Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy

Multicenter prospective feasibility study on compliance, safety, and acceptance of small bowel and colon capsule endoscopy in the out-of-clinic setting in Japan

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the compliance, safety, and acceptance of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) in an out-of-clinic setting remotely supported by medical staff.

METHODS

We enrolled 30 examinees (24 with CCE and six with SBCE) who had not undergone CE at six gastroenterological centers. All examinees were provided with instructions on equipment and bowel preparations.

RESULTS

CCE was performed at home (n = 16) or at the workplace (n = 8). Compliance with data-recorder alerts was 100% for bowel preparation and 79% for equipment operation. Total capsule colonoscopy was achieved in 83.3%. The overall adequate endoscopic cleansing rate was 83.3%, and abnormalities, including colorectal polyps, were detected in 37.5%. CCE malfunction, such as the inability to automatically detect the small bowel mucosa occurred in one (4.2%). One experienced mild abdominal pain that required no treatment. Inquiries were present from half of the examinees. The proportions of examinees who desired and refused CCE at the next examination were 67% and 4%, respectively. SBCE was performed at home (n = 4) or at the workplace (n = 2). Compliance with the procedures was 100%. Whole small bowel images were recorded for all examinees. The overall adequate endoscopic clearness rate was 100%. One abnormality was detected. Inquiries were present from half of the examinees. There were no adverse events or malfunctions. The proportion of examinees who reported "quite easy" and "fairly easy" was 66%.

CONCLUSION

CCE and SBCE with all procedures in the out-of-clinic setting supported by remote consultations were feasible. A multicenter prospective study of the safety and acceptance of capsule endoscopy examinations at home (HomeCam-J study) (jRCTs042220163).

Colon capsule endoscopy polyp detection rate vs colonoscopy polyp detection rate: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a modern, non-invasive method for large bowel visualization, offering a less invasive alternative to traditional colonoscopy (TC). While TC remains the gold standard for comprehensive large bowel assessment, including the detection and treatment of various conditions, the effectiveness of CCE in detecting polyps is less established.

AIM

To systematically review and compare the polyp detection rates (PDR) of CCE and TC.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using four scientific databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE via EBSCO, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE/PubMed. A standardized search command was utilized to ensure consistency. Full papers were retrieved if they compared PDR between CCE and TC and involved patients over 18 years old. A meta-analysis was then conducted using the meta package in R software.

RESULTS

Initially, 339 articles were identified, with 128 duplicates and 15 non-English articles excluded, leaving 196 for screening. After further exclusions, 9 articles were included in the review. The meta-analysis revealed minimal differences in PDR between CCE and TC. The pooled PDR for TC was 0.61 (95%CI: 0.48–0.72), and for CCE, it was 0.61 (95%CI: 0.48–0.73). The overall comparison of the pooled PDR of both methods was 0.96 (95%CI: 0.90–1.02), indicating that CCE is non-inferior to TC.

CONCLUSION

CCE has emerged as a modern and safe diagnostic alternative to TC for polyp detection, demonstrating non-inferiority when compared to the conventional method.

Polyp Matching in Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Pioneering CCE-Colonoscopy Integration Towards an AI-Driven Future

Background: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is becoming more widely available across Europe, but its uptake is slow due to the need for follow-up colonoscopy for therapeutic procedures and biopsies, which impacts its cost-effectiveness. One of the major factors driving the conversion to colonoscopy is the detection of excess polyps in CCE that cannot be matched during subsequent colonoscopy. The capsule's rocking motion, which can lead to duplicate reporting of the same polyp when viewed from different angles, is likely a key contributor. Objectives: This review aims to explore the types of polyp matching reported in the literature, assess matching techniques and matching accuracy, and evaluate the development of machine learning models to improve polyp matching in CCE and subsequent colonoscopy. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed. Due to the scarcity of research in this area, the search encompassed clinical trials, observational studies, reviews, case series, and editorial letters. Three directly related studies were included, and ten indirectly related studies were included for review. Results: Polyp matching in colon capsule endoscopy still needs to be developed, with only one study focused on creating criteria to match polyps within the same CCE video. Another study established that experienced CCE readers have greater accuracy, reducing interobserver variability. A machine learning algorithm was developed in one study to match polyps between initial CCE and subsequent colonoscopy. Only around 50% of polyps were successfully matched, requiring further optimisation. As Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms advance in CCE polyp detection, the risk of duplicate reporting may increase when clinicians are presented with polyp images or timestamps, potentially complicating the transition to AI-assisted CCE reading in the future. Conclusions: Polyp matching in CCE is a developing field with considerable challenges, especially in matching polyps within the same video. Although AI shows potential for decent accuracy, more research is needed to refine these techniques and make CCE a more reliable, non-invasive alternative to complement conventional colonoscopy for lower GI investigations.

