Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy

Search
Advanced Search
OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Clin Endosc > Ahead-of print articles > Article
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis The impact of linked color imaging on adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bruna Haueisen Figueiredo Zwetkoff1,orcid, Luiz Ronaldo Alberti1orcid, Fábio Gontijo Rodrigues1orcid, Nelson Carvas Junior2orcid, José Celso Ardengh3orcid, Otavio Micelli Neto3orcid, Fernando Rodrigues Guzman3orcid, Marcelo Morganti Ferreira Dias3orcid, Guilherme Camarotti de Oliveira Canejo3orcid, Carlos Eduardo Oliveira dos Santos4orcid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.072
Published online: October 24, 2024

1School of Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

2Federal University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil

3Endoscopic Unit, Moriah Hospital, Sao Paulo, Brazil

4Santa Casa de Caridade de Bagé Hospital, Bagé, Brazil

Correspondence: Bruna Haueisen Figueiredo Zwetkoff School of Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Av. Prof. Alfredo Balena, 190 Santa Efigênia, Belo Horizonte, MG 30130-100, Brazil E-mail: bruna.h.figueiredo@gmail.com
• Received: March 26, 2024   • Revised: May 7, 2024   • Accepted: May 16, 2024

© 2024 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

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.

  • 738 Views
  • 113 Download
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Background/Aims
    Colorectal cancer prevention relies on surveillance colonoscopy, with the adenoma detection rate as a key factor in examination quality. Linked color imaging (LCI) enhances lesion contrast and improves the examination performance. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of LCI on adenoma detection rate in adults who underwent colonoscopy.
  • Methods
    We searched the Medline, PubMed, BIREME, LILACS, and Scientific Electronic Library Online databases for randomized controlled trials comparing the use of LCI versus white light (WL), published up to March 2023. The outcomes included lesion characteristics, number of adenomas per patient, and the additional polyp detection rate.
  • Results
    Sixteen studies were included in the analysis, which showed that LCI was more accurate than WL in detecting adenomas, with an increased number of adenomas detected per patient. Although LCI performed well in terms of lesion size, morphology, and location, the subgroup analyses did not reveal any statistically significant differences between LCI and WL. The addition of LCI did not result in significant improvements in the detection of serrated lesions, and there were no differences in the withdrawal time between groups.
  • Conclusions
    LCI has been shown to be effective in detecting colonic lesions, improving the number of adenomas detected per patient and improving polyp detection rate without negatively affecting other quality criteria in colonoscopy.
  • Keywords: Adenoma; Colonoscopy; Colorectal neoplasms; Diagnostic techniques and procedures
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy worldwide and the second leading cause of cancer-related death.1 The disease often progresses from adenomatous polyps, and colonoscopic detection of these polyps has proven to be the most effective method to reduce CRC risk and mortality.2 The adenoma detection rate (ADR), defined as the proportion of colonoscopies detecting at least one adenomatous lesion, inversely impacts the risk of CRC.3 An increase of approximately 1% in ADR leads to a 3% reduction in CRC incidence between surveillance intervals.4 Despite this, conventional colonoscopy has a notable limitation, with an undetected polyp rate of up to 20%.5
To improve the detection of premalignant colonic lesions, new technologies have been implemented. Image enhancement techniques have become popular due to their ease of use and lack of special preparations or additional devices. While narrow-band imaging (NBI) and blue laser imaging (BLI) initially showed good results in differentiating premalignant from benign lesions by analyzing polyp surface patterns,6 their effectiveness in increasing the polyp detection rate (PDR) compared to conventional white light (WL) colonoscopy has been controversial.7,8
In 2014, Fujifilm Co. Ltd. developed linked color imaging (LCI), a technology that provides superior illumination of the colorectal lumen compared to other virtual chromoendoscopy techniques.9,10 LCI enhances the differentiation of blue, red, and green color spectra, highlighting color changes in the colonic mucosa and increasing hemoglobin contrast, thereby making intestinal lesions appear more reddish than the surrounding mucosal surface.9
LCI is used with Fujifilm's Laser Endoscopic System (LASEREO) and Light-Emitting Diode Endoscopic System (ELUXEO), which differ in their light sources.7,11 LASEREO employs laser light generating two wavelengths (410±10 nm and 450±10 nm),12 while ELUXEO uses LEDs emitting four wavelengths (blue-violet, blue, green, and red).13 The 410-nm violet light of LCI penetrates superficially, highlighting neoplastic lesions as red and adjacent mucosa as violet due to higher blood vessel concentration in neoplastic areas.10
LCI also accurately distinguishes between adenomatous lesions and inflammatory changes, which both appear reddish under WL. Under LCI, inflammatory changes appear purple, while neoplastic lesions remain red.10,11 This study evaluated the impact of LCI on ADR and its benefits by reviewing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LCI with WL in adults undergoing colonoscopy.
This study evaluated the impact of LCI on ADR and the benefits associated with this technology by reviewing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared LCI with WL in adults undergoing colonoscopy.
Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines,14 this systematic review and meta-analysis addressed the question: “Does virtual chromoendoscopy with LCI technology increase ADR in colonoscopy?”. The review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023438359).
Search strategy
An experienced librarian developed and an investigator (BHFZ) reviewed the search strategy. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information (BIREME), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) databases for articles published up to March 2023 using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), Descriptors in Health Sciences (DeCS), and natural language search terms: colonoscopy, chromoendoscopy, quality colonoscopy, Linked Color Imaging, polyp detection, and adenoma detection (Table 1).
Selection criteria
Two independent reviewers (BHFZ and JCA) compiled search results using the PICO approach: Patients (≥18 years undergoing colonoscopy), Interventions (use of LCI), Comparators (use of WL), and Outcomes (ADR, detection rates of serrated lesions, colonic lesions ≤5 mm and >5 mm, lesions in the right and left colon, flat and non-flat lesions, number of adenomas per patient, additional PDR, and withdrawal time). They independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles based on the relationship between LCI and PDR compared to WL. Eligible studies were RCTs in English reporting results of LCI versus WL in adults undergoing colonoscopy. Case reports, reviews, retrospective studies, and animal experiments were excluded.
Study definitions
The ADR was defined as the proportion of colonoscopies during which at least one adenoma was detected, considering all colonoscopies. Serrated lesion detection rate was defined as the proportion of colonoscopies during which at least one sessile serrated adenoma/polyp was detected considering all colonoscopies. The number of adenomas per patient was calculated as the total number of adenomas divided by the total number of patients. The number of flat lesions was defined as the total number of lesions with a diameter of at least twice the height of the lesion in each study. In many studies, flat lesions were defined as IIa, IIb, and IIc lesions according to the Paris classification.15 Non-flat lesions included sessile, pedunculated, and subpedunculated lesions classified as Is, Ip, and Isp, respectively, according to the Paris classification.15 Some studies7,16 only differentiated lesions morphologically into polypoid and nonpolypoid. Additional PDR was defined as the number of polyps detected during the second examination divided by the total number of procedures.
By definition, the right colon accommodates segments of the cecum and ascending colon, whereas the left colon anatomically corresponds to the descending and sigmoid colon. Withdrawal time was defined as the amount of time spent viewing the colonoscope withdrawn from the cecum.
Data extraction and study outcomes
The selected articles were assessed for ADR and serrated lesion detection rates. The benefit of LCI in detection rates was evaluated by considering lesion size (≤5 mm or >5 mm), location (right or left colon), and morphology, and individualizing the results for the detection rate of flat and non-flat lesions. Additionally, the number of adenomas per patient and additional PDR were counted when the study design allowed for such an assessment.
For crossover study designs, a duplicate assessment of the colonic mucosa was performed with both WL and LCI. For proper statistical comparison, only the number of lesions found in the initial examination was considered and included. Additionally, withdrawal times with and without this chromoendoscopy technology were evaluated. For the triple-arm study, data were extracted from the LCI and WL groups.
Data extracted from the studies included the first author, year of publication, study period, type of study, study design, endoscopic system, number of participants, baseline demographics (age and sex), indications for colonoscopy, total number of study participants, and number of colonoscopists.
Two independent reviewers (BHFZ and JCA) tabulated the extracted data on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft), and any discrepancies in data collection were resolved through discussion and consensus between reviewers.
Bias assessment
Using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in RCTs,17 the highlighted domains included the randomization process (D1), deviations from the intended interventions (D2), missing outcome data (D3), measurement of outcomes (D4), and selection of reported results (D5). The bias assessment of the primary outcome revealed considerations in domain D2 stemming from the inability to blind the performing colonoscopist who inevitably became aware of the ongoing intervention. Some studies also encountered issues with pre-registration of proposed outcomes and problems with randomization.
Statistical analysis
Meta-analyses were performed to determine outcomes of interest. The combined results for continuous measures are presented as the mean difference, and aggregated results for dichotomous outcome measures are presented as the risk ratio (RR) between the LCI and WL methods. All analyses were performed using the meta package (ver. 6.5-0) in the R programming language. Random-effects models were used for all analyses, and this choice was based on their plausible assumptions in medicine and the extent of heterogeneity among studies. The results of the meta-analysis are shown as forest plots. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.

