Surveillance colonoscopy

Recommended surveillance techniques in IBD patients

From Cancer Guidelines Wiki


Guideline contents > What are the recommended surveillance strategies for surveillance in IBD patients?
Clinical practice guidelines for surveillance colonoscopy
  Cite this page

Leong, R, Dr Crispin Corte, Dr Cherry Koh, Dr Betty Wu, Dr Viraj Kariyawasam MBBS, MRCP, FRACP, Cancer Council Australia Surveillance Colonoscopy Guidelines Working Party. Clinical question:What is the recommended technique for surveillance in IBD patients? . In: Clinical practice guidelines for surveillance colonoscopy. Sydney: Cancer Council Australia. [Version URL: https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australiawiki/index.php?oldid=200683, cited 2023 Jun 1]. Available from: https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australia/Guidelines:Colorectal_cancer/Colonoscopy_surveillance.


Last modified:
25 March 2019 22:29:08


Background[edit source]

Prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC) relies on early and adequate detection of dysplasia. Detection of dysplasia, in turn, depends on the efficacy of endoscopic visualisation of dysplasia and the adequacy of mucosal sampling. These two differing notions reflect a recent paradigm shift in the techniques used in endoscopic surveillance for CRC in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). There is widespread acceptance of this approach in Australia.[1]

Colonic dysplasia was previously thought to be difficult to visualise endoscopically. Therefore,the practice of taking random biopsies of the colonic mucosa was considered to be the only method of conducting a widespread survey of the colonic mucosa. Random mucosal sampling is now thought to sample only 1% of colonic mucosa, at best.[2]

In order to improve visualisation of the mucosa for subtle dysplasia, the colon should be well prepared and to minimise histological confusion between inflammation and dysplasia, colitis should be in remission at the time of surveillance colonoscopy, wherever possible.

Back to top

Chromoendoscopy[edit source]

To improve the identification of dysplasia, especially flat-dysplastic lesions associated with colitis, dye-spray chromoendoscopy is recommended. Dye-spray chromoendoscopy is the most intensively studied technique for enhancing visualisation of colonic dysplasia in patients with IBD. Chromoendoscopy improves visualisation of discrete colonic lesions, and is also used to improve evaluation of pit pattern allowing differentiation between benign and dysplastic lesions.[3]

Two dyes commonly used are methylene blue and indigo carmine. Methylene blue is a vital stain that is absorbed by normal colonic mucosa but less so by inflamed or dysplastic tissue. Indigo carmine is a surface-enhancing dye that pools in pits and folds, enhancing visibility of the mucosal architecture.

These dyes have similar yields and can be sprayed topically onto the mucosal surface or via the water pump delivered through the colonoscope working channel.[4] Careful endoscopic examination is then needed to detect alteration in the colonic mucosal architecture.

The diagnostic accuracy of chromoendoscopy for dysplasia in ulcerative colitis (UC) is high.[5] Prospective controlled studies indicate a consistently increased sensitivity of chromoendoscopy versus standard (as opposed to high definition) white-light endoscopy (WLE).[6][7] A meta-analysis of six studies involving 1277 patients reported the difference in dysplasia detection between chromoendoscopy and WLE to be 7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.2–11.3).[8] The number needed to treat to detect one extra patient with dysplasia or cancer was 14.3 for chromoendoscopy versus WLE. The absolute difference in lesions detected by targeted biopsies was 44% (95% CI 28.6–59.1) and flat lesions was 27% (95% CI 11.2–41.9), both in favour of chromoendoscopy.[8]

An Australian tandem colonoscopy study compared the yield of dysplasia for a first-pass procedure performed using high-definition WLE and the second-pass procedure with methylene blue dye spray.[9] The yield of dysplasia on first-pass WLE with targeted biopsies was 18.0% (95% CI 10.0–26.0, n=16/89 biopsies in 9 subjects), and the yield on second-pass chromoendoscopy and targeted biopsies was 13.5% (95% CI 5.7–21.3, n=10/74 biopsies in 10 subjects). Chromoendoscopy identified 8 subjects from a cohort of 52 with histological dysplasia, six of whom did not have dysplasia identified during the first-pass colonoscopy.[9]

Back to top

Narrow-band imaging[edit source]

