CClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT06333392Updated Sep 4, 2026

Total Underwater Colonoscopy (TUC) for Improved Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Controlled Trial

An interventional study of Total underwater colonoscopy and Conventional colonoscopy in Colorectal Neoplasia, Screening Colonoscopy and Colorectal Cancer, sponsored by Vestre Viken Hospital Trust. Recruiting at 5 sites in 2 countries. Open to participants aged 55 Years to 60 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-04.

Sponsored by Vestre Viken Hospital Trust · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
1,070
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
55 Years to 60 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Colorectal cancer (CRC), the third most diagnosed cancer and second most common cause of cancer death. CRCs develop from precursors like adenomas (about 70% of CRCs) or serrated lesions (SSLs) (about 25-30% of CRCs). Colonoscopy is the cornerstone in CRC screening, in screening programmes often as a work-up examination after a positive primary screening test such as faecal immunochemical test (FIT). Norway and Sweden have recently launched a nationwide faecal haemoglobin CRC screening programmes. Recently, both a Dutch and an Austrian study showed that SSL detection rate (SSLDR) is inversely correlated to CRC at follow-up. Consequently, improved SSLDR can reduce the risk of post-colonoscopy CRC. SSLs are typically located in the right colon. They are flat, with indistinctive boarders, and consequently easily missed or incompletely resected. A Norwegian study showed incomplete resection of 40% of proximal SSLs. The prevalence of SSLs is higher in women than in men, with women being on a threefold risk of developing CRC from SSLs. It seems like post-colonoscopy CRC more often is caused by SSLs than by adenomas. Total underwater colonoscopy (TUC) is a technique replacing conventional CO2 insufflation by water infusion to distend the lumen and visualise the mucosa during withdrawal of the colonoscope and simultaneously removal of water. There are several reasons to advocate TUC:

  1. SSLs will be more visible as they "float" on the submucosa and contract into the lumen, while full distension by gas stretches the mucosa, making detection of flat lesions more difficult.
  2. Water works like a magnifying lens, making detection and detailed characterisation of lesions easier.
  3. uEMR is eased.
  4. Improved bowel cleansing

The goal of this clinical trial is to compare colonoscopy outcomes for standard gas (CO2) insufflation and TUC during withdrawal in patients participating in colonoscopy in the Norwegian and Swedish colorectal cancer screening programme after a positive fecal immunochemical test.

The overarching research questions of the present trial is whether colonoscopy outcomes are improved when CO2 insufflation is replaced by TUC during withdrawal and whether the new technique reduces the ecological footprint of the colonoscopy examination.

The project has five main hypotheses:

  1. TUC is superior to the standard approach (CO2 withdrawal) regarding detection of proximal SSLs.
  2. TUC increases the rate of complete resection of lesions >= 10mm.
  3. TUC reduces the rate of painful colonoscopies and vasovagal reactions.
  4. TUC reduces the health care costs by reduced use of single use accessories and reduced number of redundant colonoscopies to obtain polypfree colon.
  5. TUC reduces the carbon footprint by reduced use of single use accessories.

If TUC is superior to gas insufflation, the technique may be implemented rapidly since the technique is easy to learn. This study will increase endoscopy competence at participating centres. The centres are involved in national colonoscopy training programs, so the technique will quickly be passed on to other hospitals and screening centres.

The trial can be linked to three of the Global Goals:

  • Good health and well-being: The increased detection and improved complete removal of sessile serrated lesions can subsequently decrease the risk of CRC and CRC mortality during follow-up. TUC will probably reduce the rate of painful procedures and vasovagal reactions and thus increase the acceptance of a screening programme. Consequently, the project can contribute significantly to improve screening effectiveness in Norway and Sweden, particularly in women (women have a higher risk for SSLs and a higher risk of colorectal cancer developing from this type of precursor).
  • Gender equality: Women have a similar lifetime risk for CRC as men but less benefit of screening regardless of whether they are screened by sigmoidoscopy, FIT or colonoscopy. The reason is probably missed sessile serrated lesions in the proximal colon. If TUC improves SSLDR and complete lesion resection, this may lead to an equal benefit from CRC screening for women and men. Women have also a higher risk of discomfort and pain during colonoscopy than men. It has been shown that women prefer non-invasive screening modalities, potentially to avoid pain during colonoscopy, even if colonoscopy may be the most beneficial screening method for women. If TUC reduces the rate of painful colonoscopies, it can reduce women's barriers to attend screening.
  • Responsible consumption and production: The TUC technique will also reduce the ecological footprint of colonoscopy activity due to reduced consumption of single use accessories and reduced number of colonoscopies to achieve polyp free colon. Furthermore, the cost for the health care system will be substantially reduced.
02

