The Efficiency of Colon Capsule Endoscopy in Colon Cancer Screening
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
DISEASE(S): Colon Cancer,Colorectal Cancer,Colonic Neoplasms
PROVIDER: 2236637 | ecrin-mdr-crc |
REPOSITORIES: ECRIN MDR
Similar Datasets
Project description:The CESCAIL study tests the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on a video taken from a minimally-invasive imaging device, to improve efficiency and accuracy of the detection of polyps, which are little outgrowths within the lining of the bowel.
| 71513 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:BackgroundAlthough there are papers reporting on the accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) compared with colonoscopy (CS), there are few reports on the detection rates of significant lesions by endoscopy nurses. We previously reported no significant difference in the detection rates for small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) images among two well-trained physicians and one expert nurse.ObjectiveTo evaluate the reading time and detection rate of the significant lesions of CCE images among novice and trained expert endoscopy nurses and novice physicians.MethodsCCE videos of 20 consecutive patients who performed both CCE and CS with clinically significant localized lesions were selected. Two trained expert endoscopy nurses, untrained two novice physicians, and novice three endoscopy nurses reviewed CCE videos. The detection rate of the lesions and reading time were compared among the three groups and were evaluated by comparison between the first and the second 10 videos.ResultsThe median reading time was the shortest (19 min) in the trained expert endoscopy nurses and the longest (45 min) in the novice nurses. The number of thumbnails tended to be more in the trained expert endoscopy nurses in the first 10-video reading. Although the detection rates of small polyps (<5 mm) were significantly lower (46.5%, p=0.025) in the novice nurses compared to the others, they were improved (35.2% to 63.5%, p=0.015) in the second 10 videos. The detection rates of tumor lesions by either one of two trained expert endoscopy nurses were higher compared to those by each novice physician.ConclusionsThe trained expert endoscopy nurses for CCE reading can reduce physician's time and improve the diagnostic yield.
| S-EPMC8100384 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsReliable 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.MethodsPatients 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionCCE 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.
| S-EPMC7939783 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To assess the cleansing efficacy and safety of a new Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) bowel preparation regimen.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 1st and 2nd 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.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.A CCE bowel preparation regimen using oral sulfate solution and diatrizoate solution as a boost agent is effective, safe, and achieved superior CCE completion.
| S-EPMC5752722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a non-invasive alternative to colonoscopy. The reported sensitivity and specificity of CCE for the detection of clinically significant colonic neoplasia is high. To date, there have been no reported cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) missed by CCE which were located in segments adequately visualised by the capsule.Case presentationWe present the case of a 71-year-old female, who underwent CCE for new lower gastrointestinal symptoms. The CCE reported 17 polyps (largest size 10 mm) and angiodysplasia. A 40 mm caecal pole tumour, not detected by the CCE, was identified at follow up colonoscopy. Surgical resection was performed, and the pathology sample was reported as moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, pT2 pN0 (0/19) M0, with no evidence of EMVI. The patient made an uneventful recovery. The caecal pole tumour was not definitively identified on retrospective review of the CCE images.ConclusionTo date, this is the first published case of a CRC missed entirely by CCE. Further research is required to allow calculation of the post CCE interval CRC rate to allow comparison with colonoscopy and CT colonogram.
| S-EPMC9123796 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The use of capsule endoscopy has become an approved method in small bowel diagnostics, but the same level of integration is not seen in large bowel diagnostics. We will use colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) as a filter test in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening between the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy. We aim to investigate the clinical performance, population acceptability, and economic implications of the procedure in a large-scale clinical trial. We will randomly allocate 124 214 Danish citizens eligible for participation in the national CRC screening programme within the Region of Southern Denmark to either an intervention group or a control group. Prior to submitting a FIT, citizens randomised to the intervention group will be informed about their opportunity to undergo CCE, instead of colonoscopy, if the FIT is positive. Suspected cancers; >3 adenomas <10 mm in size, 1 adenoma >10 mm in size or >4 adenomas regardless of size, detected during CCE will generate an invitation to colonoscopy as per regular screening guidelines, whereas citizens with suspected low risk polyps will re-enter the biennial screening programme. Citizens with no CCE findings will be excluded from screening for 8 years. In the control group, citizens will follow standard screening procedures. All participants must consent prior to capsule ingestion. All collected data will be handled and stored in accordance with current data protection legislation. Approvals from the regional ethics committee (ref. S-20190100) and the Danish data protection agency have been obtained (ref. 19/29858). The study has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov under: NCT04049357.
