Colon capsule versus CT colonography in patients with incomplete colonoscopy: a prospective, comparative trial

Capsule endoscopy vs. colonoscopy vs. histopathology in colorectal cancer screening: matched analyses of polyp size, morphology, and location estimates

PURPOSE

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is considered a potential alternative to optical colonoscopy (OC) for colorectal cancer screening. However, the accuracy of CCE in polyp size and morphology estimation is unknown.

METHODS

A fully paired study was performed (2015-2016), where 255 participants from the Danish national screening program had CCE, OC, and histopathology (HP) of all detected polyps. We developed a new algorithm to match CCE and OC polyps, based on objective measures of similarity between polyps. We performed paired comparisons of size, morphology and location of CCE, and OC- and HP-matched polyps. We used cross-validation to develop a model able to predict HP polyp size, based on CCE.

RESULTS

CCE overestimated size assessed by HP (by 4.3 mm; 95%CI 3.3-5.2 mm) and OC (by 2.7 mm; 95%CI 1.4-3.9 mm). Polyps were more likely to being assessed as "pedunculated" and less likely to being assessed as "flat" in CCE, compared to OC (p < 0.0001). Our model could predict HP polyp size ≥ 6 mm, solely using CCE-assessed size, location, and morphology as model inputs, with a sensitivity = 0.93 (95%CI 0.66-1.00) and specificity = 0.50 (95%CI 0.32-0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

If CCE is to be used as a screening test, it is essential: (1) to translate CCE polyp estimations into histopathologic polyp sizes and (2) to consider that, compared to OC, CCE has a higher tendency to assess polyps as pedunculated and a lower tendency to assess them as flat.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov No. NCT02303756.

Development of a computed cleansing score to assess quality of bowel preparation in colon capsule endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) does not possess an objective and reliable scoring system to assess the quality of visualization of the colon mucosa. The aim of this study was to establish a colonic computed assessment of cleansing (CAC) score able to discriminate "adequately cleansed" from "inadequately cleansed" CCE still frames.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twelve normal and complete CCEs, using the Pillcam Colon 2 system (Medtronic, Minnesota, United States), were prospectively selected amongst a database. A CAC score, defined as the ratio of color intensities red over green (R/G ratio), and red over brown (R/(R + G) ratio) was calculated for each extracted colonic frame. After sorting and random selection, two sets of still frames representative of the range of these ratios were obtained. These images were analyzed twice in random order by two experienced CCE readers who were blinded to the CAC scores. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was forged for both types of ratios and a threshold established, yielding the highest diagnostic performance in terms of adequate cleansing assessment.

RESULTS

Four-hundred-and-eight frames were extracted. Regarding the R/G ratio, a threshold value of 1.55 was calculated, with a sensitivity of 86.5 % and a specificity of 77.7 %. Regarding the R/(R + G) ratio, a threshold value of 0.58 was calculated with a sensitivity of 95.5 % and a specificity of 62.9 %.

CONCLUSION

 The two proposed CAC scores based on the ratio of color intensities come with high sensitivities for discriminating between "adequately cleansed" and "inadequately cleansed" CCE still frames, but they lack specificity. Further refinement, with implementation of additional image parameters, is warranted.

Recent Advance in Colon Capsule Endoscopy: What's New?

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a relatively new diagnostic procedure for patients with suspected colonic diseases. This convenient,noninvasive method enables the physician to explore the entire colon without significant discomfort to the patient. However, while CCEcan be performed painlessly without bowel air insufflation, the need for vigorous bowel preparation and other technical limitationsexist. Due to such limitations, CCE has not replaced conventional colonoscopy. In this review, we discuss historical and recentadvances in CCE including technical issues, ideal bowel preparation, indications and contraindications and highlight further technicaladvancements and clinical studies which are needed to develop CCE as a potential diagnostic tool.

Back-to-back colon capsule endoscopy and optical colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening individuals

AIM

The aim was to determine the polyp detection rate and per-patient sensitivity for polyps > 9 mm of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) compared with colonoscopy as well as the diagnostic accuracy of CCE.

METHOD

Individuals who had a positive immunochemical faecal occult blood test during screening had investigator blinded CCE and colonoscopy. Participants underwent repeat endoscopy if significant lesions detected by CCE were considered to have been missed by colonoscopy.

RESULTS

There were 253 participants. The polyp detection rate was significantly higher in CCE compared with colonoscopy (P = 0.02). The per-patient sensitivity for > 9 mm polyps for CCE and colonoscopy was 87% (95% CI: 83-91%) and 88% (95% CI: 84-92%) respectively. In participants with complete CCE and colonoscopy examinations (N = 126), per-patient sensitivity of > 9 mm polyps in CCE (97%; 95% CI: 94-100%) was superior to colonoscopy (89%; 95% CI: 84-94%). A complete capsule endoscopy examination (N = 134) could detect patients with intermediate or greater risk (according to the European guidelines) with an accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positivity rate of 79%, 93%, 69% and 58% respectively, using a cut-off of at least one polyp > 10 mm or more than two polyps.

CONCLUSION

CCE is superior to colonoscopy in polyp detection rate and per-patient sensitivity to > 9 mm polyps, but only in complete CCE examinations. The rate of incomplete CCE examinations must be improved.

Patient tolerance and acceptance of different colonic imaging modalities: an observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Less invasive alternatives to optical colonoscopy (OC) may improve patient compliance with investigation, but study of patient preference is limited.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to determine patient tolerance and acceptability of OC, computed tomography colonography (CTC) and colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and also to determine the choice of investigation made by fully informed members of the lay public.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients assigned a Gloucester Comfort Score (GCS, 1-5; as did endoscopists), an overall test experience score (visual analogue scale, 0-10) and completed a 'Friends and Family Test' following OC, CTC or CCE. In the second part of the study, members of the public were given information detailing the nature, tolerance, acceptability, risks and outcomes and invited to choose which test they would prefer in the event that one was needed.