Narrow-band imaging (NBI), using a light filter, may also increase dysplasia detection. The current SCENIC international consensus statement on surveillance and management of dysplasia in IBD does not advocate NBI in place of either standard- or high-definition WLE.[10] Two controlled studies found NBI not to be superior to WLE and numerically it identified fewer dysplastic lesions. In a randomised parallel-group trial in 112 patients, the proportion of patients with dysplasia detected using NBI was 5 of 56 (9%) versus 5 of 56 (9%) with WLE.[11] A randomised crossover trial in 48 patients found the proportion of patients with dysplasia identified using NBI was 9 of 48 (19%), versus 13 of 48 (27%) with WLE.[12]

The SCENIC consensus statement also recommended that NBI should not replace chromoendoscopy.[10] In four controlled studies the proportion of patients with dysplasia detected was numerically higher with chromoendoscopy than with NBI (0.1–22% difference) but these differences were not statistically significant.[13][14][15][16]

An analysis of pit pattern amongst experts in IBD surveillance found that the inter-observer agreement for pit pattern was significantly higher for chromoendoscopy than for NBI (0.322 versus 0.224, p<0.001). However, in differentiating between non-neoplastic patterns and neoplastic patterns, NBI outperformed chromoendoscopy (kappa 0.65 versus 0.50, p<0.001).[17]

Back to top

Other technologies[edit source]

The relevance of other advanced imaging technologies is under active investigation. Full Spectrum Endoscopy (FUSE) significantly reduced missed dysplasia, compared with forward-viewing colonoscopy, by achieving 330° panoramic views using three contiguous cameras. In an Australian study in patients with IBD, mean dysplasia identified with conventional forward-viewing colonoscope was 0.13, compared with 0.37 with FUSE (p=0.044), with or without chromoendoscopy.[9]

Other advanced imaging techniques such as confocal laser endomicroscopy, although more accurate in providing in vivo diagnosis of dysplasia, have limited applicability for ulcerative colitis surveillance.[18] Even without the use of these limited technologies, high-definition WLE with or without NBI or dye-spray chromoendoscopy may identify visible dysplasia without relying on random biopsies.

The European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation recommends that surveillance colonoscopy should take into account local expertise.[18] Chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies has been shown to increase dysplasia detection rate. Alternatively, random biopsies (quadrantic biopsies every 10 cm) and targeted biopsies of any visible lesion should be performed if WLE is used. High-definition endoscopy should be used if available.[19]

Back to top

Targeted versus random biopsies[edit source]

Targeted biopsies have been shown to be non-inferior to random biopsies.[20] In a tandem colonoscopy study using FUSE, the dysplasia yield of random colonic biopsies was only 0.3% (95% CI 0.0–0.7, n=2/687 biopsies) with no additional unique subjects identified, versus 16.0% (95% CI 10.3–21.6, n=26/163) for targeted biopsies (p<0.0001).[9] Chromoendoscopy therefore increases the yield of dysplasia compared with WLE. However, chromoendoscopy increases the duration of colonoscopy by a mean of 11 minutes.[10]

Random biopsies may identify invisible dysplasia missed by high-definition colonoscopy and chromoendoscopy. Random biopsies are still recommended in patients at high risk of invisible dysplasia, i.e. those with previous colorectal dysplasia, primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) or a tubular colon.[20]

Back to top

Evidence[edit source]

What are the recommended surveillance strategies for surveillance in IBD patients? (SUR3)

Systematic review evidence[edit source]

A total of 24 studies reported IBD cohorts with varying clinical manifestations (including UC, Crohn’s disease and undefined colitis with and without PSC) in relation to surveillance endoscopy technologies for the detection of colonic neoplasia (including dysplasia, or intraepithelial neoplasia).[13][21][22][15][23][24][25][26][11][27][9][28][29][30][31][20][32][16][33][34][35][36][37][19] Seventeen studies were level II evidence[13][22][15][23][25][26][11][27][9][29][30][32][16][34][36][37][19] and six studies were level III-2 evidence.[35][31][21][28][33][20][24] Two studies were at high-risk of bias,[24][28] one study was at moderate risk of bias,[20] six studies were at low risk of bias,[9][25][36][31][33][35] seven studies were at risk of bias,[21][22][15][29][26][34][37] and eight studies had unclear risk of bias.[13][23][11][27][30][32][16][19]

Back to top

Neoplasia detection rate[edit source]

Chromoendoscopy versus narrow-band imaging[edit source]

Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported neoplasia detection rates comparing those in whom chromoendoscopy surveillance was used with those in whom NBI was used. In a study by Bisschops et al (2012)[13] with 68 patients, no significant difference was reported for neoplasia detection in chromoendoscopy versus NBI per patient (0.919) or per lesion (p=0.225) analysis. Pellisé et al (2011)[16] reported no significant difference in the detection of suspicious lesions, on a per-patient (p=0.43) or per-lesion (p=0.644) basis. Watanabe et al (2016)[19] reported identical detection rates (2.3%) for high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or cancer in a trial in 263 patients.