| S-EPMC7326244 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColonoscopy (CSPY) for colorectal cancer screening has several limitations. Colon Capsule Endoscopy (PillCam Colon, CCE) was compared to CSPY under routine screening conditions.MethodsWe performed a prospective, single-center pilot study at a University Hospital. Data were obtained from November 2007 until May 2008. Patients underwent CCE on Day 1 and CSPY on Day 2. Outcomes were evaluated regarding sensitivity and specificity of polyp detection rate, with a significance level set at >5 mm.Results59 individuals were included in this study, the results were evaluable in 56 patients (males 34, females 22; median age 59). CCE was complete in 36 subjects. Polyp detection rate for significant polyps was 11% on CSPY and 27% on CCE.6/56 (11%) patients had polyps on CSPY not detected on CCE (miss rate).Overall sensitivity was 79% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61 to 90), specificity was 54% (95% CI, 35 to 70), positive predictive value (PPV) was 63% and negative predictive value (NPV) was 71%. Adjusted to significance of findings, sensitivity was 50% (95% CI, 19 to 81), specificity was 76% (95% CI, 63 to 86), PPV was 20% and NPV was 93%.ConclusionIn comparison to the gold standard, the sensitivity of CCE for detection of relevant polyps is low, however, the high NPV supports its role as a possible screening tool.Trial registrationNCT00991003.
| S-EPMC2905323 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with Crohn's disease (CD) undergo frequent endoscopic procedures, with visualization of the gastrointestinal mucosa central to treatment decision-making. Subsequently, a noninvasive alternative to optical colonoscopy (OC) would be welcomed. One such technology is capsule endoscopy, including the PillCam COLON 2 (PCC2), though research validating its use in ileocolonic CD is limited. This study aims to compare PCC2 with ileocolonoscopy (OC) in assessing mucosal CD through use of a standardized scoring system.MethodsAt an Australian tertiary hospital, same-day PCC2 and ileocolonoscopy results of 47 CD patients, with known nonstricturing disease, were prospectively collected and analyzed for correlation and agreement. Deidentified recordings were reported by a single expert gastroenterologist. Mucosal disease was quantified using the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD). The SES-CD results of paired endoscopic modalities were compared in total per bowel segment and per SES-CD variable.ResultsOf 47 PCC2 recordings, 68% were complete, fully assessing terminal ileum to rectum, and OC was complete in 89%. Correlation (r) between total SES-CD scores was strongest in the terminal ileum (r = 0.77, P < .001), with the SES-CD variable of "ulcer detection" showing the strongest agreement. The PCC2 (vs OC) identified additional ulcers in the terminal ileum; ascending, transverse, and descending colon; and rectum; scores were 5 (1), 5 (3), 1 (1), 2 (1), and 2 (2), respectively.ConclusionsThe PCC2 shows promise in assessing ileocolonic mucosa, especially in proximal bowel segments, with greater reach of visualization in the small bowel. Given the resource and safety considerations raised by the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, capsule endoscopy has particular significance.This article aims to contribute to the limited body of research surrounding the validity of capsule endoscopy technology in assessing ileocolonic mucosa in Crohn's Disease patients. In doing so, an alternative option for patients enduring frequent endoscopies is given potential.
| S-EPMC8690064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity in Ontario. Most cases of colorectal cancer are preventable through early diagnosis and the removal of precancerous polyps. Colon capsule endoscopy is a non-invasive test for detecting colorectal polyps.ObjectivesThe objectives of this analysis were to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and the impact on the Ontario health budget of implementing colon capsule endoscopy for detecting advanced colorectal polyps among adult patients who have been referred for computed tomographic (CT) colonography.MethodsWe performed an original cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the additional cost of CT colonography and colon capsule endoscopy resulting from misdiagnoses. We generated diagnostic accuracy data from a clinical evidence-based analysis (reported separately), and we developed a deterministic Markov model to estimate the additional long-term costs and life-years lost due to false-negative results. We then also performed a budget impact analysis using data from Ontario administrative sources. One-year costs were estimated for CT colonography and colon capsule endoscopy (replacing all CT colonography procedures, and replacing only those CT colonography procedures in patients with an incomplete colonoscopy within the previous year). We conducted this analysis from the payer perspective.ResultsUsing the point estimates of diagnostic accuracy from the head-to-head study between colon capsule endoscopy and CT colonography, we found the additional cost of false-positive results for colon capsule endoscopy to be $0.41 per patient, while additional false-negatives for the CT colonography arm generated an added cost of $116 per patient, with 0.0096 life-years lost per patient due to cancer. This results in an additional cost of $26,750 per life-year gained for colon capsule endoscopy compared with CT colonography. The total 1-year cost to replace all CT colonography procedures with colon capsule endoscopy in Ontario is about $2.72 million; replacing only those CT colonography procedures in patients with an incomplete colonoscopy in the previous year would cost about $740,600 in the first year.LimitationsThe difference in accuracy between colon capsule endoscopy and CT colonography was not statistically significant for the detection of advanced adenomas (≥ 10 mm in diameter), according to the head-to-head clinical study from which the diagnostic accuracy was taken. This leads to uncertainty in the economic analysis, with results highly sensitive to changes in diagnostic accuracy.ConclusionsThe cost-effectiveness of colon capsule endoscopy for use in patients referred for CT colonography is $26,750 per life-year, assuming an increased sensitivity of colon capsule endoscopy. Replacement of CT colonography with colon capsule endoscopy is associated with moderate costs to the health care system.
| S-EPMC4561761 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC6221809 | biostudies-literature