RESULTS

Assessed by endoscopist and patient, respectively, 24.2 and 49.3% (P<0.005) of symptomatic and 27.3 and 22.1% (P=0.4) of Bowel Cancer Screening Programme patients suffered moderate to severe discomfort (GCS: 4-5) [GCS (mean±SEM): 3.32±0.085, 1.96±0.083 and 1.30±0.088 (P<0.001); overall experience: 5.43, 2.35 and 3.80 (P<0.001)]. In all, 93.6, 96.1 and 85.7% of OC, CTC and CCE patients, respectively, were willing to undergo the same test under the same circumstances. The lay public (n=100) chose a noninvasive test (CTC or CCE) in 55% of the cases to investigate symptoms and chose a Bowel Cancer Screening Programme test in 29% of the cases (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patient tolerance and experience favours CTC and CCE over OC and informed about all aspects of each procedure; a noninvasive option is commonly chosen by the lay public.

Applications of Colon Capsule Endoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This is a review of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) with a focus on its recent developments, technological improvements, and current and potential future indications.

RECENT FINDINGS

Based on the current literature, CCE II demonstrates comparable polyp detection rates as optical colonoscopy and CT colonography, and improved cost-effectiveness. The main limitation to patient acceptance is the requirement of a rigorous bowel preparation. Preliminary studies show good correlation between CCE and optical colonoscopy for assessment of colonic disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). CCE II is currently FDA, approved as an adjunctive test in patients with prior incomplete colonoscopy, and in the evaluation of patients with suspected lower gastrointestinal bleeding. The test is approved in Europe as one of the options for average-risk colorectal cancer screening, and high-risk screening in patients with contraindications or unwilling to undergo colonoscopy. CCE has a potential role in the evaluation and monitoring of colonic disease activity in IBD. Future technological advances should focus on minimizing bowel preparation, improvement in reading times, and development of therapeutic capabilities. • With technological improvements, the second-generation colon capsule has a significantly higher sensitivity than the first-generation capsule for detection of colon polyps. • Colon capsule endoscopy has been approved in Europe as an option for average-risk colorectal cancer screening, and high-risk screening in patients with contraindications or unwilling to undergo colonoscopy. • Colon capsule endoscopy has received FDA approval as an option for colorectal cancer screening in patients with prior incomplete colonoscopy, and in evaluation of patients with suspected lower gastrointestinal bleeding. • Colon capsule endoscopy may have a role in evaluation and monitoring of inflammatory bowel disease. • Colon capsule endoscopy currently requires a bowel preparation that is more rigorous than colonoscopy.

Colon capsule endoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in those with family histories of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has been recognized as an alternative for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk people. Our aim was to prospectively assess the accuracy of CCE as a screening tool in first-degree relatives (FDRs) of people with CRC by using optical colonoscopy (OC) with segmental unblinding as the reference standard.

METHODS

Consecutive patients admitted with a CRC diagnosis (index cases) were prospectively evaluated and invited to contact their FDRs. Available FDRs were invited to undergo CCE and OC on the following day, with segmental unblinding of CCE results. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) of CCE were assessed for detecting patients with any polyp ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm.

RESULTS

A total of 177 FDRs (median age 57.0 years, 54.8% female) identified from 211 index cases were included. Both CCE and OC were completed in all the included FDRs. Overall, CCE identified 51 of 56 FDRs with polyps ≥6 mm (sensitivity 91%; 95% CI, 81-96) and correctly classified as negative 107 of 121 participants without lesions ≥6 mm (specificity 88%; 95% CI, 81-93). Per-patient positive and negative predictive values for ≥6 mm lesions were 78% (95% CI, 67-87) and 95% (95% CI, 90-98), respectively. CCE detected 24 of 27 patients with polyps ≥10 mm and correctly classified as negative 142 of 150 patients, corresponding to 89% sensitivity and 95% specificity. Post-CCE referral rates to colonoscopy were 37% and 18%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

CCE is an accurate method to screen FDRs of patients with CRC and could be offered as an alternative to those who decline or are unfit for colonoscopy screening. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01184781.).

Practical gastrointestinal investigation of iron deficiency anaemia

About 10% of oesophagogastroduodenoscopies (OGDs) and colonoscopies are done for investigation of iron deficiency anemia (IDA) . Much of the existing guidance on investigation of IDA predates CRC screening, which has driven significant improvements in colonoscopy quality and completion rates, as well as a reduction in Helicobacter pylori prevalence and increase in PPI usage, and therefore probably needs re-consideration. New investigations, e.g. CT colonography, enteroscopy and capsule endoscopy have also been introduced. Areas covered: This review updates the approach to practical investigation of IDA. Medline was searched using the terms iron deficiency AND anemia AND/OR gastroscopy, colonoscopy, capsule and enteroscopy, together with review of recent relevant published abstracts on the topic. Expert commentary: Gastrointestinal pathology is now a more common cause of IDA than upper GI causes, reflecting better colonoscopy accuracy and completion rates as well as changing disease patterns, and carcinomas are more likely cause IDA than benign adenomas. Increasing use of antiplatelet and anticoagulants is driving greater presentation of IDA. Capsule endoscopy, enteroscopy and CT colonography are increasingly used. Fecal occult blood testing may be a useful simple screening method in the frail, as a negative test can avoid the need for invasive tests.