High-definition endoscopy versus standard-definition endoscopy[edit source]

A single study comparing high-definition endoscopy with standard-definition endoscopy reported no significant difference (p=0.50) for the detection of HGD or cancer in a cohort of 369 patients[35]

Chromoendoscopy versus white-light endoscopy[edit source]

Neoplasia detection was reported in a cohort of 236 comparing chromoendoscopy with WLE.[31] This study reported no significant difference between chromoendoscopy and WLE on per-patient (p=1.0) or per-procedure analysis (p=0.80).[31]

Narrow-band imaging versus high-definition endoscopy[edit source]

Only one cohort study (of 48 patients) reported neoplasia detection comparing NBI to high-definition WLE. On per-lesion analysis, NBI detected a significantly greater proportion of lesions than high-definition endoscopy (p<0.001). The same significant difference was not seen (p=1.0) for per-patient analysis.[36]

Back to top

Neoplasia detection diagnostic accuracy[edit source]

Iacucci et al (2016)[26] reported on the diagnostic accuracy of various modalities for neoplasia detection in a cohort of 75 patients. With a reported detection rate of 28%, high-definition endoscopy had a sensitivity of 93.6% and a specificity of 85%. With a reported detection rate of 22.6%, high-definition dye-chromoendoscopy had a sensitivity of 86.6% and a specificity of 89.6%. With a reported detection rate of 17.3%, high-definition virtual chromoendoscopy had a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 73.3%.

Back to top

Dysplasia detection rate[edit source]

Several studies compared two imaging technologies, and found no significant difference in dysplasia detection rates. These included chromoendoscopy versus NBI,[15] high-definition endoscopy versus standard-definition endoscopy,[21] NBI versus WLE,[11] and WLE versus NBI.[27]

Chromoendoscopy versus white-light endoscopy[edit source]

Three studies reported dysplasia detection using chromoendoscopy compared with WLE. Marion et al (2016)[28] compared chromoendoscopy-targeted biopsies with either WLE-targeted, or random biopsies in a cohort of 68 patients. Chromoendoscopy-targeted biopsy detected significant greater dysplasia than random biopsies (p<0.001) or WLE-targeted biopsies (p=0.001) while WLE-targeted biopsies were no better than random biopsies (p = 0.054). Picco et al (2013)[33] did not report statistical analysis of the differences in HGD and low-grade dysplasia detection rates with chromoendoscopy and WLE in a cohort of 75 patients. Rates of dysplasia detection were similar for targeted WLE biopsies and targeted chromoendoscopy biopsies.[33] In a large cohort of 1000 IBD patients undergoing more than 35,000 biopsies. Moussata et al (2017)[29] reported that the dysplasia detection rate was almost 14 times greater with chromoendoscopy-targeted biopsy than with random biopsy.

High-definition chromoendoscopy versus high-definition white-light endoscopy[edit source]

Two RCTs reported dysplasia detection comparing high-definition chromoendoscopy with high-definition WLE. Mohammed et al (2015)[30] (n=103) reported that the rate of dysplasia detection per patient was significantly (p=0.04) greater with chromoendoscopy than WLE. Park et al (2015)[32] reported no difference in rates of colitis-associated dysplastic lesions or sporadic adenoma in a trial of 210 participants using the same endoscopy methods.