Nationwide multicenter prospective study on the usefulness, safety, and acceptability of colon capsule endoscopy in Japan

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We determined the factors influencing total capsule colonoscopy, adequate cleansing, and detectability of second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) for colorectal polyps or tumors (CRTs), adverse events, and acceptability.

METHODS

Among 44 Japanese hospitals, 1006 patients with suspected or documented colorectal diseases who underwent CCE were enrolled prospectively.

RESULTS

The total capsule colonoscopy rate was 86.1%. Age younger than 63 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.525), male sex (aOR, 1.496), inflammatory bowel disease (aOR, 1.889), lavage intake on day -1 (aOR, 1.625), ≥1800-mL lavage intake on day 0 (aOR, .595), prokinetics on day 0 (aOR, .608), and ≥30-mL castor oil booster on day 0 (aOR, 1.734) were significant independent predictors. The overall adequate cleansing rate was 65.5%. Constipation (aOR, .527), lavage intake on day -1 (aOR, 1.822), laxative intake on day -1 (aOR, 2.616), and ≥1900-mL lavage intake on day 0 (aOR, 1.449) were significant independent predictors. The detection rates for patients with CRTs ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm were 92% (95% confidence interval, 84-97) and 89% (95% confidence interval, 78-96), respectively. Inadequate cleansing in the ascending colon (aOR, .184), ≥6-mm CRT in the transverse colon (aOR, 4.703), and ≥6-mm CRT in the left-sided colon (aOR, 32.013) were significant independent predictors. CCE retention occurred in 2 patients (.20%) requiring endoscopic and surgical interventions. In total, 63% of patients desired CCE for their next colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

CCE was relatively safe, well tolerated, and useful for detecting colorectal lesions when adequate bowel preparation was made. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000021936.).

Development of a risk scoring system for predicting advanced colorectal neoplasia within subcentimetric polyps: A population-based study

OBJECTIVE

To determine a risk scoring system for predicting advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) within subcentimetric polyps in a large Asian population.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted in Hong Kong SAR, China involving participants who underwent colonoscopy between 2008 and 2015. A random sample of 20 072 subjects were included as the derivation cohort to assess ACN-associated independent factors using logistic regression modeling. Another 8603 subjects formed a validation cohort. A risk scoring system was developed and its performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

RESULTS

The risk scores were assigned based on the following criteria: (a) patients who were admitted from inpatient colonoscopy (2.2) or not (1); (b) with three or more chronic diseases (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, heart disease, or cancer) (1.7) or not (1); (c) anemia (1.3) or without anemia (1); (d) receiving aspirin (0.5) or not (1); (e) receiving other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (0.3) or not (1); (f) male (1.2) or female gender (1); (g) age <55 (1), 55-64 (1.4), 65-69 (2), 70 years or above (2.2). ACN was more common in those with scores of 2.192 or higher, and they were classified as high risk (HR). The prevalence of ACN in the validation cohort was 13.28% and 3.56% in the HR and low-risk groups, respectively. In both the derivation and validation cohorts, AUROC of the risk-scoring model was 0.7138.

CONCLUSION

Physicians are recommended to utilize this validated score for risk-stratification of patients having subcentimetric polyps.

Why is early detection of colon cancer still not possible in 2023?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a fundamental tool in the prevention and early detection of one of the most prevalent and lethal cancers. Over the years, screening, particularly in those settings where it is well organized, has succeeded in reducing the incidence of colon and rectal cancer and improving the prognosis related to them. Despite considerable advancements in screening technologies and strategies, the effectiveness of CRC screening programs remains less than optimal. This paper examined the multifaceted reasons behind the persistent lack of effectiveness in CRC screening initiatives. Through a critical analysis of current methodologies, technological limitations, patient-related factors, and systemic challenges, we elucidated the complex interplay that hampers the successful reduction of CRC morbidity and mortality rates. While acknowledging the advancements that have improved aspects of screening, we emphasized the necessity of addressing the identified barriers comprehensively. This study aimed to raise awareness of how important CRC screening is in reducing costs for this disease. Screening and early diagnosis are not only important in improving the prognosis of patients with CRC but can lead to an important reduction in the cost of treating a disease that is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Spending more sooner can mean saving money later.

What Is the Optimal Bowel Preparation for Capsule Colonoscopy and Pan-intestinal Capsule Endoscopy? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The rate of adequate cleansing (ACR) and complete examinations (CR) are key quality indicators in capsule colonoscopy (CC) and pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy (PCE).