High Efficacy of Repeating Colonoscopy by an Advanced Endoscopist after an Incomplete Colonoscopy

Background and Aims

This study aims to evaluate the role of an advanced endoscopist to study the entire colon after an incomplete colonoscopy.

Methods

All patients with an elective incomplete colonoscopy performed under deep sedation in our department between January 2010 and October 2016 were included. Patients with a colonic stenosis, an inadequate bowel preparation, or a colonoscopy performed without deep sedation were excluded. Included patients were followed up to evaluate if and what type of subsequent examinations (colonoscopy by an advanced endoscopist, single-balloon enteroscopy [SBE], and/or CT colonography) was performed to complete the study of the entire colon. Lesions found during these subsequent examinations were also recorded.

Results

Ninety-three patients had an incomplete colonoscopy, with no diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) and a high-risk polyp rate of 5.4% (n = 5). Seventy-seven patients with incomplete colonoscopies underwent subsequent examinations, namely CT colonography in 45.5% (n = 35), colonoscopy by an advanced endoscopist in 53.2% (n = 41), and SBE in 13% (n = 10). In the 49 patients who performed either colonoscopy (n = 39) or SBE (n = 10) by an advanced endoscopist, the cecal intubation rate was 100%, and high-risk polyps were found in 26.5% (n = 13) and CRC in 4.1%. CT colonography revealed findings consistent with polyps and CRC in 22.9% (n = 8) and 2.9% (n = 1) of the cases, respectively. Colonoscopy was further repeated in 6 patients with suspected polyps in CT colonography, confirming the initial diagnosis in 5 patients.

Conclusions

Colonoscopy by an advanced endoscopist achieved cecal intubation in all patients, representing a good choice after an incomplete colonoscopy.

Multicenter, randomized study to optimize bowel preparation for colon capsule endoscopy

AIM

To assess the cleansing efficacy and safety of a new Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) bowel preparation regimen.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing two CCE regimens. Subjects were asymptomatic and average risk for colorectal cancer. The second generation CCE system (PillCam^® COLON 2; Medtronic, Yoqneam, Israel) was utilized. Preparation regimens differed in the 1^st and 2^nd boosts with the Study regimen using oral sulfate solution (89 mL) with diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium solution (“diatrizoate solution”) (boost 1 = 60 mL, boost 2 = 30 mL) and the Control regimen oral sulfate solution (89 mL) alone. The primary outcome was overall and segmental colon cleansing. Secondary outcomes included safety, polyp detection, colonic transit, CCE completion and capsule excretion ≤ 12 h.

RESULTS

Both regimens had similar cleansing efficacy for the whole colon (Adequate: Study = 75.9%, Control = 77.3%; P = 0.88) and individual segments. In the Study group, CCE completion was superior (Study = 90.9%, Control = 76.9%; P = 0.048) and colonic transit was more often < 40 min (Study = 21.8%, Control = 4%; P = 0.0073). More Study regimen subjects experienced adverse events (Study = 19.4%, Control = 3.4%; P = 0.0061), and this difference did not appear related to diatrizoate solution. Adverse events were primarily gastrointestinal in nature and no serious adverse events related either to the bowel preparation regimen or the capsule were observed. There was a trend toward higher polyp detection with the Study regimen, but this did not achieve statistical significance for any size category. Mean transit time through the entire gastrointestinal tract, from ingestion to excretion, was shorter with the Study regimen while mean colonic transit times were similar for both study groups.

CONCLUSION

A CCE bowel preparation regimen using oral sulfate solution and diatrizoate solution as a boost agent is effective, safe, and achieved superior CCE completion.

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Colon Cancer

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons is dedicated to ensuring high-quality patient care by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee is composed of society members who are chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery. This committee was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus. This is accompanied by developing Clinical Practice Guidelines based on the best available evidence. These guidelines are inclusive and not prescriptive. Their purpose is to provide information on which decisions can be made, rather than to dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, health care workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. It should be recognized that these guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient.

Diagnostic capability of colon capsule endoscopy for advanced colorectal cancer: A pilot study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a safe and effective method for detecting lesions in the colon. However, the sensitivity of CCE in detecting advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) has not been sufficiently evaluated. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to assess the sensitivity of CCE in detecting advanced CRC.

METHODS

Patients previously diagnosed with advanced CRC by conventional colonoscopy underwent CCE. Primary outcome measure was the sensitivity of CCE in detecting advanced CRC per patient and per lesion. Secondary parameters measured were the sensitivity of CCE in detecting polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm in size in a per-lesion analysis and the safety of CCE.

RESULTS

Of the 21 advanced CRC lesions in 20 patients, 17 were detected by CCE. The per-patient and per-lesion sensitivities of CCE for detecting advanced CRC lesions were 85% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 62-97%) and 81% (95% CI: 58-95%), respectively. All advanced CRC lesions were diagnosed in the accessible region by CCE while the capsule was still functional. A significant association was found between incomplete CCE and failure to diagnose advanced CRC. No severe adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic capability of CCE in detecting advanced CRC was limited in cases of procedure incompletion. Refining procedures to increase CCE procedure completion rates are required to enhance CRC detection.

Detection rate and predictive factors of sessile serrated polyps in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme with immunochemical faecal occult blood test: the EQuIPE study (Evaluating Quality Indicators of the Performance of Endoscopy)

OBJECTIVES

To assess detection rate and predictive factors of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) in organised colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes based on the faecal immunochemical test (FIT).