High-definition forward-viewing colonoscopy versus FUSE[edit source]

Leong et al (2017)[9] reported the dysplasia detection miss rate in a crossover RCT in 52 patients with IBD undergoing surveillance for neoplasia. Conventional high-definition forward-viewing colonoscopy missed 71.4% of dysplastic lesions on per lesion analysis, whereas FUSE missed 25.0% per lesion (p<0.0001). Forward-viewing colonoscopy missed 75.0% of dysplastic lesions per subject and FUSE missed 25.0% per subject (p=0.046).[9]

Intraepithelial neoplasia detection rate[edit source]

White-light endoscopy[edit source]

Hlavaty et al (2011)[25] reported intraepithelial neoplasia detection in a diagnostic accuracy study of 45 participants. Combining WLE and chromoendoscopy significantly improved the detection of intraepithelial neoplasia in per-patients analysis (p=0.002), compared to random biopsies only. White light endoscopy alone was superior to random biopsies (p=0.04). All other analyses show no significant difference. Günther et al (2011)[24] reported a significant difference (p<0.05) in the rate of detection of flat polypoid lesions (with high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia) in 4819 biopsies taken in 150 participants by confocal endomicroscopy-guided targeted biopsies, compared with either chromoendoscopy or high-definition WLE-guided random biopsies.

Freire et al (2014)[23] reported no significant differences in the rate of intraepithelial neoplasia detection between chromoendoscopy and WLE in an RCT with 162 participants.

Back to top

Diagnostic accuracy studies[edit source]

Chromoendoscopy[edit source]

Wanders et al (2017)[37] reported the diagnostic accuracy of chromoendoscopy for dysplasia detection in a cohort of 61 patients. With a reported detection rate of 9.8%, this technique had a sensitivity of 28.6% and a specificity of 86.4%.

Confocal laser endomicroscopy[edit source]

Rispo et al (2012)[34] reported the diagnostic accuracy of confocal laser endomicroscopy for dysplasia detection in a cohort of 51 patients. With a reported detection rate of 27%, confocal laser endomicroscopy had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 90%.

Wanders et al (2017)[37] also reported the diagnostic accuracy of integrated confocal laser endomicroscopy combined with chromoendoscopy for dysplasia detection in a cohort of 61 patients. With a reported detection rate of 9.8%, these combined techniques had a sensitivity of 42.9% and a specificity of 92.5%.

Dlugosz et al (2016)[22] reported the diagnostic accuracy of probe-based confocal laser endoscopy for dysplasia detection in a cohort of 644 patients. With a reported detection rate of 3.0%, probe-based confocal laser endoscopy had a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 96%.[22]

High-definition endoscopy[edit source]

The Dlugosz et al study[22] also reported the diagnostic accuracy of high definition endoscopy for dysplasia detection in a cohort of 644 patients. With a reported detection rate of 3.0%, high-definition endoscopy had a sensitivity of 68%, but a specificity of 97%.[22]

White-light endoscopy[edit source]

Matsumoto et al (2010)[29] reported the diagnostic accuracy of WLE for dysplasia detection in a cohort of 48 patients. With a reported detection rate of 8.3%, WLE had a sensitivity of 78.6% and a specificity of 78.6%.[29]

Autofluorescence imaging[edit source]

The Matsumoto study[29] also reported the diagnostic accuracy for autofluorescence imaging for dysplasia detection in a cohort of 48 patients. With a reported detection rate of 8.3%, autofluorescence imaging had a sensitivity of 100%, but a specificity of only 18.2%.[29]

Back to top

Evidence summary and recommendations[edit source]

Evidence summary Level References
Current evidence continues to demonstrate the superiority of chromoendoscopy in the detection of dysplasia in patients with IBD. II, III-2 [6], [20], [30]
Targeted biopsies are non-inferior to random biopsies in dysplasia detection.

Invisible dysplasia is defined by histological dysplasia identified by random biopsies and not seen either by white light endoscopy or chromoendoscopy. Patients with both IBD and PSC, prior dysplasia, or intestinal damage (stricture, colonic foreshortening) have an increased risk of invisible dysplasia found on random biopsies.

II, III-2 [25], [20]
Evidence-based recommendationQuestion mark transparent.png Grade
Chromoendoscopy should be incorporated into surveillance procedures, especially in high-risk patients. 		A
Evidence-based recommendationQuestion mark transparent.png Grade
Taking targeted, rather than random, biopsies is the recommended method of identifying dysplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. 		B
Evidence-based recommendationQuestion mark transparent.png Grade
Random biopsies are recommended in IBD patients with PSC, prior dysplasia, and intestinal damage (colonic stricture or foreshortening). 		C
Evidence-based recommendationQuestion mark transparent.png Grade
Standard-definition colonoscopy is not recommended for surveillance procedures, especially in the absence of chromoendoscopy 		B



Consensus-based recommendationQuestion mark transparent.png

Proceduralists performing surveillance colonoscopy in patients with IBD should be familiar with and adhere to surveillance guidelines.