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy of bowel preparation protocols regarding ACR and CR.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, search terms regarding colon capsule preparation, publication date from 2006/01, and date of search 2021/12, in six bibliographic databases. Multiple steps of the cleansing protocol were assessed: diet, adjunctive laxatives, purgative solution, use of prokinetic agents, and "booster". The meta-analytical frequency of ACR and CR was estimated, and subgroup analyses performed. Strategies associated with higher ACR and CR were explored using meta-analytical univariable and multivariable regression models.

RESULTS

Twenty-six observational studies and five RCTs included (n = 4072 patients). The pooled rate of ACR was 72.5% (95% C.I. 67.8-77.5%; I2 = 92.4%), and the pooled rate of CR was 83.0% (95% C.I. 78.7-87.7%; I2 = 96.5%). The highest ACR were obtained using a low-fibre diet [78.5% (95% C.I. 72.0-85.6%); I2 = 57.0%], adjunctive laxatives [74.7% (95% C.I. 69.8-80.1%); I2 = 85.3%], and split dose < 4L polyethylene glycol (PEG) as purgative [77.5% (95% C.I. 68.4-87.8%); I2 = 47.3%]. The highest CR were observed using routine prokinetics prior to capsule ingestion [84.4% (95% C.I. 79.9-89.2%); I2 = 89.8%], and sodium phosphate (NaP) as "booster" [86.2% (95% C.I. 82.3-90.2%); I2 = 86.8%]. In univariable models, adjunctive laxatives were associated with higher ACR [OR 1.81 (95% C.I. 1.13; 2.90); p = 0.014]. CR was higher with routine prokinetics [OR 1.86 (95% C.I. 1.13; 3.05); p = 0.015] and split-dose PEG purgative [OR 2.03 (95% C.I. 1.01; 4.09), p = 0.048].

CONCLUSIONS

Main quality outcomes (ACR, CR) remain suboptimal for CC and PCE. Despite considerable heterogeneity, our results support low-fibre diet, use of adjunctive sennosides, split dose < 4L PEG, and routine prokinetics, while NaP remains the most consistent option as booster.

Profiling the human intestinal environment under physiological conditions

The spatiotemporal structure of the human microbiome1,2, proteome3 and metabolome4,5 reflects and determines regional intestinal physiology and may have implications for disease6. Yet, little is known about the distribution of microorganisms, their environment and their biochemical activity in the gut because of reliance on stool samples and limited access to only some regions of the gut using endoscopy in fasting or sedated individuals7. To address these deficiencies, we developed an ingestible device that collects samples from multiple regions of the human intestinal tract during normal digestion. Collection of 240 intestinal samples from 15 healthy individuals using the device and subsequent multi-omics analyses identified significant differences between bacteria, phages, host proteins and metabolites in the intestines versus stool. Certain microbial taxa were differentially enriched and prophage induction was more prevalent in the intestines than in stool. The host proteome and bile acid profiles varied along the intestines and were highly distinct from those of stool. Correlations between gradients in bile acid concentrations and microbial abundance predicted species that altered the bile acid pool through deconjugation. Furthermore, microbially conjugated bile acid concentrations exhibited amino acid-dependent trends that were not apparent in stool. Overall, non-invasive, longitudinal profiling of microorganisms, proteins and bile acids along the intestinal tract under physiological conditions can help elucidate the roles of the gut microbiome and metabolome in human physiology and disease.

Increasing the accuracy of colorectal cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health issue, being responsible for nearly 10% of all cancer-related deaths. Since CRC is often an asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic disease until it reaches advanced stages, screening is crucial for the diagnosis of preneoplastic lesions or early CRC.

AREAS COVERED

The aim of this review is to summarize the literature evidence on currently available CRC screening tools, with their pros and cons, focusing on the level of accuracy reached by each test over time. We also provide an overview of novel technologies and scientific advances that are currently being investigated and that in the future may represent real game-changers in the field of CRC screening.

EXPERT OPINION

We suggest that best screening modalities are annual or biennial FIT and colonoscopy every 10 years. We believe that the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI)-tools in the CRC screening field could lead to a significant improvement of the screening efficacy in reducing CRC incidence and mortality in the future. More resources should be put into implementing CRC programmes and support research project to further increase accuracy of CRC screening tests and strategies.

Colon Cancer Screening Methods: 2023 Update

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. National screening guidelines have been implemented to identify and remove precancerous polyps before they become cancer. Routine CRC screening is advised for people with average risk starting at age 45 because it is a common and preventable malignancy. Various screening modalities are currently in use, ranging from stool-based tests (fecal occult blood test (FOBT), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and FIT-DNA test), radiologic tests (computed tomographic colonography (CTC), double contrast barium enema), and visual endoscopic examinations (flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), colonoscopy, and colon capsule endoscopy (CCE)) with their varying sensitivity and specificity. Biomarkers also play a vital role in assessing the recurrence of CRC. This review offers a summary of the current screening options, including biomarkers available to detect CRC, highlighting the benefits and challenges encompassing each screening modality.