DESIGN

Data from a case series of colonoscopies of FIT-positive subjects were provided by 44 Italian CRC screening programmes. Data on screening history, endoscopic procedure and histology results, and additional information on the endoscopy centre and the endoscopists were collected, including the age-standardised and sex-standardised adenoma detection rate (ADR) of the individual endoscopists. The SSP detection rate (SSP-DR) was assessed for the study population. To identify SSP-predictive factors, multilevel analyses were performed according to patient/centre/endoscopist characteristics.

RESULTS

We analysed 72 021 colonoscopies, of which 1295 presented with at least one SSP (SSP-DR 1.8%; 95% CI 1.7% to 1.9%). At the per-patient level, SSP-DR was associated with males (OR 1.35; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.54) and caecal intubation (OR 3.75; 95% CI 2.22 to 6.34), but not with the FIT round. The presence of at least one advanced adenoma was more frequent among subjects with SSPs than those without (OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.86 to 2.33). At the per-endoscopist level, SSP-DR was associated with ADR (third vs first ADR quartile: OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.35; fourth vs first quartile: OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.24 to 2.90).

CONCLUSION

The low prevalence of SSPs and the lack of association with the FIT round argue against SSP as a suitable target for FIT-based organised programmes. Strict association of SSP-DR with the key colonoscopy quality indicators, namely caecal intubation rate and high ADR further marginalises the need for SSP-specific quality indicators in FIT-based programmes.

Video capsule colonoscopy in routine clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) offers direct mucosal visualisation without sedation or gas insufflation required in conventional colonoscopy (CC). However, evidence for the role of CCE as an adjunct or alternative to CC remains equivocal. In this observational cohort study, we report our experience of using CCE to investigate patients with suspected colon pathology at a tertiary referral centre.

METHODS

From 2007-2015, consecutive patients requiring colonoscopy were recruited from a tertiary care centre in Malmo, Sweden. Data collected: patient demographics, indication for CCE, findings, bowel cleansing, colon transit time (CTT) and completeness of colon examination.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients (57 F/20 F, median age 56 years) were included. The reason for CCE was previously incomplete or refused CC in 39 and 26 cases, and follow up of previous findings in 12 cases, respectively. The main clinical indications were gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (n=28; 36%) and suspected inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or follow-up of known IBD (n=23; 30%). CCE was complete in 58/77 (75%) patients. In 3 patients the colon was not reached; in the other 16, the capsule reached the rectum (n=4), sigmoid (n=6), descending colon (n=5) and transverse colon (n=1). Findings were: normal CCE (n=15; 19%) colonic diverticula (n=29; 38%), polyps (n=17; 22%), active IBD (n=12; 16%), haemorrhoids (n=8; 10%), colonic angioectasia (n=4; 5%) and cancer (n=1; 1%). Small-bowel findings were recorded in 8 (10%) patients. All patients tolerated bowel preparation and CCE well. Two patients with an ulcerated small-bowel stricture and cancer respectively experienced temporary capsule retention with spontaneous resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

CCE is a well-tolerated alternative to CC, but requires technological improvement and optimisation of clinical practice to meet current reference standards. Although further technical development is required, CCE may complement or even replace CC for certain clinical indications.

Where do I see minimally invasive endoscopy in 2020: clock is ticking

Since it was introduced 17 years ago, capsule endoscopy has become an important diagnostic tool for the small bowel. Three generations of the original small bowel capsule have been developed since (PillCam SB3, Medtronic, USA), and four competitors were introduced for the small bowel. A non-video patency capsule (Agile patency capsule, Medtronic, USA) was also developed, in order to confirm patency and thus avoid retention in the GI tract. Moreover, capsules viewing other organs of the body (esophagus, colon) as well as three different magnetic guided capsules that visualize the stomach as good as optical endoscopy (OE) have been developed. Over 2,000 articles looking at the efficacy of the small bowel capsule in different clinical situations were published since then. Studies are comparing capsule endoscopy versus other modalities in various indications, looking at preparations aiming to improve the diagnostic yield and at technical aspects. The present paper, describes the available capsules in the market and my biased future expectations.

Is capsule colonoscopy the solution for incomplete conventional colonoscopy?

The era of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) started in 2007. Few years later second-generation CCE (CCE-2) (Medtronic, Minneapolis, USA) was launched, featuring an improved optical system allowing for nearly 360° coverage via two 172° angle cameras, and adaptive frame rate function (ranging from 4 to 35 images per second depending on capsule motion). At present the main clinical indications for CCE are: a) completion of incomplete colonoscopy; b) polyp detection; and c) investigation of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Accuracy of Colon Capsule Endoscopy in Detecting Colorectal Polyps in Individuals with Familial Colorectal Cancer: Could We Avoid Colonoscopies?

Background. Individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) have an increased risk of CRC. We evaluated the diagnostic yield of CCE in the detection of lesions and also two different colon preparations. Methods. A prospective multicenter study was designed to assess CCE diagnostic yield in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals with a family history of CRC. CCE and colonoscopy were performed on the same day by 2 endoscopists who were blinded to the results of the other procedure. Results. Fifty-three participants were enrolled. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of CCE for detecting advanced adenomas were 100%, 98%, 67%, and 100%. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of CCE for the diagnosis of individuals with polyps were 87%, 97%, 93%, and 88%, respectively. CCE identify 100% of individuals with significant or advanced lesions. Overall cleanliness was adequate by 60.7% of them. The PEG-ascorbic boost seems to improve colon cleanliness, with similar colonic transit time. Conclusion. CCE is a promising tool, but it has to be considered as an alternative technique in this population in order to reduce the number of colonoscopies performed. More studies are needed to understand appropriate screening follow-up intervals and optimize the bowel preparation regimen.