1) Subgroup analysis

Post hoc subgroup analyses were conducted when common trends in interventions considered clinically relevant emerged. These analyses included lesion size (≤5 mm and >5 mm), morphology (flat and non-flat), and location (right and left).

2) Publication bias assessment

Funnel plots were inspected to assess publication bias in the meta-analyses and the findings were confirmed using Egger’s regression test. If publication bias was identified, robustness was tested using the trim-and-fill method.
The leave-one-out method was used to explore heterogeneity for the primary outcome, systematically removing one study at a time, and ultimately assessing the effect size and new heterogeneity encountered. Heterogeneity among studies was quantified using I2 statistics.
Study selection
The study selection process is illustrated in Figure 1. The database search yielded 279 studies. After title and abstract screening, 24 studies were retrieved for full-text review, 16 of which met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review.7,16,18-31
Characteristics of the studies
The characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 2.7,16,18-31 The RCTs were published between 2017 and 2023 and were conducted in Japan, China, Brazil, Hungary, Thailand, and Italy. Two international RCTs were conducted in multiple countries,30,31 whose objectives were to analyze the effectiveness of LCI in the detection of polyps compared with examinations performed with WL alone.
Most studies used the LASEREO system,7,16,18,20-22,24,25,27-29 whereas three studies used ELUXEO as the prevailing system,19,23,26 with LED as the endoscopic light source. These studies did not clearly explain or distinguish between the two lighting systems, often raising questions about whether this could be a point of divergence in the findings. In 2023, Okada et al.13 compared these two systems using the BLI mode to assess image quality for determining the Japan NBI expert team classification and found a concordance rate of 92.5%. The weighted κ‐statistic was 0.99. Similar studies have not been conducted on the use of LCI. Extrapolating from these results, we conclude that there was no significant difference or interference in the outcomes between the laser and LED systems as light sources.
In three studies,13,18,19 results were extracted solely from the analysis of the right colon, and in another study,22 analysis was extended to the splenic flexure, allowing for assessment of the benefit of incorporating LCI to detect lesions that might go unnoticed under WL. Min et al.,21 Dos Santos et al.,27 and Suzuki et al.,31 evaluated the results of LCI and WL, individualizing each segment of the colon, while the others included an analysis of the entire colon from the cecum to the rectum.
Seven studies were multicenter,16,18,20,21,29-31 while the remaining studies were conducted in a single center. Most studies included patients with multiple indications for colonoscopy, surveillance, and screening to investigate gastrointestinal symptoms and positive fecal occult blood tests. The studies exhibited notable similarities regarding the sex and mean age of participants. Only two studies evaluated the detection rate of serrated lesions,16,22 considered by some to be more difficult to visualize because of their similarity to the adjacent mucosa.32
The included studies exhibited differences in design, with some employing a parallel design,7,16,20,23-31 whereas others used a crossover design.19,21,22 Yoshida et al.,18 conducted an initial examination with WL, followed by additional assessments with either WL or LCI, combined with an extended 30-second duration for the second evaluation. Conversely, Hasegawa et al.,25 adopted a design in which the second observation was standardized using WL. Houwen et al.,30 included only adult patients with Lynch syndrome undergoing surveillance colonoscopy.
Adenoma detection rate
The primary outcome of this study was the comparative evaluation of ADR using LCI and WL. Our systematic review included 15 studies7,16,18-21,23-31 involving observations of 10,558 patients (5,200 in the LCI group and 5,358 in the WL group). The total number of recorded events was 4,751. The meta-analysis revealed that ADR using LCI was 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13–1.28) times higher than that using WL (Fig. 2). The heterogeneity among the studies was moderate (I2=44%, p=0.03).
Table 3 shows the analysis of the influence of each study on heterogeneity using the leave-one-out method.7,16,18-21,23-31 When the study by Miyaguchi et al.,20 was omitted, a substantial decrease in heterogeneity was observed, reaching values close to 24%. However, there were no alterations in the primary effect. In a sensitivity analysis using the random-effects model, the results appeared consistently in favor of LCI (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.13–1.28), and the true effect was likely close to this (Fig. 3).
A funnel plot was constructed to investigate publication bias, with the results presented (Fig. 4); Egger’s linear regression test was used to formally assess the presence of asymmetry in this plot. The results of this analysis indicated no effect or significant asymmetry in the funnel plot (beta=0.4851, p=0.5067).
Serrated lesions
Among the studies that comparatively assessed total colonoscopy with and without LCI, the serrated lesion detection rate was reported in 11 studies.7,16,18-20,22,24,25,27,30,31 In the analysis of the literature, we observed favorable outcomes for LCI, with low heterogeneity (I2=0%, p=0.51) but with no statistical significance (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86–1.44) (Fig. 5).
Number of adenomas per patient
Among the selected studies, the number of adenomas per patient was evaluated in nine RCTs,16,21,23-26,29-31 including observations from 7,845 patients (3,837 in the LCI group and 4,008 in the WL group), with a greater number of lesions detected in the groups in which LCI was used. In the analysis of the average number of adenomas per patient, the overall average of all studies was 0.26 (95% CI, 0.16–0.37) more adenomas per patient in the LCI group and heterogeneity was low (I2=28%, p=0.20) (Fig. 6).
Lesion morphology