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.

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?”.

CC-CLEAR (Colon Capsule Cleansing Assessment and Report): the novel scale to evaluate the clinical impact of bowel preparation in capsule colonoscopy - a multicentric validation study

BACKGROUND

Colon Capsule Cleansing Assessment and Report (CC-CLEAR) is a novel quantitative bowel preparation scale for colon capsule.

AIM

The aim of this study is to validate the association between CC-CLEAR's classification and major CC outcomes: lesion detection rate, surveillance recommendations and post-CC endoscopic treatment.

METHODS

Multicentric cohort of consecutive CCs. An expert's panel decided post-CC recommendations. Data included CC-CLEAR and Leighton-REX scales. Major CC outcomes were associated with the different cleansing grades.

RESULTS

From 168 CC's included, findings were reported in 123 (73.2%), 67 (54.4%) of those being colorectal polyps. CC-CLEAR influenced CC's lesion detection (OR 1.25 95% IC [1.07-1.46], p-value .004) and polyp detection rate (OR 1.22 95% IC [1.04-1.43], p-value.014). Thirty-two (19%) post-CC colonoscopies were recommended, including 22 (68.75%) with at least one polypectomy. CC-CLEAR was associated with post-CC colonoscopy treatment (OR 1.40 95% IC [1.07-1.84], p-value .015). Regarding surveillance, CC-CLEAR influenced the decision for immediate CC repetition (OR 0.21 95% IC [0.12-0.36], p-value < .001) and the recommendation for CC in 3-5 years' time (OR 1.47 95% IC [1.50-1.86], p-value < .002). The Leighton-Rex scale was not correlated with major CC outcomes.

CONCLUSION

CC-CLEAR impacts major CC outcomes: lesion detection, surveillance recommendations and post-CC endoscopic treatment.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of colon capsule endoscopy accuracy for colorectal cancer screening. An alternative during the Covid-19 pandemic?

Aim

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy for colorectal cancer screening.

Methods

Studies that compared the diagnostic performance of colonoscopy and second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE-2) for screening of asymptomatic patients aged 50–75 years were included. The primary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for polyps and adenomas measuring at least 6 mm or 10 mm.

Results

Eight full-text studies that evaluated 1602 patients were included for systematic review. Of these, 840 (52.43%) patients participated in an opportunistic screening program. The pooled outcomes of CCE-2 for polyps at least 6 mm / 10 mm were (CI = confidence interval): sensitivity: 88% (95% CI: 0.84–0.91) / 88% (95% CI: 0.82–0.93), specificity: 94% (95% CI: 0.92–0.95) / 95.5% (95% CI: 0.94–0.97); positive likelihood ratio: 11.86 (95% CI: 5.53–25.46) / 23.07 (95% CI: 6.163–86.36); negative likelihood ratio: 0.14 (95% CI: 0.1–0.21) / 0.14 (95% CI: 0.09–0.21). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve for polyps at least 6 and 10 mm was 96.3% and 96.7%, respectively. The only cancer missed by complete CCE-2 was shown at multiple frames in the unblinded review. In total, 125 (7.8%) patients presented mild adverse events mostly related to bowel preparation.

Conclusion

CCE-2 is demonstrated to be an effective and safe alternative method for colorectal cancer screening. Diagnostic performance of CCE-2 for polyps of at least 6 and 10 mm was similar. Completion rates still need to be improved.

Review: Colon Capsule Endoscopy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused considerable disruption in healthcare services and has had a substantial impact on the care of patients with chronic diseases, such as inflammatory bowel disease. Endoscopy services were significantly restricted, resulting in long waiting lists. There has been a growing interest in the use of capsule endoscopy in the diagnostic pathway and management of these patients. This review explores the published literature on the role of colon capsule endoscopy in ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease as a method for mucosal assessment of extent, severity, and response to treatment. Colon capsule preparation regimens and scoring systems are reported. The studies indicate that, despite inherent limitations of minimally invasive capsule endoscopy, there is increasing evidence to support the use of the second-generation colon capsule in inflammatory bowel disease evaluation, providing an additional pathway to expedite investigation of appropriate patients especially during and after the pandemic.

Video Capsule Endoscopy and Device-Assisted Enteroscopy

Mark Hanscom Courtney Stead Harris Feldman Neil B. Marya David Cave.

Panintestinal capsule endoscopy in patients with celiac disease

INTRODUCTION

Capsule endoscopy has proven its utility in diagnosing villous atrophy and lymphoma in patients with celiac disease. Recently, a novel capsule endoscopy system was introduced which enables the examination of the small and large bowel. So far, it has not been evaluated in patients with celiac disease.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the novel panintestinal capsule endoscopy system in patients with celiac disease.