Colon capsule endoscopy: toward the future

Colon capsule endoscopy is a wireless and minimally invasive technique for visualization of the whole colon. With recent improvements of technical features in second-generation systems, a more important role for colon capsule endoscopy is rapidly emerging. Although several limitations and drawbacks are yet to be resolved, its usefulness as a tool for colorectal cancer screening and monitoring disease activity in inflammatory bowel diseases has become more apparent with increased use. Further investigations, including multicenter trials, are required to evaluate the substantial role of the colon capsule in managing colorectal diseases.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of Video Capsule Endoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Video capsule endoscopy (CE) provides a noninvasive option to assess the small intestine, but its use with respect to endoscopic procedures and cross-sectional imaging varies widely. The aim of this consensus was to provide guidance on the appropriate use of CE in clinical practice.

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified studies on the use of CE in patients with Crohn's disease, celiac disease, gastrointestinal bleeding, and anemia. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

The consensus includes 21 statements focused on the use of small-bowel CE and colon capsule endoscopy. CE was recommended for patients with suspected, known, or relapsed Crohn's disease when ileocolonoscopy and imaging studies were negative if it was imperative to know whether active Crohn's disease was present in the small bowel. It was not recommended in patients with chronic abdominal pain or diarrhea, in whom there was no evidence of abnormal biomarkers typically associated with Crohn's disease. CE was recommended to assess patients with celiac disease who have unexplained symptoms despite appropriate treatment, but not to make the diagnosis. In patients with overt gastrointestinal bleeding, and negative findings on esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy, CE should be performed as soon as possible. CE was recommended only in selected patients with unexplained, mild, chronic iron-deficiency anemia. CE was suggested for surveillance in patients with polyposis syndromes or other small-bowel cancers, who required small-bowel studies. Colon capsule endoscopy should not be substituted routinely for colonoscopy. Patients should be made aware of the potential risks of CE including a failed procedure, capsule retention, or a missed lesion. Finally, standardized criteria for training and reporting in CE should be defined.

CONCLUSIONS

CE generally should be considered a complementary test in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, Crohn's disease, or celiac disease, who have had negative or inconclusive endoscopic or imaging studies.

Prospective study of factors important to achieve observation of the entire colon on colon capsule endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a procedure in which capsule swallowing facilitates observation of the lumen of the entire digestive tract. It does not require an air supply, and is a noninvasive procedure with a markedly low risk of adverse events in comparison with conventional colonoscopy (CS). It reduces patient stress, and may be acceptable to patients. A limitation of this procedure is that the entire colon observation rate (CCE excretion rate, completed CCE rate) is not 100%. In this study, we prospectively investigated clinical factors important to achieve observation of the entire colon on CCE.

METHODS

The participants were 70 patients for whom CCE was scheduled, and from whom written informed consent regarding participation in this study was obtained. We selected patient background/examination factors, and analyzed all factors involved in observation of the entire colon and factors for completion of the CCE within 4 h after the start of examination using multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 70 enrolled patients, 64 were analyzed, excluding 6. On multiple logistic analysis, only a water intake of ⩾12.0 ml/min during examination [p = 0.025, odds ratio (OR): 46.753, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.630-1341.248] was identified as an independent predictive factor involved in observation of the entire colon. With respect to factors involved in the completion of CCE within 4 h, multiple logistic analysis showed that a body mass index (BMI) of ⩾25 (p = 0.039, OR: 13.723, 95% CI: 1.135-165.913), the absence of constipation (p = 0.030, OR: 13.988, 95% CI: 1.287-152.047), and a water intake of ⩾12.0 ml/min during examination (p = 0.004, OR: 12.028, 95% CI: 2.225-65.029) were independent predictive factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Completion of a CCE was most closely related to water intake per hour. In addition to water intake, CCE-promoting factors included a high BMI and the absence of constipation.

Accuracy of First- and Second-Generation Colon Capsules in Endoscopic Detection of Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a noninvasive technique used to explore the colon without sedation or air insufflation. A second-generation capsule was recently developed to improve accuracy of detection, and clinical use has expanded globally. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the accuracy of CCE in detecting colorectal polyps.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other databases from 1966 through 2015 for studies that compared accuracy of colonoscopy with histologic evaluation with CCE. The risk of bias within each study was ascertained according to Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy in Systematic Reviews recommendations. Per-patient accuracy values were calculated for polyps, overall and for first-generation (CCE-1) and second-generation (CCE-2) capsules. We analyzed data by using forest plots, the I² statistic to calculate heterogeneity, and meta-regression analyses.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies provided data from 2420 patients (1128 for CCE-1 and 1292 for CCE-2). CCE-2 and CCE-1 detected polyps >6 mm with 86% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 82%-89%) and 58% sensitivity (95% CI, 44%-70%), respectively, and 88.1% specificity (95% CI, 74.2%-95.0%) and 85.7% specificity (95% CI, 80.2%-90.0%), respectively. CCE-2 and CCE-1 detected polyps >10 mm with 87% sensitivity (95% CI, 81%-91%) and 54% sensitivity (95% CI, 29%-77%), respectively, and 95.3% specificity (95% CI, 91.5%-97.5%) and 97.4% specificity (95% CI, 96.0%-98.3%), respectively. CCE-2 identified all 11 invasive cancers detected by colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity in detection of polyps >6 mm and >10 mm increased substantially between development of first-generation and second-generation colon capsules. High specificity values for detection of polyps by CCE-2 seem to be achievable with a 10-mm cutoff and in a screening setting.