Analyses were conducted to differentiate between flat and non-flat lesions. These analyses were feasible in ten studies,7,18-21,24,27,28,30,31 yielding results that favored LCI in the detection rate of flat lesions, but with no statistical significance. For non-flat lesions, specifically sessile, pedunculated, and subpedunculated lesions, the results did not favor LCI. Depressive lesions were excluded from the analysis. It is noteworthy that, in this analysis, the results were not isolated solely for adenomas, converging towards the macroscopic morphological characterization of different colonic lesions, primarily based on the Paris classification.15 LCI demonstrated a tendency towards superior detection rates for flat lesions compared with non-flat lesions. In a comparative exploratory subgroup analysis, no statistically significant results were observed (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.97–1.09; χ21, 2.62; p=0.11) (Fig. 7).
Lesion size
We subdivided observations using a 5-mm size threshold for colonic lesions. Results for size analyses were identified in seven studies,7,15,19-21,24,30 demonstrating that, overall, LCI exhibited a trend towards the detection of lesions ≤5 mm, but with no statistical significance. For larger lesions, the results did not favor LCI. In a comparative exploratory subgroup analysis, no statistically significant results were observed (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.95–1.28; χ21=2.82; p=0.09) (Fig. 8).
Lesion location
In eight studies,7,20,21,24,27,28,30,31 it was possible to assess ADR in the right and left colons comparatively. Proportionally higher values were observed in the right than in the left colon (11% vs. 2%). However, these differences were not statistically significant (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.94–1.20; χ21=0.38; p=0.54) (Fig. 9).
Additional polyp detection rate
Three studies19,21,22 used a crossover design and evaluated the impact of LCI on lesion detection in patients who had already undergone an initial WL examination. For comparison, PDR with WL was also evaluated after the initial comparison with LCI alone. The additional PDR between studies was 60% higher for the group in which a second observation was performed with LCI than with WL (RR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.30–3.06). Heterogeneity was low (I2=0%, p=0.53) (Fig. 10).
Withdrawal time
Withdrawal time was defined as the removal time after cecal intubation. This period was evaluated by comparing the use of LCI and WL. The LCI group presented a median time 0.14 minutes longer than the WL group, but the difference was not statistically significant between the methods (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, −0.03 to 0.34). Heterogeneity was high (I2=86%, p=0.10) (Fig. 11).
LCI is an innovative and promising technological resource that leads to better CRC screening results, and a growing number of studies are aimed at evaluating and quantifying its benefits. Pre- and post-processing programs produce higher-quality, clearer, and sharper images with a unique color pattern that allows neoplastic lesions to appear prominently with a more reddish color than the rest of the adjacent mucosa. By increasing the staining contrast and accentuating certain wavelength spectra, these lesions become more detectable by the examiner.9,10 Current studies corroborate that the indiscriminate application of LCI increases the detection of polyps and colonic lesions across all histologies and sizes. Our meta-analysis consolidates the growing body of research aimed at assessing and quantifying the benefits of LCI, as evidenced by earlier meta-analyses by Shinozaki et al.,10 Wang et al.,33 and Sun et al.,34 which comprehensively summarized these advantages.
In the evaluation of our primary outcome, although we found results consistent with those previously reported, which primarily demonstrated an increase in ADR with the addition of LCI compared with WL, our subgroup analysis for the assessment of secondary outcomes revealed results that slightly diverged from those previously reported. Overall, although the results favored LCI, we did not find any statistically significant differences in lesion location, morphology, size, or histological type.
A comparative sub-analysis of lesion location demonstrated that LCI enabled greater detection of lesions in the right colon. However, no statistically significant differences were observed, consistent with the results reported by Wang et al.,33 but differs from those demonstrated by Sun et al.,34 who stratified the analyses by comparing lesions detected in proximal and distal colons.
In addition, we evaluated the effect of LCI on the detection of lesions based on lesion size and morphology. Although the addition of this feature improved the results, there was no statistical significance in the detection of flat lesions, with preferentially lateral growth, or lesions ≤5 mm. Both types are considered more challenging to visualize using WL alone. Wang et al.,33 using a cutoff point of 10 mm demonstrated that the use of LCI provided even more pronounced and favorable results for the detection of these lesions. In contrast to our findings, Sun et al.,34 reported statistically significant favorable results for LCI in the detection of flat lesions. A possible explanation for our discrepant results could be the more comprehensive inclusion of data in our review, which was approximately twice the number of studies included in previous reviews. To minimize publication bias, we attempted to include as many studies as possible, adhering to pre-established selection criteria.
In addition to the global ADR, we also individually evaluated the detection rate of serrated lesions, which are often difficult to assess because they present surface patterns similar to those of the adjacent colonic mucosa,32 accounting for 15% to 30% of the causes of CRC.35-38 The results indicate a potential advantage with the incorporation of virtual chromoendoscopy technology; however, in our analysis, the observed differences did not reach statistical significance, consistent with the findings reported by Wang et al.,33 In contrast to the aforementioned meta-analyses, our study encompassed a broader range of investigations evaluating the number of serrated lesions. Our comprehensive approach involved the consideration of crossover study designs, exemplified in the study by Paggi et al.,19 wherein duplicate assessments of colonic mucosa with both WL and LCI necessitated the inclusion of only lesions detected in the initial examination for proper statistical comparison. The inclusion of diverse studies beyond those specifically designed to detect serrated lesions may explain the disparities observed in our results. Our results are consistent with those reported by Wang et al.,33 Another possible explanation for the results found, in addition to the inclusion of a greater number of studies, is that serrated lesions are generally covered by a mucus cap, making it difficult to visualize them regardless of the technology used. To optimize these strategies, it is suggested that the mucus cap be removed in advance.39