Practice pointQuestion mark transparent.png

IBD surveillance requires high-quality colonoscopy:

  • performing the colonoscopy when the patient is in clinical and endoscopic remission
  • excellent bowel preparation
  • the use of high-definition colonoscopes
  • ensuring optimal and full visualisation of the mucosal surface during slow withdrawal.


Practice pointQuestion mark transparent.png

Dye spray chromoendoscopy can be applied with a spray catheter or by incorporating dye in the reservoir of the water pump.


Practice pointQuestion mark transparent.png

Either methylene blue or indigo carmine is an appropriate dye for chromoendoscopy.


Practice pointQuestion mark transparent.png

Upon identification of invisible dysplasia on random biopsies, confirmation of diagnosis and grade is required by at least two GI pathologists. Chromoendoscopy is then recommended to determine if there is multifocal dysplasia.

Back to top

Considerations in making these recommendations[edit source]

Emerging evidence, suggests that digital non-dye-based chromoendoscopy in combination with high definition imaging may replace dye-based chromoendoscopy in expert IBD surveillance centres and be able to reduce overall colonoscopy duration.

Unresolved issues[edit source]

The optimal withdrawal time for dye-spray and non-dye digital chromoendoscopy has not been identified.

Whether non-NBI non-dye digital chromoendoscopy provided by other endoscope companies provides similar benefits as NBI remains unknown.

Back to top

References[edit source]