METHODS

Eleven patients with histologically proven celiac disease (Marsh 0-IV), who underwent a panintestinal capsule endoscopy between March 2018 and April 2019 at our institution, were included in this retrospective single-center study. All patients performed standard bowel preparation prior to the examination. Diagnostic yield, safety and therapeutic impact were analyzed. In addition, the correlation between capsule endoscopy findings and the histology of the duodenal mucosa was assessed.

RESULTS

Panintestinal capsule endoscopy was feasible and produced an acceptable visualization quality in all cases. Concordance of capsule endoscopy findings with the Marsh classification showed a good correlation (r = 0.8). No lymphomas were detected. Evaluation of the colon revealed diminutive polyps (median size 4 mm) in 18% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel panintestinal capsule endoscopy system shows a fair correlation with the Marsh classification in patients with celiac disease. It is also capable of identifying colon polyps. Therefore, the novel panintestinal capsule endoscopy system can be considered for patients with celiac disease and an indication for capsule endoscopy.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer Leading into a New Decade: The "Roaring '20s" for Epigenetic Biomarkers?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) has an important bearing (top five) on cancer incidence and mortality in the world. The etiology of sporadic CRC is related to the accumulation of genetic and epigenetic alterations that result in the appearance of cancer hallmarks such as abnormal proliferation, evasion of immune destruction, resistance to apoptosis, replicative immortality, and others, contributing to cancer promotion, invasion, and metastasis. It is estimated that, each year, at least four million people are diagnosed with CRC in the world. Depending on CRC staging at diagnosis, many of these patients die, as CRC is in the top four causes of cancer death in the world. New and improved screening tests for CRC are needed to detect the disease at an early stage and adopt patient management strategies to decrease the death toll. The three pillars of CRC screening are endoscopy, radiological imaging, and molecular assays. Endoscopic procedures comprise traditional colonoscopy, and more recently, capsule-based endoscopy. The main imaging modality remains Computed Tomography (CT) of the colon. Molecular approaches continue to grow in the diversity of biomarkers and the sophistication of the technologies deployed to detect them. What started with simple fecal occult blood tests has expanded to an armamentarium, including mutation detection and identification of aberrant epigenetic signatures known to be oncogenic. Biomarker-based screening methods have critical advantages and are likely to eclipse the classical modalities of imaging and endoscopy in the future. For example, imaging methods are costly and require highly specialized medical personnel. In the case of endoscopy, their invasiveness limits compliance from large swaths of the population, especially those with average CRC risk. Beyond mere discomfort and fear, there are legitimate iatrogenic concerns associated with endoscopy. The risks of perforation and infection make endoscopy best suited for a confirmatory role in cases where there are positive results from other diagnostic tests. Biomarker-based screening methods are largely non-invasive and are growing in scope. Epigenetic biomarkers, in particular, can be detected in feces and blood, are less invasive to the average-risk patient, detect early-stage CRC, and have a demonstrably superior patient follow-up. Given the heterogeneity of CRC as it evolves, optimal screening may require a battery of blood and stool tests, where each can leverage different pathways perturbed during carcinogenesis. What follows is a comprehensive, systematic review of the literature pertaining to the screening and diagnostic protocols used in CRC. Relevant articles were retrieved from the PubMed database using keywords including: "Screening", "Diagnosis", and "Biomarkers for CRC". American and European clinical trials in progress were included as well.

Efficacy of bowel preparation regimens for colon capsule endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is an alternative to conventional colonoscopy (CC) in specific clinical settings. High completion rates (CRs) and adequate cleanliness rates (ACRs) are fundamental quality parameters if CCE is to be widely implemented as a CC equivalent diagnostic modality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of different bowel preparations regimens on CR and ACR in CCE. Patients and methods  We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The primary outcome measures (CR, ACR) were retrieved from the individual studies and pooled event rates were calculated. Results  Thirty-four observational (OBS) studies (n = 3,789) and 12 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (n = 1,214) comprising a total 5,003 patients were included. The overall CR was 0.798 (95 % CI, 0.764-0.828); the highest CRs were observed with sodium phosphate (NaP) + gastrografin booster (n = 2, CR = 0.931, 95 % CI, 0.820-0.976). The overall ACR was 0.768 (95 % CI, 0.735-0.797); the highest ACRs were observed with polyethylene glycol (PEG) + magnesium citrate (n = 4, ER = 0.953, 95 % CI, 0.896-0.979). Conclusions  In the largest meta-analysis on CCE bowel preparation regimens, we found that both CRs and ACRs are suboptimal compared to the minimum recommended standards for CC. PEG laxative and NaP booster were the most commonly used but were not associated with higher CRs or ACRs. Well-designed studies on CCE should be performed to find the optimal preparation regimen.