In these crossover studies,19,21,22 we observed significant benefits when LCI was used as an additional tool in patients who had already undergone prior evaluation with WL. This technology can overcome some of the deficiencies inherent in the conventional method, which is associated with a higher rate of unnoticed lesions. Instead of evaluating the adenoma miss rate, we assessed the additional PDR when incorporating LCI and observed that a second evaluation with the addition of this feature significantly increased PDR. Additionally, in the analysis of the number of adenomas per patient, we extracted data from more studies than those included in previously published reviews.
We also evaluated withdrawal time as an additional outcome. The results showed that despite a slight increase in the time to remove the colonoscope from the cecum when using LCI, there was no statistical significance in these data. Furthermore, considering the higher ADR with LCI, the longer procedure duration could be attributed to the additional time involved in the removal of these lesions.
The main limitations of our study are inherent in the heterogeneity of the included studies with different designs, populations, multiple indications for colonoscopy, and primary outcomes. Altogether, these limitations made it difficult to homogenize the data for adequate meta-analysis and statistical analysis. Nevertheless, this more comprehensive approach minimized possible publication bias and provided more robustness to the outcomes evaluated.
It was concluded that LCI, an increasingly accessible and available technology, should be seen as a valuable tool in the arsenal of CRC prevention, mainly by reducing the rate of unnoticed lesions associated with interval CRCs,10 without negatively affecting other quality indicators in colonoscopy. However, our study stands out from those previously published by demonstrating that, in subgroup analyses, despite a favorable trend towards the use of LCI, no statistically significant differences were observed compared with WL.
Fig. 1.
Flowchart of study selection. RCT, randomized controlled trial.
ce-2024-072f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Quantitative analysis of linked color imaging (LCI) versus white light (WL) for the primary outcome: adenoma detection rate. RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.
ce-2024-072f2.jpg
Fig. 3.
Sensitivity analysis of linked color imaging (LCI) versus white light (WL) for adenoma detection rate. RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.
ce-2024-072f3.jpg
Fig. 4.
Funnel plot to investigate publication bias for adenoma detection rate.
ce-2024-072f4.jpg
Fig. 5.
Quantitative analysis of linked color imaging (LCI) versus white light (WL) for serrated lesions. SD, standard deviation; MD, mean difference; CI, confidence interval.
ce-2024-072f5.jpg
Fig. 6.
Quantitative analysis of linked color imaging (LCI) versus white light (WL) for mean number of adenomas per patient. SD, standard deviation; MD, mean difference; CI, confidence interval.
ce-2024-072f6.jpg
Fig. 7.
Comparative exploratory subgroup analysis for morphology comparing flat and non-flat lesions. LCI, linked color imaging; WL, white light; RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.
ce-2024-072f7.jpg
Fig. 8.
Comparative exploratory subgroup analysis for size comparing lesions ≤5 mm and >5 mm. LCI, linked color imaging; WL, white light; RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.
ce-2024-072f8.jpg
Fig. 9.
Comparative exploratory subgroup analysis for location comparing lesions in right and left colon. LCI, linked color imaging; WL, white light; RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.
ce-2024-072f9.jpg
Fig. 10.
Additional polyp detection rate. LCI, linked color imaging; WL, white light; RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.
ce-2024-072f10.jpg
Fig. 11.
Withdrawal time. LCI, linked color imaging; WL, white light; SD, standard deviation; MD, mean difference; CI, confidence interval.
ce-2024-072f11.jpg
ce-2024-072f12.jpg
Table 1.
Search strategy
Database Search strategy
PubMed (Colonoscopy OR chromoendoscopy OR quality colonoscopy) AND (Linked Color Imaging) AND ((polyp detection) OR (adenoma detection))
BIREME/LILACS/MEDLINE (Colonoscopy OR chromoendoscopy OR quality colonoscopy) AND (Linked Color Imaging) AND ((polyp detection) OR (adenoma detection))
SciELO Colonoscopy OR chromoendoscopy OR quality colonoscopy) AND (Linked Color Imaging) AND ((polyp detection) OR (adenoma detection)
Table 2.
Characteristics of the included studies
Study Country Year Study design Participants (n) Sex Age (mean±SD, y) System Indications Colonoscopists (n)
Min et al.21 China 2017 RCT, multi 141 53% Male 46.8±12.9 LASEREO Symptoms, screening -
Fujimoto et al.22 Japan 2018 RCT, single 44 45% Male 63.5±10.6 LASEREO Screening after resection of SSA/P 5
Yoshida et al.18 Japan 2018 RCT, multi 130 55% Male 65.9±14.3 LASEREO Screening, positive FIT 3
Paggi et al.19 Italy 2018 RCT, single 600 57% Male 65.0±10.2 ELUXEO Symptoms, screening, positive FIT 6
Oliveira Dos Santos et al.7 Brazil 2019 RCT, single 379 37% Male 58.7 LASEREO Symptoms, screening 1
Lovász et al.23 Hungary 2020 RCT, single 1,278 49.5% Male 51.95 ELUXEO Screening 3
Paggi et al.29 Italy 2020 RCT, multi 649 50% Male 60.8±7.3 LASEREO Screening, positive FIT 14
Kudo et al.24 Japan 2021 RCT, single 302 51% Male 63.2 LASEREO Screening 2
Miyaguchi et al.20 Japan 2021 RCT, multi 1,000 62% Male 65.0±14.4 LASEREO Screening, symptoms, positive FIT 20
Hasegawa et al.25 Japan 2021 RCT, single 700 63% Male 66.5±12.3 LASEREO Screening, symptoms 14
Aniwan et al.26 Thailand 2021 RCT, single 1,000 35.1% Male 63.1 ELUXEO Primary screening colonoscopy 20
Li et al.16 China 2023 RCT, multi 884 48.6% Male 54±10.9 ELUXEO/LASEREO Screening 11
Dos Santos et al.27 Brazil 2022 RCT, single 205 49% Male 58.8±9 LASEREO Screening -
Houwen et al.30 Belgium, Italy, 2022 RCT, multi 332 42% Male 48.4±14.1 - Screening in cohort of 22
Netherlands, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom patients with Lynch syndrome
Suzuki et al.31 Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand 2023 RCT, multi 3,050 57% Male 64.4 ELUXEO/LASEREO Screening, symptoms, positive FIT 97
Tanaka et al.28 Japan 2023 Single, single 594 63.4% Male 53 LASEREO Screening, symptoms, positive FIT 9

