Comparing two optical technologies when screening for bowel cancer: a trial from several UK hospitals

A randomised controlled trial to compare two optical technologies in colorectal cancer screening: a multi-site evaluation

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

ISRCTN

Registry ID

ISRCTN64724266

Enrollment

340

Registered

2018-10-16

Start date

2012-05-01

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2019-08-26

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Colorectal cancer and polyps Cancer Colorectal cancer and polyps

Interventions

For randomisation, every potential participant was consecutively allocated to the next available slot during the BCS pre-assessment pathway. Each study site had both Olympus Lucera and Pentax HiLine c

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Positive faecal occult blood test 2. Scheduled to undergo first (index) colonoscopy as part of the National BCS program 3. Undergoing colonoscopy at any one of: 3.1. University College Hospital (London) 3.2. University Hospital Llandough (Cardiff) 3.3. Bradford Hospital (Bradford) 4. Aged 18 years or older

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Contraindications to colonoscopy 2. Follow-up (surveillance) patients

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
The following were measured as categorical variables with two outcomes (yes/no) and reported as a percentage. These were assessed using a review of histopathology reports, endoscopy images and endoscopy reports at the baseline (after the colonoscopy): 1. Total polyp detection rate (PDR) 2. Adenoma detection rate (ADR)	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
The following were assessed through a review of endoscopy images, endoscopy reports and patient notes (unless otherwise stated) at the baseline (after the colonoscopy): 1. Caecal intubation time, measured in minutes 2. Caecal intubation rate, measured as a categorical variable with two outcomes (yes/no) and reported as a percentage 3. Total procedure time, measured in minutes 4. Withdrawal time, measured in minutes 5. Patient comfort scores, measured with a Global Rating Scale with a score of 1 indicating "no discomfort" and a score of 5 indicating "severe discomfort" 6. Sedation used, measured through recording medication used and the dose given (percentages of each medication and mean dose with standard deviation were calculated) 7. Polyp retrieval rate, measured as a categorical variable with two outcomes (yes/no) and reported as a percentage 8. Immediate/late complications, measured as a percentage for each complication 9. Endoscopists’ comments on procedural difficulty, recorded with free text by the endoscopist	—

Measure

Time frame

The following were assessed through a review of endoscopy images, endoscopy reports and patient notes (unless otherwise stated) at the baseline (after the colonoscopy): 1. Caecal intubation time, measured in minutes 2. Caecal intubation rate, measured as a categorical variable with two outcomes (yes/no) and reported as a percentage 3. Total procedure time, measured in minutes 4. Withdrawal time, measured in minutes 5. Patient comfort scores, measured with a Global Rating Scale with a score of 1 indicating "no discomfort" and a score of 5 indicating "severe discomfort" 6. Sedation used, measured through recording medication used and the dose given (percentages of each medication and mean dose with standard deviation were calculated) 7. Polyp retrieval rate, measured as a categorical variable with two outcomes (yes/no) and reported as a percentage 8. Immediate/late complications, measured as a percentage for each complication 9. Endoscopists’ comments on procedural difficulty, recorded with free text by the endoscopist

—

Countries

United Kingdom

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026