Multicentre, prospective, randomised study comparing the diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in a screening population (the TOPAZ study)

OBJECTIVE

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has shown promise for colorectal neoplasia detection compared with optical colonoscopy (OC), but has not been compared with other screening tests in average risk screening patients.

DESIGN

Patients 50 to 75 years of age (African Americans, 45-75 years) were randomised to CCE or CT colonography (CTC) and subsequent blinded OC. The primary endpoint was diagnostic yield of polyps ≥6 mm with CCE or CTC. Secondary endpoints included accuracy for size and histology, examination completeness, number/proportion of subjects with polyps and adenomas ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm, subject satisfaction and safety.

RESULTS

From 320 enrolled subjects, data from 286 (89.4%) were evaluable. The proportion of subjects with any polyp ≥6 mm confirmed by OC was 31.6% for CCE versus 8.6% for CTC (pPr non-inferiority and superiority=0.999). The diagnostic yield of polyps ≥10 mm was 13.5% with CCE versus 6.3% with CTC (pPr non-inferiority=0.9954). The sensitivity and specificity of CCE for polyps ≥6 mm was 79.2% and 96.3% while that of CTC was 26.8% and 98.9%. The sensitivity and specificity of CCE for polyps ≥10 mm was 85.7% and 98.2% compared with 50% and 99.1% for CTC. Both tests were well tolerated/safe.

CONCLUSION

CCE was superior to CTC for detection of polyps ≥6 mm and non-inferior for identification of polyps ≥10 mm. CCE should be considered comparable or superior to CTC as a colorectal neoplasia screening test, although neither test is as effective as OC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02754661.

Diagnostic Accuracy for Per-Patient Polyp Detection of Second-Generation Capsule Endoscopy Compared to Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis of Multicenter Studies

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) or capsule colonoscopy can be used as colorectal cancer (CRC) screening option. We intended to analyze the concerning literature that compared second-generation CCE to standard colonoscopy for multicenter studies only. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Study characteristics related to our research including sensitivity and specificity for per-patient polyps detection (size: ≥ 10 mm and ≥ 6 mm). Meta-analysis was performed using an open meta-analyst. Our research included five studies, involving a total of 1518 patients, with a total of 1305 analyzed patients. The adequate bowel preparation rate ranged from 70% to 90%. The rates of complete CCE transit fluctuated from 80% to 100%. Our meta-analysis illustrated that mean (95% confidence interval) per-patient sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were: 0.86 (0.82-0.91) (p < 0.001), 0.88 (0.72-0.96) (p < 0.001), and 50.7 (18.5-138.9) (p < 0.001), respectively, for polyps ≥ 6 mm; and 0.86 (0.8-0.91) (p < 0.001), 0.96 (0.92-0.98) (p < 0.001), and 173.5 (98.4-305.8) (p < 0.001), respectively, for polyps ≥ 10 mm. We concluded that CCE had high sensitivity and specificity for per-patient polyps vs. standard colonoscopy. Nevertheless, the comparatively higher rate of unfinished CCEs limits the utilization of CCE for CRC screening.

Diagnostic Yields and Clinical Impacts of Capsule Endoscopy

Observing the entire small bowel is difficult due to the presence of complex loops and a long length. Capsule endoscopy (CE) provides a noninvasive and patient-friendly method for visualizing the small bowel and colon. Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) has a critical role in the diagnosis of small bowel disorders through the direct observation of the entire small bowel mucosa and is becoming the primary diagnostic tool for small bowel diseases. Recently, colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) was also considered safe and feasible for obtaining sufficient colonic images in patients with incomplete colonoscopy, in the absence of bowel obstruction. This review article assesses the current status of CE in terms of the diagnostic yield and the clinical impact of SBCE in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, who have known or suspected Crohn's disease, small bowel tumor and inherited polyposis syndrome, celiac disease, and those who have undergone CCE.

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.

Lavage, Simethicone, and Prokinetics-What to Swallow with a Video Capsule

The development of new capsules now allows endoscopic diagnosis in all segments of the gastrointestinal tract and comes with new needs for differentiated preparation regimens. Although the literature is steadily increasing, the results of the conducted trials on preparation are sometimes conflicting. The ingestion of simethicone before gastric and small bowel capsule endoscopy for prevention of air bubbles is established. The value of a lavage before small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is recommended, although not supported by all studies. Ingestion in the morning before the procedure seems useful for the improvement of mucosa visualization. Lavage after swallowing of the capsule seems to improve image quality, and in some studies also diagnostic yield. Prokinetics has been used with first generation capsules to shorten gastric transit time and increase the rate of complete small bowel visualization. With the massively prolonged battery capacity of the new generation small bowel capsules, prokinetics are only necessary in significantly delayed gastric emptying as documented by a real-time viewer. Lavage is crucial for an effective colon capsule or pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy. Mainly high or low volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) is used. Apart from achieving optimal cleanliness, propulsion of the capsule by ingested boosts is required to obtain a complete passage through the colon within the battery lifetime. Boosts with low volume sodium picosulfate (NaP) or diatrizoate (gastrografin) seem most effective, but potentially have more side effects than PEG. Future research is needed for more patient friendly but effective preparations, especially for colon capsule and pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy.