SD, standard deviation; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SSA/P, sessile serrated adenoma/polyp; FIT, fecal immunochemical test; -, not available.

Table 3.
Leave-one-out analysis
Study RR (95% CI) p-value tau^2 tau I2(%)
Omitting Min et al.21 1.2018 (1.1282–1.2802) <0.0001 0.0056 0.0748 47.8
Omitting Yoshida et al.18 1.1995 (1.1274–1.2762) <0.0001 0.0053 0.0728 42.9
Omitting Paggi et al.19 1.2144 (1.1415–1.2921) <0.0001 0.0049 0.0701 39.8
Omitting Oliveira Dos Santos et al.7 1.1978 (1.1229–1.2777) <0.0001 0.0057 0.0756 46.8
Omitting Lovász et al.23 1.1970 (1.1198–1.2794) <0.0001 0.0061 0.0778 46.7
Omitting Paggi et al.29 1.2057 (1.1260–1.2911) <0.0001 0.0067 0.0818 47.9
Omitting Kudo et al.24 1.1944 (1.1197–1.2740) <0.0001 0.0055 0.0741 45.6
Omitting Miyaguchi et al.20 1.2233 (1.1594–1.2908) <0.0001 0.0019 0.0435 24.8
Omitting Hasegawa et al.25 1.2176 (1.1392–1.3015) <0.0001 0.0055 0.0742 40.7
Omitting Aniwan et al.26 1.2117 (1.1335–1.2953) <0.0001 0.0061 0.0784 46.2
Omitting Dos Santos et al.27 1.1972 (1.1229–1.2764) <0.0001 0.0056 0.0748 46.5
Omitting Houwen et al.30 1.1868 (1.1176–1.2603) <0.0001 0.0041 0.0638 39.2
Omitting Omitting Suzuki et al.31 1.1956 (1.1142–1.2829) <0.0001 0.0066 0.0812 41.9
Omitting Li et al.16 1.2069 (1.1279–1.2915) <0.0001 0.0065 0.0809 47.8
Omitting Tanaka et al.28 1.1959 (1.1218–1.2750) <0.0001 0.0055 0.0742 46.0
Pooled estimate 1.2028 (1.1302–1.2800) <0.0001 0.0054 0.0735 44.0

RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.

  • 1. Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, et al. Cancer statistics for the year 2020: An overview. Int J Cancer 2021;149:778–789.ArticlePDF
  • 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.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 3. Floer M, Biecker E, Fitzlaff R, et al. Higher adenoma detection rates with endocuff-assisted colonoscopy: a randomized controlled multicenter trial. PLoS One 2014;9:e114267.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 4. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1298–1306.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 5. Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997;112:24–28.ArticlePubMed
  • 6. Dos Santos CE, Malaman D, Yoshida N, et al. Blue laser imaging: a new image-enhanced endoscopy for the diagnosis of colorectal lesions. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;30:1514–1520.ArticlePubMed
  • 7. Oliveira Dos Santos CE, Malaman D, Pereira-Lima JC, et al. Impact of linked-color imaging on colorectal adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc 2019;90:826–834.ArticlePubMed
  • 8. Dinesen L, Chua TJ, Kaffes AJ. Meta-analysis of narrow-band imaging versus conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:604–611.ArticlePubMed
  • 9. Shinozaki S, Osawa H, Hayashi Y, et al. Linked color imaging for the detection of early gastrointestinal neoplasms. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2019;12:1756284819885246.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 10. Shinozaki S, Kobayashi Y, Hayashi Y, et al. Colon polyp detection using linked color imaging compared to white light imaging: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Endosc 2020;32:874–881.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 11. Yamamoto H, Shinozaki S, Hayashi Y, et al. Advanced treatment and imaging in colonoscopy: the pocket-creation method for complete resection and linked color imaging for better detection of early neoplastic lesions by colonoscopy. Clin Endosc 2019;52:107–113.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 12. Yoshida N, Hisabe T, Inada Y, et al. The ability of a novel blue laser imaging system for the diagnosis of invasion depth of colorectal neoplasms. J Gastroenterol 2014;49:73–80.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 13. Okada M, Yoshida N, Kashida H, et al. Comparison of blue laser imaging and light-emitting diode-blue light imaging for the characterization of colorectal polyps using the Japan narrow-band imaging expert team classification: The LASEREO and ELUXEO COLonoscopic study. DEN Open 2023;4:e245.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 14. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 15. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58(6 Suppl):S3–S43.ArticlePubMed
  • 16. Li J, Zhang D, Wei Y, et al. Colorectal sessile serrated lesion detection using linked color imaging: a multicenter, parallel randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023;21:328–336.ArticlePubMed
  • 17. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 18. Yoshida N, Inada Y, Yasuda R, et al. Additional thirty seconds observation with linked color imaging improves detection of missed polyps in the right-sided colon. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2018;2018:5059834.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 19. Paggi S, Mogavero G, Amato A, et al. Linked color imaging reduces the miss rate of neoplastic lesions in the right colon: a randomized tandem colonoscopy study. Endoscopy 2018;50:396–402.ArticlePubMed
