title: Efficacy of computed virtual chromoendoscopy on colorectal cancer screening: a prospective, randomized, back-to-back trial of Fuji Intelligent Color Enhancement versus conventional colonoscopy to compare adenoma miss rates.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Colonoscopy is the criterion standard for screening of colorectal neoplasms. Nonetheless, a substantial miss rate with conventional, white-light colonoscopy (WL) remains a challenge.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To assess whether Fuji Intelligent Color Enhancement (FICE) can detect more adenomas than WL in screening colonoscopy.
  
  
  METHODS
  Prospective, randomized trial of tandem colonoscopy adjusted for withdrawal time and lavage effect.
  
  
  METHODS
  Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Korea.
  
  
  METHODS
  This study involved 359 average-risk adults undergoing screening colonoscopy.
  
  
  METHODS
  Patients were randomized to the first withdrawal with either FICE (FICE-WL group) or WL (WL-FICE group).
  
  
  METHODS
  The primary end point measure was the difference in adenoma miss rates, and the secondary outcome measure was the adenoma detection rate.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We enrolled 359 patients (mean age 50.6 years, male 66.9%) and randomly assigned 181 to the WL-FICE group and 178 to the FICE-WL group. The number of adenomas detected by FICE and WL was 123 and 107, respectively. The adenoma miss rate with FICE showed no significant difference compared with that of WL (6.6% vs 8.3%, P = .59). Characteristics of lesions missed by use of FICE were similar to those missed by use of WL; 93% of overall missed polyps were < or =5 mm, and none were > or =1 cm. All missed adenomas were low grade and nonpedunculated. There was no significant difference between FICE and WL in adenoma detection rate (mean 0.64 vs 0.55 per patient, P = .65) nor percentage of patients with > or =1 adenoma (33.7% vs 30.4%, P = .74).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Single-center study.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  FICE at screening colonoscopy did not improve the adenoma miss rate or detection rate compared with WL.
authors.affiliation: Department of Internal Medicine, Healthcare Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul, South Korea.
authors.forename: Su Jin
authors.initials: SJ
authors.lastname: Chung
authors.forename: Donghee
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.forename: Ji Hyun
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Song
authors.forename: Min Jung
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Park
authors.forename: Young Sun
authors.initials: YS
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.forename: Joo Sung
authors.initials: JS
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.forename: Hyun Chae
authors.initials: HC
authors.lastname: Jung
authors.forename: In Sung
authors.initials: IS
authors.lastname: Song
mesh_terms: D000236:Adenoma / Q000175:diagnosis*; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D003111:Colonic Polyps / Q000175:diagnosis*; D003113:Colonoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D015179:Colorectal Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis*; D055088:Early Detection of Cancer / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007089:Image Enhancement / Q000379:methods*; D007090:Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D007413:Intestinal Mucosa / Q000473:pathology; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011446:Prospective Studies; D056910:Republic of Korea; D012307:Risk Factors; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014584:User-Computer Interface; D014741:Video Recording / Q000379:methods*