Colon capsule endoscopy in clinical practice: lessons from a national 5-year observational prospective cohort

Background and study aims  Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has been proposed as an alternative to colonoscopy for screening patients at average risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). A prospective national cohort was developed to assess relevance of CCE in real-life practice and its short- and long-term impacts on clinical management. Patients and methods  All patients who underwent a CCE in France were prospectively enrolled from January 2011 to May 2016 and reached annually by phone until May 2017. All CCE and colonoscopy reports were systematically collected. Results  During the study period, 689 CCEs were analyzed from 14 medical centers. Median follow-up time was 35 months [IQR: 12-50]. Indication for CCE was mainly for elderly patients (median age: 70 years, IQR: [61-79]) due to anesthetic or colonoscopy contraindication (n = 307; 44.6 %). Only 337 CCEs (48.9 %) were both complete and with adequate bowel preparation. Advanced neoplasia (adenoma with high-grade dysplasia or CRC) was diagnosed following 32 CCEs (4.6 %). Among patients who underwent colonoscopy or therapeutic surgery following CCE, 18.8 % of all advanced neoplasias (6/32) had not been diagnosed by CCE mainly due to technical issues. Performing a colonoscopy in the case of significant polyps or insufficient bowel cleansing or after an incomplete CCE allowed the diagnosis of 96.9 % of all identified advanced neoplasias (31/32). Conclusions  Outside the scope of academic trials, improvement is needed to increase the reliability of CCE as less than half were considered optimal i. e. complete with adequate bowel cleansing. Most of missed colonic advanced neoplasia were due to incomplete CCE with distal neoplasia location.

Castor oil as booster for colon capsule endoscopy preparation reduction: A prospective pilot study and patient questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Preparation for colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) requires a large liquid laxative volume for capsule excretion, which compromises the procedure's tolerability.

AIM

To assess the safety and utility of castor oil-boosted bowel preparation.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study including 20 patients (age range, 16-80 years; six men and 14 women) suspected of having colorectal disease was conducted at Kindai University Hospital from September 2017 to August 2019. All patients underwent CCE because of the following inclusion criteria: previous incomplete colonoscopy in other facility (n = 20), history of abdominal surgery (n = 7), or organ abnormalities such as multiple diverticulum (n = 4) and adhesion after surgery (n = 6). The exclusion criteria were as follows: Dysphagia, history of allergic reactions to the drugs used in this study (magnesium citrate, polyethylene glycol, metoclopramide, and castor oil), possibility of pregnancy, possibility of bowel obstruction or stenosis based on symptoms, or scheduled magnetic resonance imaging within 2 wk after CCE. The primary outcome was the capsule excretion rate within the battery life, as evaluated by the total large bowel observation rate, large bowel transit time, and bowel creasing level using a five-grade scale in different colorectal segments. The secondary outcomes were complications, colorectal lesion detection rates, and patients’ tolerability.

RESULTS

The castor oil-based regimen was implemented in 17 patients. Three patients cancelled CCE because they could tolerate castor oil, but not liquid laxatives. The capsule excretion rate within the battery life was 88% (15/17). The mean large bowel transit time was 236 min. Approximately 70% of patients had satisfactory colon cleansing levels. CCE detected colon polyps (14/17, 82%) and colonic diverticulum (4/12, 33%). The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy rates for detecting colorectal polyps (size ≥ 6 mm) were 76.9%, 75.0%, and 76.4%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy rates for detection of diverticulum were 100% each. Twelve patients (71%) rated CCE as more than “good”, confirming the new regimen’s tolerability. No serious adverse events occurred during this study.

CONCLUSION

The castor oil-based regimen could reduce bowel preparation dose and improve CCE tolerability.

Diagnostic accuracy of capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy for polyp detection: systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a technology that might contribute to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs as a filter test between fecal immunochemical testing and standard colonoscopy. The aim was to systematically review the literature for studies investigating the diagnostic yield of second-generation CCE compared with standard colonoscopy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Study characteristics including quality of bowel preparation and completeness of CCE transits were extracted. Per-patient sensitivity and specificity were extracted for polyps (any size, ≥ 10 mm, ≥ 6 mm) and lesion characteristics. Meta-analyses of diagnostic yield were performed.