  • 20. Miyaguchi K, Takabayashi K, Saito D, et al. Linked color imaging versus white light imaging colonoscopy for colorectal adenoma detection: A randomized controlled trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;36:2778–2784.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 21. Min M, Deng P, Zhang W, et al. Comparison of linked color imaging and white-light colonoscopy for detection of colorectal polyps: a multicenter, randomized, crossover trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;86:724–730.ArticlePubMed
  • 22. Fujimoto D, Muguruma N, Okamoto K, et al. Linked color imaging enhances endoscopic detection of sessile serrated adenoma/polyps. Endosc Int Open 2018;6:E322–E334.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 23. Lovász BD, Szalai M, Oczella L, et al. Improved adenoma detection with linked color imaging technology compared to white-light colonoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2020;55:877–883.ArticlePubMed
  • 24. Kudo T, Horiuchi A, Kyodo R, et al. Linked colour imaging versus white-light colonoscopy for the detection of flat colorectal lesions: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 2021;23:1414–1420.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 25. Hasegawa I, Yamamura T, Suzuki H, et al. Detection of colorectal neoplasms using linked color imaging: a prospective, randomized, tandem colonoscopy trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;19:1708–1716.ArticlePubMed
  • 26. Aniwan S, Vanduangden K, Kerr SJ, et al. Linked color imaging, mucosal exposure device, their combination, and standard colonoscopy for adenoma detection: a randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2021;94:969–977.ArticlePubMed
  • 27. Dos Santos CE, Malaman D, Arciniegas Sanmartin ID, et al. Effect of linked-color imaging on the detection of adenomas in screening colonoscopies. J Clin Gastroenterol 2022;56:e268–e272.ArticlePubMed
  • 28. Tanaka S, Omori J, Hoshimoto A, et al. Comparison of linked color imaging and white light imaging colonoscopy for detection of colorectal adenoma requiring endoscopic treatment: a single-center randomized controlled trial. J Nippon Med Sch 2023;90:111–120.ArticlePubMed
  • 29. Paggi S, Radaelli F, Senore C, et al. Linked-color imaging versus white-light colonoscopy in an organized colorectal cancer screening program. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;92:723–730.ArticlePubMed
  • 30. Houwen BB, Hazewinkel Y, Pellisé M, et al. Linked colour imaging for the detection of polyps in patients with Lynch syndrome: a multicentre, parallel randomised controlled trial. Gut 2022;71:553–560.ArticlePubMed
  • 31. Suzuki S, Aniwan S, Chiu HM, et al. Linked-color imaging detects more colorectal adenoma and serrated lesions: an international randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023;21:1493–1502.ArticlePubMed
  • 32. IJspeert JE, van Doorn SC, van der Brug YM, et al. The proximal serrated polyp detection rate is an easy-to-measure proxy for the detection rate of clinically relevant serrated polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;82:870–877.ArticlePubMed
  • 33. Wang J, Ye C, Wu K, et al. The effect of linked color imaging for adenoma detection. a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2022;31:67–73.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 34. Sun Y, Lv XH, Zhang X, et al. Linked color imaging versus white light imaging in the diagnosis of colorectal lesions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2023;16:17562848231196636.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 35. Zhu H, Zhang G, Yi X, et al. Histology subtypes and polyp size are associated with synchronous colorectal carcinoma of colorectal serrated polyps: a study of 499 serrated polyps. Am J Cancer Res 2014;5:363–374.PubMedPMC
  • 36. O'Brien MJ, Yang S, Mack C, et al. Comparison of microsatellite instability, CpG island methylation phenotype, BRAF and KRAS status in serrated polyps and traditional adenomas indicates separate pathways to distinct colorectal carcinoma end points. Am J Surg Pathol 2006;30:1491–1501.ArticlePubMed
  • 37. Kim KM, Lee EJ, Ha S, et al. Molecular features of colorectal hyperplastic polyps and sessile serrated adenoma/polyps from Korea. Am J Surg Pathol 2011;35:1274–1286.ArticlePubMed
  • 38. Fujita K, Yamamoto H, Matsumoto T, et al. Sessile serrated adenoma with early neoplastic progression: a clinicopathologic and molecular study. Am J Surg Pathol 2011;35:295–304.ArticlePubMed
  • 39. Trovato A, Turshudzhyan A, Tadros M. Serrated lesions: A challenging enemy. World J Gastroenterol 2021;27:5625–5629.ArticlePubMedPMC

