Impact of the endoscopist's experience on the negative predictive value of capsule endoscopy

Low Colon Capsule Endoscopy (CCE) False Negative Rate for Polyps Excluding Reader Error

BACKGROUND

CCE is a diagnostic tool lacking clinical data on false negative rates. We aimed to assess this rate and the reader/technical error breakdown.

METHODS

False negative CCEs were identified after comparing to a colonoscopy database. Missed pathology characteristics and study indications/quality were collated. Cases were re-read by experts and newly identified lesions/pathologies were verified by an expert panel and categorised as reader/technical errors.

RESULTS

Of 532 CCEs, 203 had an adequately reported comparative colonoscopy, 45 (22.2%) had missed polyps, and 26/45 (57.8%) reached the colonic section with missed pathology. Of the cases, 22 (84.6%) had adequate bowel preparation. Indications included 13 (50%) polyp surveillance, 12 (46%) GI symptoms, 1 (4%) polyp screening. CCE missed 18 (69.2%) diminutive polyps and 8 (30.8%) polyps ≥ 6 mm, 18/26 (69.2%) of these were adenomas. Excluding incomplete CCE correlates, colonoscopy total and significant polyp yield were 97/184 (52.7%) and 50/97 (51.5%), respectively. CCE total polyp and significant polyp false negative rate was 26.8% (26/97) and 16% (8/50), respectively. Following re-reading, reader and technical error was 20/26 (76.9%) and 6/26 (23.1%). Total and significant missed polyp rates were 20.6% (20/97) and 14% (7/50) for reader error, 6.2% (6/97) and 2% (1/50) for technical error.

CONCLUSIONS

False negative CCE rate is not insubstantial and should be factored into clinical decision making.

Prospective multicenter study to evaluate capsule endoscopy competency using a validated assessment tool

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Capsule endoscopy (CE) is an established, noninvasive modality for examining the small bowel. Minimum training requirements are based primarily on guidelines and expert opinion. A validated tool to assess the competence of CE is lacking. In this prospective, multicenter study, we determined the minimum number of CE procedures required to achieve competence during gastroenterology fellowship; validated a capsule competency test (CapCT); and evaluated any correlation between CE competence and endoscopy experience.

METHODS

We included second- and third-year gastroenterology fellows from 3 institutions between 2013 and 2018 in a structured CE training program with supervised CE interpretation. Fellows completed the CapCT with a maximal score of 100. For comparison, expert faculty completed the same CapCT. Trainee competence was defined as a score ≥90% compared with the mean expert score. Fellows were tested after 15, 25, and 35 supervised CE interpretations. CapCT was validated using expert consensus and item analysis. Data were collected on the number of previous endoscopies.

RESULTS

A total of 68 trainees completed 102 CapCTs. Fourteen CE experts completed the CapCT with a mean score of 94. Mean scores for fellows after 15, 25, and 35 cases were 83, 86, and 87, respectively. Fellows with at least 25 interpretations achieved a mean score ≥84 in all 3 institutions. CapCT item analysis showed high interobserver agreement among expert faculty (k = 0.85). There was no correlation between the scores and the number of endoscopies performed.

CONCLUSION

After a structured CE training program, gastroenterology fellows should complete a minimum of 25 supervised CE interpretations before assessing competence using the validated CapCT, regardless of endoscopy experience.

Training in video capsule endoscopy: Current status and unmet needs

Since its introduction to clinical practice nearly 20 years ago, wireless capsule endoscopy has revolutionized the landscape in the diagnosis and management of small bowel diseases. Over the past 10 years, capsule endoscopy has evolved beyond the small intestine and a range of capsules are now available to examine the esophagus, stomach and colon. Because of its ease of use, tolerability, paucity of complications and ability to visualize the entire gastrointestinal tract, capsule endoscopy has entered the mainstream of clinical practice. This review of the literature summarizes the current state of capsule training and highlights the limited data available to assess reader competence and standards expected of an independent practitioner. There are neither standardized teaching strategies nor national or international metrics for accreditation of physicians and non-physicians interested in mastering this examination. Summating the few publications, there appears to be consensus that diagnostic expertise improves with experience, and that trainees should be fully supervised for at least 20 full case studies. Formative and summative assessment is advisable and the number of taught cases should not be the sole determinant of competence. The review also highlights differences in recommendations from major national gastroenterology societies. Finally, the authors discuss areas of unmet needs in teaching and learning for capsule endoscopy.

Gastroduodenal lesions detected during small bowel capsule endoscopy: incidence, diagnostic and therapeutic impact

BACKGROUND

Capsule endoscopy was primarily designed for the investigation of the small bowel. However, it may also identify lesions in other segments of the gastrointestinal tract. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the incidence of gastroduodenal abnormalities during small bowel capsule endoscopy and its impact on patient diagnosis and management.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of data from 2,217 consecutive capsule endoscopy procedures performed at a single tertiary-care center between January 2008 and February 2016. Patient baseline characteristics, gastroduodenal lesions, diagnosis and management before and after capsule endoscopy were recorded and a descriptive analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Two thousands and two hundred seventeen patients were finally included in the analysis. One thousand and seventy patients were male (48.2%) and the mean age was 56.1 ± 19.5 years (range: 12-93). Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (52.3%) and inflammatory bowel disease (18.3%) were the main procedure indications. Gastroduodenal abnormalities were detected by capsule endoscopy in 696 (31.4%) of 2,217 patients. The most common types of missed gastric and duodenal lesions found were gastric erosions (35.4%), findings suggestive of chronic gastritis (22.9%), duodenal erosions (28.1%) and duodenal erythema (23.5%). This information had a clinical or diagnostic impact of 26.2% and a therapeutic impact of 15.5%.

CONCLUSION

Capsule endoscopy detects not only small bowel lesions but also some gastroduodenal lesions that may be overlooked during an initial gastroscopy. Therefore, all gastroduodenal images should be read during small bowel capsule endoscopy as it may provide relevant information that result in changes in patient management.

What defines quality in small bowel capsule endoscopy

Small bowel capsule endoscopy is considered a first-line diagnostic tool for the investigation of small bowel diseases. Gastroenterological and endoscopic societies have proposed and established measures known as quality indicators, quality measures or performance measures for the majority of endoscopic procedures, in order to ensure competence, healthcare quality and define areas requiring improvement. However, there is a paucity of publications describing small bowel capsule endoscopy quality indicators. Hereby, we attempt to identify and describe a number of pre-procedure, intra-procedure and post-procedure quality indicators, regarding process measures in small bowel capsule endoscopy, after a comprehensive review of the literature.