Review: capsule colonoscopy-a concise clinical overview of current status

The colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) was first introduced in 2007. Currently, the main clinical indications for CCE are completion of incomplete colonoscopy, polyp detection and investigation of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Although conventional colonoscopy is the gold standard in bowel cancer screening, incomplete colonoscopy remains a problem as lesions are missed. CCE compares favourably to computer tomography colonography (CTC) in adenoma detection and has therefore been proposed as a method for completing colonoscopy. However the data on CCE remains sparse and current evidence does not show its superiority over CTC or conventional colonoscopy in bowel cancer screening. CCE also seems to show good correlation with conventional colonoscopy when used to evaluate IBD, but there are not many published studies at present. Other significant limitations include the need for aggressive bowel preparation and the labour-intensiveness of CCE reading. Therefore, much further software and hardware development is required to enable CCE to fulfill its potential as a minimally-invasive and reliable method of colonoscopy.

PillCam colon capsule endoscopy (PCCE) in colonic diseases

Diseases affecting the colon are common worldwide and can cause a major health problem. Colorectal cancer (CRC) as well as Inflammatory bowel diseases represent a major cause of morbidity and mortality in western countries. PillCam colon capsule endoscopy (PCCE) is a novel and promising technology that can be useful for the screening and monitoring of colonic diseases. In the recent years many articles examined the use of various versions of PCCE-the 1st and 2nd generation versus various other endoscopic or radiologic modalities both for detection of colonic polyps or cancer and in both ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease. The aim of the current review is to provide up to date information regarding the use and usefulness of this method in these disease.

Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Where Are We and Where Are We Going

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a noninvasive technique for diagnostic imaging of the colon. It does not require air inflation or sedation and allows minimally invasive and painless colonic evaluation. The role of CCE is rapidly evolving; for example, for colorectal screening (colorectal cancer [CRC]) in average-risk patients, in patients with an incomplete colonoscopy, in patients refusing a conventional colonoscopy, and in patients with contraindications for conventional colonoscopy. In this paper, we comprehensively review the technical characteristics and procedure of CCE and compare CCE with conventional methods such as conventional colonoscopy or computed tomographic colonography. Future expansion of CCE in the area of CRC screening for the surveillance of polyps and adenomatous lesions and for assessment of inflammatory bowel disease is also discussed.

Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Review and Perspectives

Colon capsule endoscopy utilizing PillCam COLON 2 capsule allows for visualization potentially of the entire colon and is currently approved for patients who cannot withstand the rigors of traditional optical colonoscopy (OC) and associated sedation as well as those that had an OC that was incomplete for technical reasons other than a poor preparation. We will then describe the prior experience and current status of colon capsule endoscopy.

Regional center for complex colonoscopy: yield of neoplasia in patients with prior incomplete colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Incomplete colonoscopy increases the risk of incident proximal colon cancer postcolonoscopy. Incomplete colonoscopy is often followed by barium enema or CT colonography. We sought to describe the yield of completion colonoscopy in a regional center for complex colonoscopy.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of 520 consecutive patients referred to a single colonoscopist over a 14-year period for completion colonoscopy after a previous incomplete examination.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy was completed to the cecum in 506 of 520 patients (97.3%). A total of 913 conventional adenomas was removed in 277 patients (adenoma detection rate 53.3%). There were 184 adenomas ≥ 1 cm in size or with advanced pathology. There were 525 serrated-class lesions removed in 175 patients, including 54 sessile serrated polyps in 26 patients and 41 hyperplastic polyps greater than 1 cm in 26 patients. Nine colorectal cancers were found. We estimated that approximately 57% of the conventional adenomas, 58% of the sessile serrated polyps, 27% of the hyperplastic polyps, and all 9 cancers detected by the completion colonoscopy were beyond the extent of the previous examination.

CONCLUSIONS

The yield of completion colonoscopy in a cohort of patients with previous failed cecal intubation was substantial. Regional centers for complex colonoscopy can provide high rates of cecal intubation in cases of incomplete colonoscopy and high yields of lesions in these cases. The regional center for complex colonoscopy is an important medical service.

Initial US evaluation of second-generation capsule colonoscopy for detecting colon polyps

Objectives

Capsule colonoscopy is an additional screening modality for colorectal cancer. Second-generation capsule colonoscopy (CC2) may have improved efficacy in the detection of colon adenomas as compared with prior devices. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of CC2 in the detection of polyps in symptomatic and screening patients in the USA.

Design

Prospective, multicentre study.

Setting and participants

Two academic medical centres and two private practice facilities, evaluating patients with indications for colonoscopy.

Methods

Patients underwent capsule colonoscopy procedure using magnesium citrate as a boost, followed by colonoscopy on the same day. The main outcome measurement was accuracy of CC2 for the detection of colorectal polyps ≥6 and ≥10 mm as compared with conventional colonoscopy.

Results

51 patients were enrolled, 50 of whom had CC2 and colonoscopy examinations and were included in the accuracy analysis. 30% and 14% of patients had polyps ≥6 and ≥10 mm, respectively. For lesions ≥10 mm identified on conventional colonoscopy, CC2 sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 56.1% to 100%) with a specificity of 93.0% (79.9% to 98.2%). For polyps ≥6 mm, the CC2 sensitivity was 93.3% (66.0% to 99.7%) and the specificity was 80.0% (62.5% to 90.9%). There was a 61% adequate cleansing rate with 64% of CC2 procedures being complete.

Conclusions

In the initial US experience with CC2 there was adequate sensitivity for detecting patients with polyps ≥6 mm in size. Magnesium citrate was inadequate as a boost agent.

Trial registration number

NCT01087528.

Current status and future perspectives of capsule endoscopy

Small bowel capsule endoscopy (CE) was first introduced 15 years ago, and a large amount of literature has since been produced, focused on its indication, diagnostic yields, and safety. Guidelines that have made CE the primary diagnostic tool for small bowel disease have been created. Since its initial use in the small bowel, CE has been used for the esophagus, stomach, and colon. The primary indications for small bowel CE are obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, unexplained iron deficiency anemia, suspected Crohn's disease, small bowel tumors, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug enteropathy, portal hypertensive enteropathy, celiac disease, etc. Colon CE provides an alternative to conventional colonoscopy, with possible use in colorectal cancer screening. Guidelines for optimal bowel preparation of CE have been suggested. The main challenges in CE are the development of new devices with the ability to provide therapy, air inflation for better visualization of the small bowel, biopsy sampling systems attached to the capsule, and the possibility of guiding and moving the capsule by an external motion controller. We review the current status and future directions of CE, and address all aspects of clinical practice, including the role of CE and long-term clinical outcomes.

Capsule endoscopy: The road ahead

Since its introduction into clinical practice 15 years ago, capsule endoscopy (CE) has become the first-line investigation procedure in some small bowel pathologies, and more recently, dedicated esophageal and colon CE have expanded the fields of application to include the upper and lower gastrointestinal disorders. During this time, CE has become increasingly popular among gastroenterologists, with more than 2 million capsule examinations performed worldwide, and nearly 3000 PubMed-listed studies on its different aspects published. This huge interest in CE may be explained by its non-invasive nature, patient comfort, safety, and access to anatomical regions unattainable via conventional endoscopy. However, CE has several limitations which impede its wider clinical applications, including the lack of therapeutic capabilities, inability to obtain biopsies and control its locomotion. Several research groups are currently working to overcome these limitations, while novel devices able to control capsule movement, obtain high quality images, insufflate the gut lumen, perform chromoendoscopy, biopsy of suspect lesions, or even deliver targeted drugs directly to specific sites are under development. Overlooking current limitations, especially as some of them have already been successfully surmounted, and based on the tremendous progress in technology, it is expected that, by the end of next 15 years, CE able to perform both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures will remain the major form of digestive endoscopy. This review summarizes the literature that prognosticates about the future developments of CE.

Gastrografin as an alternative booster to sodium phosphate in colon capsule endoscopy: safety and efficacy pilot study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Sodium phosphate is a key component of bowel preparation regimen for colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), but may cause serious complications. The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of Gastrografin, substituted for sodium phosphate, in CCE bowel preparation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In total, 29 patients (median age 64 years; 23 females) underwent CCE, covered by the national health insurance system of Japan. All had a history of laparotomy and/or previously incomplete colonoscopy. On the day before examination, patients ingested 1 L of polyethylene glycol + ascorbic acid with 0.5 L of water in the evening, and again the same laxative on the morning of examination. After capsule ingestion, 50 mL of Gastrografin diluted with 0.9 L of magnesium citrate was administered, and then repeated after 1 hour.

RESULTS

The capsule excretion rate was 97 % (28/29). The median colon transit time was 2 hours 45 minutes and rapid transit (< 40 minutes) through the colon occurred in one patient (3.4 %). Bowel cleansing level was adequate in 90 % of patients. The polyp (≥ 6 mm) detection rate was 52 %. Diluted Gastrografin was well tolerated by patients. No adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

Gastrografin can be an alternative to sodium phosphate in CCE bowel preparation regimen.

Colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer had a low incidence several decades ago. However, it has become a predominant cancer and now accounts for approximately 10% of cancer-related mortality in western countries. The 'rise' of colorectal cancer in developed countries can be attributed to the increasingly ageing population, unfavourable modern dietary habits and an increase in risk factors, such as smoking, low physical exercise and obesity. New treatments for primary and metastatic colorectal cancer have emerged, providing additional options for patients; these treatments include laparoscopic surgery for primary disease, more-aggressive resection of metastatic disease (such as liver and pulmonary metastases), radiotherapy for rectal cancer, and neoadjuvant and palliative chemotherapies. However, these new treatment options have had limited impact on cure rates and long-term survival. For these reasons, and the recognition that colorectal cancer is long preceded by a polypoid precursor, screening programmes have gained momentum. This Primer provides an overview of the current state of the art of knowledge on the epidemiology and mechanisms of colorectal cancer, as well as on diagnosis and treatment.

Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes

Colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks third among the most commonly diagnosed cancers worldwide, with wide geographical variation in incidence and mortality across the world. Despite proof that screening can decrease CRC incidence and mortality, CRC screening is only offered to a small proportion of the target population worldwide. Throughout the world there are widespread differences in CRC screening implementation status and strategy. Differences can be attributed to geographical variation in CRC incidence, economic resources, healthcare structure and infrastructure to support screening such as the ability to identify the target population at risk and cancer registry availability. This review highlights issues to consider when implementing a CRC screening programme and gives a worldwide overview of CRC burden and the current status of screening programmes, with focus on international differences.

Polyethylene glycol plus an oral sulfate solution as a bowel cleansing regimen for colon capsule endoscopy: a prospective, single-arm study in healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVES

As with colonoscopy, adequate bowel cleansing is essential prior to colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). Because CCE requires that the capsule traverse the entire gastrointestinal tract during the examination, laxative 'boosters' are used. The objective of this prospective, single-center, single-arm study was to evaluate the safety of a bowel preparation consisting of polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus an oral sulfate solution.

METHODS

Subjects were healthy volunteers aged 50-75 years old with normal baseline serum chemistry. The bowel preparation consisted of 4 Senna tablets, 4 liters of PEG (split dose), 10 mg metoclopramide, 2 oral sulfate solution boosters (6 oz. and 3 oz.), and 10 mg bisacodyl. Serum chemistry was performed at baseline, following PEG intake, 24 hours after bisacodyl administration, and at 7 days post procedure (in subjects with abnormal 24 hour results). The primary endpoints were the percentage of subjects with a clinically significant change in serum chemistry at the last test and the adverse event (AE) rate.

RESULTS

A total of 25 subjects were enrolled. The serum chemistry was normal in all subjects at the final evaluation. One subject showed a slight elevation in creatinine (1.08 mg/dl 7 days post procedure from 0.84 mg/dl at baseline), deemed not clinically significant. Another subject had a transient elevation in serum creatinine (from 1.01 mg/dl at baseline to 1.45 mg/dl at 24 hours after the bowel preparation); values returned to near baseline at 7 days post procedure (1.06 mg/dl). There were no serious AEs, three moderate AEs related to the bowel preparation (nausea, headache, elevated creatinine) and two mild unrelated AEs (chills, abdominal cramping).

CONCLUSIONS

A bowel cleansing regimen of PEG plus an oral sulfate solution can be used in healthy volunteers. These data provide support for the continued study of this regimen in future CCE clinical trials and in medical practice.

Colon capsule endoscopy

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a minimally invasive technique specifically designed to explore the colon without sedation and air insufflation. CCE may overcome some of the limitations of colonoscopy. Second-generation CCE (CCE-2) was proved accurate in detecting colonic neoplastic lesions when used in average-risk individuals. The evidence to date supports the use of CCE-2 in cases of colonoscopy failure, in patients unwilling to undergo colonoscopy, and when colonoscopy is contraindicated. Other potential applications, such as colorectal cancer screening or diagnostic surveillance of inflammatory bowel disease, require clarification.

Colon PillCam: why not just take a pill?

This review article deals with the clinical value of capsule endoscopy for visualization of the colon. Since its introduction in 2006, the colon capsule endoscopy underwent major technological improvements. The improved performance of colon capsule endoscopy is reviewed based on three multicenter prospective studies. Screening patients for colonic adenomatous polyps is reasonable in patients who are unwilling to undergo conventional colonoscopy. Another prospective study proved that colon capsule endoscopy is effective in incomplete colonoscopy. Colon capsule endoscopy was shown to be superior to virtual colonography in the evaluation of patients with incomplete colonoscopy. Further improvements are expected in colon capsule endoscopy.

CT colonography: accuracy, acceptance, safety and position in organised population screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer and second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe. The introduction of CRC screening programmes using stool tests and flexible sigmoidoscopy, have been shown to reduce CRC-related mortality substantially. In several European countries, population-based CRC screening programmes are ongoing or being rolled out. Stool tests like faecal occult blood testing are non-invasive and simple to perform, but are primarily designed to detect early invasive cancer. More invasive tests like colonoscopy and CT colonography (CTC) aim at accurately detecting both CRC and cancer precursors, thus providing for cancer prevention. This review focuses on the accuracy, acceptance and safety of CTC as a CRC screening technique and on the current position of CTC in organised population screening. Based on the detection characteristics and acceptability of CTC screening, it might be a viable screening test. The potential disadvantage of radiation exposure is probably overemphasised, especially with newer technology. At this time-point, it is not entirely clear whether the detection of extracolonic findings at CTC is of net benefit and is cost effective, but with responsible handling, this may be the case. Future efforts will seek to further improve the technique, refine appropriate diagnostic algorithms and study cost-effectiveness.

Video capsule endoscopy: perspectives of a revolutionary technique

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) was launched in 2000 and has revolutionized direct endoscopic imaging of the gut. VCE is now a first-line procedure for exploring the small bowel in cases of obscure digestive bleeding and is also indicated in some patients with Crohn's disease, celiac disease, and polyposis syndrome. A video capsule has also been designed for visualizing the esophagus in order to detect Barrett's esophagus or esophageal varices. Different capsules are now available and differ with regard to dimensions, image acquisition rate, battery life, field of view, and possible optical enhancements. More recently, the use of VCE has been extended to exploring the colon. Within the last 5 years, tremendous developments have been made toward increasing the capabilities of the colon capsule. Although colon capsule cannot be proposed as a first-line colorectal cancer screening procedure, colon capsule may be used in patients with incomplete colonoscopy or in patients who are unwilling to undergo colonoscopy. In the near future, new technological developments will improve the diagnostic yield of VCE and broaden its therapeutic capabilities.

Colon capsule endoscopy: What we know and what we would like to know

Colonoscopy is usually perceived as an invasive and potentially painful procedure, being also affected by a small, but definite, risk of major complications (cardiopulmonary complications, perforation, hemorrhage) and even mortality. To improve both acceptability and safety, PillCam Colon Capsule Endoscopy (CCE) (Given Imaging Ltd, Yoqneam, Israel) has been developed. CCE represents a non-invasive technique that is able to explore the colon without sedation and air insufflation. The Second Generation of Colon Capsule Endoscopy (PillCam Colon 2) (CCE-2) was proven to be an accurate tool to detect colonic neoplastic lesions when used in average risk individuals. To date, the evidence supports the use of CCE-2 in case of colonoscopy failure, in patients unwilling to perform colonoscopy and when colonoscopy is contraindicated. Other potential applications, such as colorectal cancer screening or diagnostic surveillance of inflammatory bowel disease need to be clarified. In this paper, the current “state of the art”, potential application of CCE and future needs are evaluated.