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      • 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
        The impact of linked color imaging on adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Figure
      • 0
      • 1
      • 2
      • 3
      • 4
      • 5
      • 6
      • 7
      • 8
      • 9
      • 10
      • 11
      Related articles
      The impact of linked color imaging on adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
      Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
      Fig. 1. Flowchart of study selection. RCT, randomized controlled trial.
      Fig. 2. Quantitative analysis of linked color imaging (LCI) versus white light (WL) for the primary outcome: adenoma detection rate. RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.
      Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis of linked color imaging (LCI) versus white light (WL) for adenoma detection rate. RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.
      Fig. 4. Funnel plot to investigate publication bias for adenoma detection rate.
      Fig. 5. Quantitative analysis of linked color imaging (LCI) versus white light (WL) for serrated lesions. SD, standard deviation; MD, mean difference; CI, confidence interval.
      Fig. 6. Quantitative analysis of linked color imaging (LCI) versus white light (WL) for mean number of adenomas per patient. SD, standard deviation; MD, mean difference; CI, confidence interval.
      Fig. 7. Comparative exploratory subgroup analysis for morphology comparing flat and non-flat lesions. LCI, linked color imaging; WL, white light; RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.
      Fig. 8. Comparative exploratory subgroup analysis for size comparing lesions ≤5 mm and >5 mm. LCI, linked color imaging; WL, white light; RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.
      Fig. 9. Comparative exploratory subgroup analysis for location comparing lesions in right and left colon. LCI, linked color imaging; WL, white light; RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.
      Fig. 10. Additional polyp detection rate. LCI, linked color imaging; WL, white light; RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.
      Fig. 11. Withdrawal time. LCI, linked color imaging; WL, white light; SD, standard deviation; MD, mean difference; CI, confidence interval.
      Graphical abstract

      Fig. 1.

      Fig. 2.

      Fig. 3.

      Fig. 4.

      Fig. 5.

      Fig. 6.

      Fig. 7.

      Fig. 8.

      Fig. 9.

      Fig. 10.

      Fig. 11.

