0.05) for gastroenterologists vs. radiologists.CONCLUSIONS:CTC interpretation by gastroenterologists and radiologists was accurate for detection of polypoid neoplasms, but less so for nonpolypoid neoplasms. Gastroenterologists had a higher accuracy in the detection of neoplasms ≥6 mm than did radiologists, although their interpretation time was longer than that of radiologists.

Background and study aims  Topical peppermint oil prevents intestinal spasm, but can cause rebound spasm. Lidocaine hydrochloride, a local anesthetic, may work as an antispasmodic by blocking Na + channels. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of topical lidocaine on the inhibition of colonic spasm during colonoscopy, compared with peppermint oil. Patients and methods  A randomized, controlled double-blind trial was conducted in an academic endoscopy unit. Patients requiring endoscopic resection were randomly allocated to colonoscopy with topical administration of lidocaine (n = 30) or peppermint oil (n = 30). Similar vials containing different solutions were randomly numbered. Allocation was made based on the vial number. The solution used and the vial number were not revealed during the study. Two endoscopists performed all procedures using midazolam, without anticholinergic agents. When a pre-selected lesion was identified, the solution in the assigned vial was dispersed and the bowel observed for 5 minutes. The primary endpoint was the duration of spasm inhibition, and a secondary endpoint was the occurrence of rebound spasm stronger than before dispersion. Results  There were no significant differences in patient demographics. Spasm was inhibited in almost all patients in both groups, with a similar median duration (lidocaine 227 sec vs. peppermint 212.5 sec, P  = 0.508). In contrast, rebound spasm occurred less frequently in the lidocaine group (lidocaine 7 % vs. peppermint 47 %, P  = 0.001). There were no adverse events or symptoms associated with administration of the solutions. Conclusions  The inhibitory effect of lidocaine is not superior to peppermint oil. However, lidocaine significantly decreases the frequency of rebound spasms.

Background and study aims: Sodium phosphate is a key component of bowel preparation regimen for colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), but may cause serious complications. The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of Gastrografin, substituted for sodium phosphate, in CCE bowel preparation. Patients and methods: In total, 29 patients (median age 64 years; 23 females) underwent CCE, covered by the national health insurance system of Japan. All had a history of laparotomy and/or previously incomplete colonoscopy. On the day before examination, patients ingested 1 L of polyethylene glycol + ascorbic acid with 0.5 L of water in the evening, and again the same laxative on the morning of examination. After capsule ingestion, 50 mL of Gastrografin diluted with 0.9 L of magnesium citrate was administered, and then repeated after 1 hour. Results: The capsule excretion rate was 97 % (28/29). The median colon transit time was 2 hours 45 minutes and rapid transit (< 40 minutes) through the colon occurred in one patient (3.4 %). Bowel cleansing level was adequate in 90 % of patients. The polyp (≥ 6 mm) detection rate was 52 %. Diluted Gastrografin was well tolerated by patients. No adverse events occurred. Conclusion: Gastrografin can be an alternative to sodium phosphate in CCE bowel preparation regimen.