You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 66, Issue 7
  • Response to: ‘Full-spectrum (FUSE) versus standard forward-viewing colonoscopy in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme’ by Hassan et al

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Response to: ‘Full-spectrum (FUSE) versus standard forward-viewing colonoscopy in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme’ by Hassan et al
  1. Benjamin Nulsen1,
  2. Blair Lewis2,3
  1. 1 Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
  2. 2 Henry D. Janowitz Division of Gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
  3. 3 Carnegie Hill Endoscopy, New York, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Benjamin Nulsen, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1118, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA; Benjamin.Nulsen{at}mssm.edu

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2016-313117

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We read with great interest the recently published study by Hassan et al,1 in which the authors randomised 658 faecal immunochemical test-positive patients in Italy to full-spectrum endoscopy (Fuse) or standard forward-viewing endoscopy (SFV). The authors did not identify a difference between Fuse and SFV in several endpoints, including adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (A-ADR) and mean number of adenomas and proximal adenomas per colonoscopy. These results were surprising given the significantly lower adenoma miss rate (AMR) with Fuse as compared with SFV (7% vs41%) in a previous multicenter, …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors BN drafted the letter and BL edited the letter and approved the final submitted version.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.