      Graphical abstract

      The impact of linked color imaging on adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
      Database Search strategy
      PubMed (Colonoscopy OR chromoendoscopy OR quality colonoscopy) AND (Linked Color Imaging) AND ((polyp detection) OR (adenoma detection))
      BIREME/LILACS/MEDLINE (Colonoscopy OR chromoendoscopy OR quality colonoscopy) AND (Linked Color Imaging) AND ((polyp detection) OR (adenoma detection))
      SciELO Colonoscopy OR chromoendoscopy OR quality colonoscopy) AND (Linked Color Imaging) AND ((polyp detection) OR (adenoma detection)
      Study Country Year Study design Participants (n) Sex Age (mean±SD, y) System Indications Colonoscopists (n)
      Min et al.21 China 2017 RCT, multi 141 53% Male 46.8±12.9 LASEREO Symptoms, screening -
      Fujimoto et al.22 Japan 2018 RCT, single 44 45% Male 63.5±10.6 LASEREO Screening after resection of SSA/P 5
      Yoshida et al.18 Japan 2018 RCT, multi 130 55% Male 65.9±14.3 LASEREO Screening, positive FIT 3
      Paggi et al.19 Italy 2018 RCT, single 600 57% Male 65.0±10.2 ELUXEO Symptoms, screening, positive FIT 6
      Oliveira Dos Santos et al.7 Brazil 2019 RCT, single 379 37% Male 58.7 LASEREO Symptoms, screening 1
      Lovász et al.23 Hungary 2020 RCT, single 1,278 49.5% Male 51.95 ELUXEO Screening 3
      Paggi et al.29 Italy 2020 RCT, multi 649 50% Male 60.8±7.3 LASEREO Screening, positive FIT 14
      Kudo et al.24 Japan 2021 RCT, single 302 51% Male 63.2 LASEREO Screening 2
      Miyaguchi et al.20 Japan 2021 RCT, multi 1,000 62% Male 65.0±14.4 LASEREO Screening, symptoms, positive FIT 20
      Hasegawa et al.25 Japan 2021 RCT, single 700 63% Male 66.5±12.3 LASEREO Screening, symptoms 14
      Aniwan et al.26 Thailand 2021 RCT, single 1,000 35.1% Male 63.1 ELUXEO Primary screening colonoscopy 20
      Li et al.16 China 2023 RCT, multi 884 48.6% Male 54±10.9 ELUXEO/LASEREO Screening 11
      Dos Santos et al.27 Brazil 2022 RCT, single 205 49% Male 58.8±9 LASEREO Screening -
      Houwen et al.30 Belgium, Italy, 2022 RCT, multi 332 42% Male 48.4±14.1 - Screening in cohort of 22
      Netherlands, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom patients with Lynch syndrome
      Suzuki et al.31 Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand 2023 RCT, multi 3,050 57% Male 64.4 ELUXEO/LASEREO Screening, symptoms, positive FIT 97
      Tanaka et al.28 Japan 2023 Single, single 594 63.4% Male 53 LASEREO Screening, symptoms, positive FIT 9
      Study RR (95% CI) p-value tau^2 tau I2(%)
      Omitting Min et al.21 1.2018 (1.1282–1.2802) <0.0001 0.0056 0.0748 47.8
      Omitting Yoshida et al.18 1.1995 (1.1274–1.2762) <0.0001 0.0053 0.0728 42.9
      Omitting Paggi et al.19 1.2144 (1.1415–1.2921) <0.0001 0.0049 0.0701 39.8
      Omitting Oliveira Dos Santos et al.7 1.1978 (1.1229–1.2777) <0.0001 0.0057 0.0756 46.8
      Omitting Lovász et al.23 1.1970 (1.1198–1.2794) <0.0001 0.0061 0.0778 46.7
      Omitting Paggi et al.29 1.2057 (1.1260–1.2911) <0.0001 0.0067 0.0818 47.9
      Omitting Kudo et al.24 1.1944 (1.1197–1.2740) <0.0001 0.0055 0.0741 45.6
      Omitting Miyaguchi et al.20 1.2233 (1.1594–1.2908) <0.0001 0.0019 0.0435 24.8
      Omitting Hasegawa et al.25 1.2176 (1.1392–1.3015) <0.0001 0.0055 0.0742 40.7
      Omitting Aniwan et al.26 1.2117 (1.1335–1.2953) <0.0001 0.0061 0.0784 46.2
      Omitting Dos Santos et al.27 1.1972 (1.1229–1.2764) <0.0001 0.0056 0.0748 46.5
      Omitting Houwen et al.30 1.1868 (1.1176–1.2603) <0.0001 0.0041 0.0638 39.2
      Omitting Omitting Suzuki et al.31 1.1956 (1.1142–1.2829) <0.0001 0.0066 0.0812 41.9
      Omitting Li et al.16 1.2069 (1.1279–1.2915) <0.0001 0.0065 0.0809 47.8
      Omitting Tanaka et al.28 1.1959 (1.1218–1.2750) <0.0001 0.0055 0.0742 46.0
      Pooled estimate 1.2028 (1.1302–1.2800) <0.0001 0.0054 0.0735 44.0
      Table 1. Search strategy

      Table 2. Characteristics of the included studies

      SD, standard deviation; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SSA/P, sessile serrated adenoma/polyp; FIT, fecal immunochemical test; -, not available.

      Table 3. Leave-one-out analysis

      RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.

      Table 1.

      Table 2.

      Table 3.

      Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy Twitter Facebook
      © Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
      Close layer
      TOP