  1. ↑ Leong RW, Perry J, Campbell B, Koo J, Turner IB, Corte C, et al. Knowledge and predictors of dysplasia surveillance performance in inflammatory bowel diseases in Australia. Gastrointest Endosc 2015 Oct;82(4):708-714.e4 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26007222.
  2. ↑ Rosenstock E, Farmer RG, Petras R, Sivak MV Jr, Rankin GB, Sullivan BH. Surveillance for colonic carcinoma in ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 1985 Dec;89(6):1342-6 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4054527.
  3. ↑ Rutter M, Bernstein C, Matsumoto T, Kiesslich R, Neurath M. Endoscopic appearance of dysplasia in ulcerative colitis and the role of staining. Endoscopy 2004 Dec;36(12):1109-14 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15578305.
  4. ↑ Leong RW, Butcher RO, Picco MF. Implementation of image-enhanced endoscopy into solo and group practices for dysplasia detection in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2014 Jul;24(3):419-25 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24975532.
  5. ↑ Wu L, Li P, Wu J, Cao Y, Gao F. The diagnostic accuracy of chromoendoscopy for dysplasia in ulcerative colitis: meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials. Colorectal Dis 2012 Apr;14(4):416-20 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21073646.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Marion JF, Waye JD, Present DH, Israel Y, Bodian C, Harpaz N, et al. Chromoendoscopy-targeted biopsies are superior to standard colonoscopic surveillance for detecting dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease patients: a prospective endoscopic trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2008 Sep;103(9):2342-9 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18844620.
  7. ↑ Kiesslich R, Fritsch J, Holtmann M, Koehler HH, Stolte M, Kanzler S, et al. Methylene blue-aided chromoendoscopy for the detection of intraepithelial neoplasia and colon cancer in ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 2003 Apr;124(4):880-8 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12671882.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Subramanian V, Mannath J, Ragunath K, Hawkey CJ. Meta-analysis: the diagnostic yield of chromoendoscopy for detecting dysplasia in patients with colonic inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011 Feb;33(3):304-12 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21128987.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 Leong RW, Ooi M, Corte C, Yau Y, Kermeen M, Katelaris PH, et al. Full-Spectrum Endoscopy Improves Surveillance for Dysplasia in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. Gastroenterology 2017 May;152(6):1337-1344.e3 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28126349.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Laine L, Kaltenbach T, Barkun A, McQuaid KR, Subramanian V, Soetikno R, et al. SCENIC international consensus statement on surveillance and management of dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 2015 Mar;148(3):639-651.e28 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25702852.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 Ignjatovic A, East JE, Subramanian V, Suzuki N, Guenther T, Palmer N, et al. Narrow band imaging for detection of dysplasia in colitis: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2012 Jun;107(6):885-90 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22613903.
  12. ↑ van den Broek FJ, Fockens P, van Eeden S, Stokkers PC, Ponsioen CY, Reitsma JB, et al. Narrow-band imaging versus high-definition endoscopy for the diagnosis of neoplasia in ulcerative colitis. Endoscopy 2011 Feb;43(2):108-15 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21165822.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 Bisschops R, Bessissow T, Joseph JA, Baert F, Ferrante M, Ballet V, et al. Chromoendoscopy versus narrow band imaging in UC: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Gut 2017 Jul 11 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28698230.
  14. ↑ Feitosa F, Carlos A, Guilherme NJ, et al.. Narrow-band imaging and chromoendoscopy for the detection of colonic dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease: a prospective and randomized study. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2011;17:S14–S15.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 Efthymiou M, Allen PB, Taylor AC, Desmond PV, Jayasakera C, De Cruz P, et al. Chromoendoscopy versus narrow band imaging for colonic surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2013 Sep;19(10):2132-8 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23899540.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 Pellisé M, López-Cerón M, Rodríguez de Miguel C, Jimeno M, Zabalza M, Ricart E, et al. Narrow-band imaging as an alternative to chromoendoscopy for the detection of dysplasia in long-standing inflammatory bowel disease: a prospective, randomized, crossover study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011 Oct;74(4):840-8 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21802681.
  17. ↑ Bisschops R, Bessissow T, Dekker E, East JE, Para-Blanco A, Ragunath K, et al. Pit pattern analysis with high-definition chromoendoscopy and narrow-band imaging for optical diagnosis of dysplasia in patients with ulcerative colitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2017 Dec;86(6):1100-1106.e1 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28986266.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Magro F, Gionchetti P, Eliakim R, Ardizzone S, Armuzzi A, Barreiro-de Acosta M, et al. Third European Evidence-based Consensus on Diagnosis and Management of Ulcerative Colitis. Part 1: Definitions, Diagnosis, Extra-intestinal Manifestations, Pregnancy, Cancer Surveillance, Surgery, and Ileo-anal Pouch Disorders. J Crohns Colitis 2017 Jun 1;11(6):649-670 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28158501.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 Watanabe T, Ajioka Y, Mitsuyama K, Watanabe K, Hanai H, Nakase H, et al. Comparison of Targeted vs Random Biopsies for Surveillance of Ulcerative Colitis-Associated Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2016 Dec;151(6):1122-1130 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27523980.
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 Moussata D, Allez M, Cazals-Hatem D, Treton X, Laharie D, Reimund JM, et al. Are random biopsies still useful for the detection of neoplasia in patients with IBD undergoing surveillance colonoscopy with chromoendoscopy? Gut 2017 Jan 23 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28115492.
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 Carballal S, Maisterra S, López-Serrano A, Gimeno-García AZ, Vera MI, Marín-Garbriel JC, et al. Real-life chromoendoscopy for neoplasia detection and characterisation in long-standing IBD. Gut 2016 Sep 9 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27612488.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.6 Dlugosz A, Barakat AM, Björkström NK, Öst Å, Bergquist A. Diagnostic yield of endomicroscopy for dysplasia in primary sclerosing cholangitis associated inflammatory bowel disease: a feasibility study. Endosc Int Open 2016 Aug;4(8):E901-11 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27540581.