Conditions studied

  • Colorectal Neoplasia
  • Screening Colonoscopy
  • Colorectal Cancer
  • Colorectal Cancer Screening
  • Vasovagal Reaction

Keywords

  • colorectal cancer screening
  • screening colonoscopy
  • underwater colonoscopy
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
55 Years to 60 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • All individuals referred to colonoscopy after a positive FIT screening at the participating screening centres

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Individuals with a CRC diagnosis within the last 10 years.
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
1,070 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Conventional colonoscopy (CO2) group

    this groups receives conventional colonoscopy with CO2 withdrawal

    Procedure: Conventional colonoscopy

  • Experimental
    Total underwater colonoscopy (TUC) group

    This group receives total underwater colonoscopy

    Procedure: Total underwater colonoscopy

Interventions

  • ProcedureTotal underwater colonoscopy

    one grooup will be randomized to receive a total underwater colonoscopy

  • ProcedureConventional colonoscopy

    one group will be randomized to undergo a conventional colonoscopy with CO2 withdrawal

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Proximal sessile serrated lesion detection rate

    The proportion of colonoscopies where at least one proximal SSL is detected

    Time frame: when histopathology report is clear, about 4 weeks after colonoscopy

Secondary outcomes

  1. Complete resection rate for lesions > 10mm

    see above

    Time frame: 4 weeks after colonoscopy

  2. Rate of painful procedures and vasovagal reactions

    se above

    Time frame: during and immediately after colonoscopy

  3. Leakage after colonoscopy

    water leakage on the way home after colonoscopy

    Time frame: Questionnaire 1-7 days after colonoscopy

  4. Detection rate for other neoplasia than SSL

    see above

    Time frame: about 4 weeks after colonoscopy

  5. Withdrawal time

    see above

    Time frame: immediately after colonoscopy

  6. Total procedure time

    see above

    Time frame: immediately after colonoscopy

  7. Bowel cleansing quality

    with help of BBPS

    Time frame: immediately after colonoscopy

  8. Complications

    Significant bleedings and perforations

    Time frame: within 30 days after colonoscopy

  9. Number of colonoscopies to achieve polyp free colon

    see above

    Time frame: after last colonoscopy per patient

  10. Single use accessories for the procedure

    number of single use accesoires per colonoscopy

    Time frame: immediately after colonoscopy

  11. Willingness to repeat colonoscopy

    Willingness to repeat colonoscopy the same way if new colonoscopy is necessary

    Time frame: questionnaire 1-2 weeks after colonoscopy

06

Study locations

5 of 5 sites recruiting
  • Vestre Viken Health Trust, Bærum Hospital
    Drammen, 3004, Norway
    • Anna Lisa Schult, MD PhD · Contact · anschu@vestreviken.no · 0047413930003
    • Stine Hvattum, MD · Contact
    Recruiting
  • Østfold Hospital Health Trust
    Grålum, 1714, Norway
    Recruiting
  • Akershus University Hospital Health Trust
    Lørenskog, 1478, Norway
    Recruiting
  • Ullevål University Hospital Health Trust
    Oslo, 0424, Norway
    Recruiting
  • Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden, Department of Medicine, Geriatrics and Emergency Care Mölndal
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Recruiting
07

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes

Supporting information: Study protocol, Sap

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06333392
Lead sponsor
Vestre Viken Hospital Trust
Collaborators
Ullevaal University Hospital, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Ostfold Hospital Trust, University Hospital, Akershus
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Mar 27, 2024
Start date
Oct 23, 2024
Primary completion
Dec 2026 (estimated)
Completion
Jun 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Sep 4, 2026

Study contacts

Anna Lisa Schult, MD, PhD
Contact
anschu@vestreviken.no
+47 67 80 94 00
Thomas de Lange, MD, associate prof
Contact
thomas.de.lange@gu.se

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion