Uptake of Colon Capsule Endoscopy vs Colonoscopy for Screening Relatives of Patients With Colorectal Cancer

Colon Capsule Endoscopy in the Diagnosis of Colon Polyps: Who Needs a Colonoscopy?

Colon screening programs have reduced colon cancer mortality. Population screening should be minimally invasive, safe, acceptably sensitive, cost-effective, and scalable. The range of screening modalities include guaiac or immunochemical fecal occult blood testing and CT colonography and colonoscopy. A number of carefully controlled studies concur that second-generation capsule endoscopy has excellent sensitivity for polyp detection and a high negative predictive value. Colon capsules fulfill the screening expectation of safety, high sensitivity for polyp detection, and patient acceptance, and appear to straddle the divide between occult blood testing and colonoscopy. While meeting these criteria, there remains the challenges of scaling, capsule practitioner training, resource allocation, and implementing change of practice. Like CT colonography, capsule screening presents the clinician with a decision on the threshold for colonoscopy referral. Overall, colon capsules are an invaluable tool in polyp detection and colon screening and offer a filter that determines “who needs a colonoscopy?”.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Preferences for Colon Capsule Endoscopy and Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Colon capsule endoscopy as an alternative to colonoscopy for the diagnosis of colonic disease may serve as a less invasive and more tolerable investigation for patients. Our aim was to examine patient-reported outcomes for colon capsule endoscopy compared to conventional optical colonoscopy including preference of investigation modality, tolerability and adverse events. A systematic literature search was conducted in Web of Science, PubMed and Embase. Search results were thoroughly screened for in- and exclusion criteria. Included studies underwent assessment of transparency and completeness, after which, data for meta-analysis were extracted. Pooled estimates of patient preference were calculated and heterogeneity was examined including univariate meta-regressions. Patient-reported tolerability and adverse events were reviewed. Out of fourteen included studies, twelve had investigated patient-reported outcomes in patients who had undergone both investigations, whereas in two the patients were randomized between investigations. Pooled patient preferences were estimated to be 52% (CI 95%: 41-63%) for colon capsule endoscopy and 45% (CI 95%: 33-57%) for conventional colonoscopy: not indicating a significant difference. Procedural adverse events were rarely reported by patients for either investigation. The tolerability was high for both colon capsule endoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Patient preferences for conventional colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy were not significantly different. Procedural adverse events were rare and the tolerability for colon capsule endoscopy was consistently reported higher or equal to that of conventional colonoscopy.

Colon capsule endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Primary colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are the most commonly used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modalities. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) might be an alternative. Data on the performance of CCE as a CRC screening tool in a screening population remain scarce. This is the first systematic review to provide an overview of the applicability of CCE as a CRC screening tool.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted of literature published up to September 2020. Studies reporting on CRC screening by second-generation CCE in an average-risk screening population were included.

RESULTS

582 studies were identified and 13 were included, comprising 2485 patients. Eight studies used CCE as a filter test after a positive FIT result and five studies used CCE for primary screening. The polyp detection rate of CCE was 24 % - 74 %. For polyps > 6 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 79 % - 96 % and specificity was 66 % - 97 %. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 84 % - 97 %, which was superior to computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The CRC detection rate for completed CCEs was 93 % (25/27). Bowel preparation was adequate in 70 % - 92 % of examinations, and completion rates varied from 57 % to 92 %, depending on the booster used. No CCE-related complications were described.

CONCLUSION

CCE appeared to be a safe and effective tool for the detection of CRC and polyps in a screening setting. Accuracy was comparable to colonoscopy and superior to CTC, making CCE a good alternative to colonoscopy in CRC screening programs, although completion rates require improvement.

Current status of colon capsule endoscopy

While both the annual incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer are slowly but steadily decreasing in the United States, the incidence of such malignancy is increasing in Japan. Thus, controlling colorectal cancer in Japan is a major concern. In 2006, colon capsule endoscopy was first introduced by Eliakim et al. First-generation colon capsule endoscopy had a moderate sensitivity for detecting polyps of more than 6 mm. Thus, second-generation colon capsule endoscopy was developed to achieve higher sensitivity. Colonoscopy is the gold standard tool for colorectal cancer surveillance. With an improvement in the imaging function, the performance of second-generation colon capsule endoscopy is almost as satisfactory as that of colonoscopy. Certain situations, such as incomplete colonoscopy and contraindication for use of sedation, can benefit from colon capsule endoscopy. Colon capsule endoscopy requires a more extensive bowel preparation than colonoscopy and computed tomography colonography because it requires laxatives not only for bowel cleansing but also for promoting the excretion of the capsule. Another problem with colon capsule endoscopy includes the burden of reading and interpretation and overlook of the lesions. Currently, the development of automatic diagnosis of colon capsule endoscopy using artificial intelligence is still under progress. Although the available guidelines do not support the use of colon capsule endoscopy for inflammatory bowel disease, the possible application of colon capsule endoscopy is ulcerative colitis. This review article summarizes and focuses on the current status of colon capsule endoscopy for colorectal cancer screening and the possibility for its applicability on inflammatory bowel disease.

Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy for detection of colorectal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

Background and study aims  Adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is still unsatisfactory in many countries, thereby limiting prevention of CRC. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), a minimally invasive procedure, could be an alternative to fecal immunochemical tests or optical colonoscopy for CRC screening, and might increase adherence in CRC screening. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of CCE compared to optical colonoscopy (OC) as the gold standard, adequacy of bowel preparation regimes and the patient perspective on diagnostic measures. Methods  We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Register for Clinical Trials. Pooled estimates for sensitivity, specificity and the diagnostic odds ratio with their respective 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for studies providing sufficient data. Results  Of 840 initially identified studies, 13 were included in the systematic review and up to 9 in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivities and specificities for polyps ≥ 6 mm were 87 % (95 % CI: 83 %-90 %) and 87 % (95 % CI: 76 %-93 %) in 8 studies, respectively. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, the pooled estimates for sensitivities and specificities were 87 % (95 % CI: 83 %-90 %) and 95 % (95 % CI: 92 %-97 %) in 9 studies, respectively. A patients' perspective was assessed in 31 % (n = 4) of studies, and no preference of CCE over OC was reported. Bowel preparation was adequate in 61 % to 92 % of CCE exams. Conclusions  CCE provides high diagnostic accuracy in an adequately cleaned large bowel. Conclusive findings on patient perspectives require further studies to increase acceptance/adherence of CCE for CRC screening.

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020

1: ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation.Very low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasibleWeak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting.Very low quality evidence. 7: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance.Very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE.Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6 - 9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Indications, Findings, and Complications - Data from a Prospective German Colon Capsule Registry Trial (DEKOR)

Background/Aims

Reliable and especially widely accepted preventive measures are crucial to further reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC). Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) might increase the screening numbers among patients unable or unwilling to undergo conventional colonoscopy. This registry trial aimed to document and determine the CCE indications, findings, complications, and adverse events in outpatient practices and clinics throughout Germany.

Methods

Patients undergoing CCE between 2010 and 2015 were enrolled in this prospective multicenter registry trial at six German centers. Patient demographics, outcomes, and complications were evaluated.

Results

A total of 161 patients were included. Of the CCE evaluations, 111 (68.9%) were considered successful. Pathological findings in the colon (n=92, 60.1%) and in the remaining gastrointestinal tract (n=38, 24.8%) were recorded. The main finding was the presence of polyps (n=52, 32.3%). Furthermore, five carcinomas (3.1%) were detected and histologically confirmed later. Adequate bowel cleanliness was more likely to be achieved in the outpatient setting (p<0.0001). Interestingly, 85 patients (55.6%) chose to undergo CCE based on personal motivation.

Conclusions

CCE seems to be a reliable and safe endoscopic tool for screening for CRC and detecting other diseases. Its patient acceptance and feasibility seems to be high, especially in the outpatient setting.

Guidelines for the management of hereditary colorectal cancer from the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI)/United Kingdom Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG)

Heritable factors account for approximately 35% of colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, and almost 30% of the population in the UK have a family history of CRC. The quantification of an individual's lifetime risk of gastrointestinal cancer may incorporate clinical and molecular data, and depends on accurate phenotypic assessment and genetic diagnosis. In turn this may facilitate targeted risk-reducing interventions, including endoscopic surveillance, preventative surgery and chemoprophylaxis, which provide opportunities for cancer prevention. This guideline is an update from the 2010 British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (BSG/ACPGBI) guidelines for colorectal screening and surveillance in moderate and high-risk groups; however, this guideline is concerned specifically with people who have increased lifetime risk of CRC due to hereditary factors, including those with Lynch syndrome, polyposis or a family history of CRC. On this occasion we invited the UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG), a subgroup within the British Society of Genetic Medicine (BSGM), as a partner to BSG and ACPGBI in the multidisciplinary guideline development process. We also invited external review through the Delphi process by members of the public as well as the steering committees of the European Hereditary Tumour Group (EHTG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). A systematic review of 10 189 publications was undertaken to develop 67 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the management of hereditary CRC risk. Ten research recommendations are also prioritised to inform clinical management of people at hereditary CRC risk.

Accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy for advanced neoplasia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE-2) has shown promising accuracy for the diagnosis of overall neoplasia. Advanced neoplasia (AN) represents the main target of colorectal cancer screening programs. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CCE-2 for the detection of AN in patients with a positive result for the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) who are undergoing screening.

METHODS

Patients aged 50 to 69 years with a positive result for the FIT in 4 population screening programs in Italy and Spain were enrolled. Screenees were asked to undergo CCE-2, followed by traditional colonoscopy (TC). TC was performed the same day or the following morning. Bowel preparation included a split-dose polyethylene glycol-based regimen, with sodium phosphate (NaP) with gastrografin as boosters. The CCE-2 video was read by an endoscopist blinded to the results of TC. The main outcomes were CCE-2 accuracy in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for AN when using 2 different size thresholds for TC referral (ie, polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm).

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-two patients were enrolled, and 178 patients completed both CCE-2 and TC (87.7%). Overall, 59 cases of AN were detected at TC. CCE-2 sensitivity was 90%, specificity was 66.1%, PPV was 57.4%, and NPV was 92.9% for AN when using a 6-mm cut-off (TC referral rate, 52.8%) and 76.7%, 90.7%, 80.7%, and 88.4% when using a 10-mm cut-off (TC referral rate, 32%), respectively. CCE-2 detected that 8 of 9 already developed colorectal cancers. Among the 41 false positives at the 6-mm cut-off, 34 (82.9%) presented with a nonadvanced adenoma at TC. Mean transit time was 4 hours and 4 minutes, and ≥70% of patients excreted the capsule within 5 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

In an enriched disease setting, we showed the high sensitivity of CCE-2 for the diagnosis of AN at a 6-mm cut-off. The apparently low CCE-2 specificity is related to the choice of AN as the main outcome. (Clinical trial registration number: ISRCTN 62158762.).

Viewpoints of the target population regarding barriers and facilitators of colorectal cancer screening in the Czech Republic

BACKGROUND

Public awareness of colorectal cancer (CRC) and uptake of CRC screening remain challenges. The viewpoints of the target population (asymptomatic individuals older than 50) regarding CRC screening information sources and the reasons for and against participation in CRC screening are not well known in the Czech Republic. This study aimed to acquire independent opinions from the target population independently on the health system.

AIM

To investigate the viewpoints of the target population regarding the source of information for and barriers and facilitators of CRC screening.

METHODS

A survey among relatives (aged 50 and older) of university students was conducted. Participants answered a questionnaire about sources of awareness regarding CRC screening, reasons for and against participation, and suggestions for improvements in CRC screening. The effect of certain variables on participation in CRC screening was analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 498 participants, 478 (96%) respondents had some information about CRC screening and 375 (75.3%) had participated in a CRC screening test. General practitioners (GPs) (n = 319, 64.1%) and traditional media (n = 166, 33.3%) were the most common information sources regarding CRC screening. A lack of interest or time and a fear of colonoscopy or positive results were reported as reasons for non-participation. Individuals aged > 60 years [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.42-3.71), P = 0.001], females (aOR = 1.95, 95%CI (1.26-3.01) P = 0.003), and relatives of CRC patients (aOR = 4.17, 95%CI (1.82-9.58) P = 0.001) were more likely to participate in screening. Information regarding screening provided by physicians - GPs: (aOR = 8.11, 95%CI (4.90-13.41), P < 0.001) and other specialists (aOR = 4.19, 95%CI (1.87-9.38), P = 0.001) increased participation in screening. Respondents suggested that providing better explanations regarding screening procedures and equipment for stool capturing could improve CRC screening uptake.

CONCLUSION

GPs and other specialists play crucial roles in the successful uptake of CRC screening. Reduction of the fear of colonoscopy and simple equipment for stool sampling might assist in improving the uptake of CRC screening.

Screening individuals' experiences of colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy; a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

The standard investigation in colorectal cancer screening (optical colonoscopy [OC]) has a less invasive alternative with the colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The experiences of screening individuals are needed to support a decision aid (DA) and to provide a patient view in future health technology assessments (HTA). We aimed to explore the experiences of CCE at home and OC in an outpatient clinic by screening participants who experienced both investigations on the same bowel preparation.

METHODS

In a mixed methods study, Danish screening individuals with a positive immunological fecal occult blood test (FIT) were consecutively included and underwent both CCE and OC in the same bowel preparation. They answered questionnaires about discomfort during CCE, delivered at home, and during a following OC in the outpatient clinic. Data were calculated in percentages and Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for comparisons. Among the 253 included patients, 10 participants were selected for a semi-structured interview about their experiences of the two examinations. The analysis and interpretation of the transcribed data were inspired by Ricoeur.

RESULTS

Questionnaire data were received from 239 participants and revealed significant less discomfort during the CCE than the OC. Interview data included explained discomfort elements in two categories: 'The examination' and 'The setting'. Compared to OC, the CCE was experienced with less pain, embarrassment and invasiveness, but presented challenges and disadvantages as well, i.e., a large camera capsule to swallow, a longer waiting time for test results after CCE and an additional OC, if pathologies were found. The home setting for CCE delivery made the participants feel less like they were ill or patients less restricted and that they received more personal care, but could induce technical challenges.

CONCLUSION

In screening individuals, CCE at home was associated with significantly less discomfort compared to OC at a hospital, and multiple reasons for this was identified.

Multicenter feasibility study of bowel preparation with castor oil for colon capsule endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Extensive use of laxatives and incomplete excretion rates are problematic for colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The aim of the present study was to determine the effectiveness of castor oil as a booster.

METHODS

At four Japanese hospitals, 319 examinees undergoing CCE were enrolled retrospectively. Before and after the introduction of castor oil, other preparation reagents were unchanged.

RESULTS

Of 319 examinees who underwent CCE, 152 and 167 examinees took regimens with castor oil (between November 2013 and June 2016) and without castor oil (between October 2015 and September 2017), respectively. Capsule excretion rates within its battery life in the groups with and without castor oil were 97% and 81%, respectively (P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that ages younger than 65 years (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.00; P = 0.0048), male gender (adjusted OR, 3.20; P = 0.0051), and use of castor oil (adjusted OR, 6.29; P = 0.0003) were predictors of capsule excretion within its battery life. Small bowel transit time was shorter and total volume of lavage and fluid intake was lower with castor oil than without (P = 0.0154 and 0.0013, respectively). Overall adequate cleansing level ratios with and without castor oil were 74% and 83%, respectively (P = 0.0713). Per-examinee sensitivity for polyps ≥6 mm with and without castor oil was 83% and 85%, respectively, with specificities of 80% and 78%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Bowel preparation with castor oil was effective for improving capsule excretion rate and reducing liquid loading.

Booster medication to achieve capsule excretion in colon capsule endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial of three regimens

Background and study aims  To achieve a complete colon capsule endoscopy, the entire colon must be visualized, clean and filled with clear fluids. The primary aim was to compare three booster regimens in colon capsule endoscopy in achieving capsule excretion within recording time. Secondary aims were quality of bowel cleansing and completion rate (both adequate cleansing and capsule excretion). Patients and methods  Patients scheduled for follow-up colonoscopy due to previous neoplastic findings or familial history of colorectal cancer aged 18 to 70 years were eligible. Bowel preparation was 2-L split doses of polyethylene glycol. Patients were randomized to three booster regimens of either polyethylene glycol (Group A), sulfate-based solution (Group B) or polyethylene glycol with iodine oral contrast (Group C). Results  One hundred eighty participants were included and randomized into three groups of 60. Capsule excretion was 70 % (95 % CI: 58 - 80) in Group A, 73 % (95 % CI: 61 - 83) in Group B and in 68 % (95 % CI: 56 - 79) in Group C, no statistically significant differences. Bowel cleansing grade was statistically significant better in Group B compared to Group A ( P  = 0.03), but there were no statistically significant differences between Groups C and A ( P  = 0.40). Complete examination rate was 65 % (95 % CI: 53 - 77), 72 % (95 % CI: 61 - 83) and 62 % (95 % CI: 50 - 74) in Group A, B and C respectively, not statistically significant different. Conclusions  Sulfate-based solution resulted in statistically significant better bowel cleansing compared to polyethylene glycol. Overall the excretion and completion rate was suboptimal. Achieving a high completion rate using patient-tolerable and low-risk compounds is still a challenge.

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.

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.).

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.

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.

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.

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.