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 Freire P, Figueiredo P, Cardoso R, Donato MM, Ferreira M, Mendes S, et al. Surveillance in ulcerative colitis: is chromoendoscopy-guided endomicroscopy always better than conventional colonoscopy? A randomized trial. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2014 Nov;20(11):2038-45 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25185683.
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 Günther U, Kusch D, Heller F, Bürgel N, Leonhardt S, Daum S, et al. Surveillance colonoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: comparison of random biopsy vs. targeted biopsy protocols. Int J Colorectal Dis 2011 May;26(5):667-72 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21279369.
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 Hlavaty T, Huorka M, Koller T, Zita P, Kresanova E, Rychly B, et al. Colorectal cancer screening in patients with ulcerative and Crohn's colitis with use of colonoscopy, chromoendoscopy and confocal endomicroscopy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011 Aug;23(8):680-9 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21602687.
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 26.3 Iacucci M, Gasia MF, Akinola O, Panaccione R, Gui X, Parham M. Final Results of a Randomized Study Comparing High Definition Colonoscopy Alone With High Definition Dye Spraying and Electronic Virtual Chromoendoscopy Using iSCAN for Detection of Colonic Neoplastic Lesions During IBD Surveillance Colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2016 Apr;150(4):Suppl 1, S129 Available from: http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(16)30538-8/abstract.
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 Leifeld L, Rogler G, Stallmach A, Schmidt C, Zuber-Jerger I, Hartmann F, et al. White-Light or Narrow-Band Imaging Colonoscopy in Surveillance of Ulcerative Colitis: A Prospective Multicenter Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015 Oct;13(10):1776-1781.e1 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25952309.
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 28.3 Marion JF, Waye JD, Israel Y, Present DH, Suprun M, Bodian C, et al. Chromoendoscopy Is More Effective Than Standard Colonoscopy in Detecting Dysplasia During Long-term Surveillance of Patients With Colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016 May;14(5):713-9 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26656297.
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.5 29.6 29.7 Matsumoto T, Nakamura S, Moriyama T, Hirahashi M, Iida M. Autofluorescence imaging colonoscopy for the detection of dysplastic lesions in ulcerative colitis: a pilot study. Colorectal Dis 2010 Oct;12(10 Online):e291-7 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20041914.
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 30.2 30.3 30.4 Mohammed N, Kant P, Abid F, Rotimi O, Prasad P, Hamlin JP. High Definition White Light Endoscopy (HDWLE) Versus High Definition With Chromoendoscopy (HDCE) in the Detection of Dysplasia in Long Standing Ulcerative Colitis: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2015 May;81(5): Suppl, AB148 Available from: http://www.giejournal.org/article/S0016-5107(15)01460-1/abstract.
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4 Mooiweer E, van der Meulen-de Jong AE, Ponsioen CY, Fidder HH, Siersema PD, Dekker E, et al. Chromoendoscopy for Surveillance in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Does Not Increase Neoplasia Detection Compared With Conventional Colonoscopy With Random Biopsies: Results From a Large Retrospective Study. Am J Gastroenterol 2015 Jul;110(7):1014-21 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25823770.
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 32.2 32.3 Park SJ , Kim HS, Yang DH, Park YS, Park D, Lee KM. High Definition Chromoendoscopy With Water-Jet Versus High Definition White Light Endoscopy in the Detection of Dysplasia in Long Standing Ulcerative Colitis: A Multicenter Prospective Randomized Controlled Study. Gastroenterology 2016 Apr;150(4, Suppl 1): S1270 Available from: http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(16)34290-1/abstract.
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 33.4 Picco MF, Pasha S, Leighton JA, Bruining D, Loftus EV Jr, Thomas CS, et al. Procedure time and the determination of polypoid abnormalities with experience: implementation of a chromoendoscopy program for surveillance colonoscopy for ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2013 Aug;19(9):1913-20 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23811635.
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 34.2 34.3 Rispo A, Castiglione F, Staibano S, Esposito D, Maione F, Siano M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of confocal laser endomicroscopy in diagnosing dysplasia in patients affected by long-standing ulcerative colitis. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2012 Sep 16;4(9):414-20 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23125900.
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 35.2 35.3 Subramanian V, Ramappa V, Telakis E, Mannath J, Jawhari AU, Hawkey CJ, et al. Comparison of high definition with standard white light endoscopy for detection of dysplastic lesions during surveillance colonoscopy in patients with colonic inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2013 Feb;19(2):350-5 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22552948.
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 36.3 van den Broek FJ, Fockens P, Dekker E. Review article: New developments in colonic imaging. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007 Dec;26 Suppl 2:91-9 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18081653.
  37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 37.2 37.3 37.4 Wanders LK, Kuiper T, Kiesslich R, Karstensen JG, Leong RW, Dekker E, et al. Limited applicability of chromoendoscopy-guided confocal laser endomicroscopy as daily-practice surveillance strategy in Crohn's disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2016 May;83(5):966-71 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26358329.

Back to top

Appendices[edit source]

Jutta's magnifying glass icon.png PICO question SUR3 View Evidence statement form SUR3 Evidence statement form SUR3 View Systematic review report SUR3 Systematic review report SUR3

Back to top

A measure that quantifies the uncertainty in measurement. When reported as 95% CI, it is the range of values within which we can be 95% sure that the true value for the whole population lies.

An endoscopy procedure that uses a specialised endoscope capable of visualising the mucosal layer of the colon at very high magnification.

An endoscopy procedure that uses a specialised endoscope capable of visualising the mucosal layer of the colon at very high magnification.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australiawiki/index.php?title=Clinical_question:What_is_the_recommended_technique_for_surveillance_in_IBD_patients%3F&oldid=200683"