RESULTS

The literature search revealed 1077 unique papers and 12 studies were included. Studies involved a total of 2199 patients, of whom 1898 were included in analyses. The rate of patients with adequate bowel preparation varied from 40 % to 100 %. The rates of complete CCE transit varied from 57 % to 100 %. Our meta-analyses demonstrated that mean (95 % confidence interval) sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were: 0.85 (0.73-0.92), 0.85 (0.70-0.93), and 30.5 (16.2-57.2), respectively, for polyps of any size; 0.87 (0.82-0.90), 0.95 (0.92-0.97), and 136.0 (70.6-262.1), respectively, for polyps ≥ 10 mm; and 0.87 (0.83-0.90), 0.88 (0.75-0.95), and 51.1 (19.8-131.8), respectively, for polyps ≥ 6 mm. No serious adverse events were reported for CCE.

CONCLUSION

CCE had high sensitivity and specificity for per-patient polyps compared with standard colonoscopy However, the relatively high rate of incomplete investigations limits the application of CCE in a CRC screening setting.

The Differential Diagnosis of Colorectal Polyps Using Colon Capsule Endoscopy

Objective Although colorectal polyps (CPs) can be observed with colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), it is difficult to determine the type of polyp using CCE. The objective of this study was to differentiate adenomatous polyps (APs) from hyperplastic polyps (HPs) with CCE. Methods In this single-center retrospective study, an analysis was conducted on the same CPs with both CCE and colonoscopy (CS) and histopathologically diagnosed as AP or HP. The color difference (ΔE) between the polyp surface and the surrounding mucosa was calculated using the CIE1976 L*a*b* color space method on white light (WL), flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (FICE), and blue mode (BM) CP images. We investigated the ability of the ratio of the color differences (ΔE') to differentiate between APs and HPs. Results The size of all 51 polyps (34 APs, 17 HPs) was 7.5±4.6 mm with CCE and 7.3±4.2 mm with CS, and this difference was not significant (p=0.28). The FICEΔE' of APs was 3.3±1.8, which was significantly higher than the FICEΔE' of HPs (1.3±0.6; p<0.001). A receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that FICEΔE' was useful for differentiating between APs and HPs, with an area under the curve of 0.928 (95% confidence interval, 0.843-1). The sensitivity was 91.2%, and the specificity was 88.2% with a cut-off value of 1.758. Conclusion Using FICE on CCE images of CPs and applying the CIELAB color space method, we were able to differentiate between APs and HPs with high accuracy. This method has the potential to reduce unnecessary CS procedures.

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.

Evaluation of Performance in Colon Capsule Endoscopy Reading by Endoscopy Nurses

BACKGROUND

Although 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.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reading time and detection rate of the significant lesions of CCE images among novice and trained expert endoscopy nurses and novice physicians.

METHODS

CCE 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.

RESULTS

The 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.

CONCLUSIONS

The trained expert endoscopy nurses for CCE reading can reduce physician's time and improve the diagnostic yield.

Determining the usefulness of Capsule Scoring of Ulcerative Colitis in predicting relapse of inactive ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The usefulness of second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE2) in ulcerative colitis (UC), especially in clinically inactive patients, has been reported. Capsule Scoring of Ulcerative Colitis (CSUC) was developed as a severity index for UC. We aimed to determine whether CSUC is useful for predicting relapse during clinical remission.

METHODS

Forty-one UC patients in clinical remission who underwent CCE2 were prospectively registered from April 2016 to August 2019. Patients' CSUC score was obtained; those with subsequent relapse were followed up retrospectively. The correlation of CSUC with white blood cell count, platelet count, albumin, C-reactive protein, fecal calprotectin and fecal lactoferrin levels, and fecal immunochemical test results was evaluated; their predictive values for future relapse were compared.

RESULTS

The correlations of CSUC with white blood cell, platelet, albumin, C-reactive protein, fecal calprotectin, fecal immunochemical test, and fecal lactoferrin values were r_s  = 0.13, 0.27, -0.25, 0.15, 0.50, 0.43, and 0.50, respectively. CSUC was higher in 12 patients who relapsed within 1 year than in 29 patients who remained in clinical remission (2.83 ± 1.95 vs 0.72 ± 1.00, P < 0.01). Receiver operator characteristic curve analysis showed that CSUC ≥ 1 was a predictor of relapse (area under the curve of 0.82, sensitivity of 83.3%, specificity of 58.6%) and maybe superior to fecal biomarkers. In the univariate analysis, patients with CSUC of 0 had a lower relapse rate than those with CSUC of ≧ 1 (P = 0.03, log-rank test). After analyzing patients who underwent CCE2 within 6 months after the successful induction treatment, results showed that those with CSUC of ≤ 1 remained in clinical remission for a year.

CONCLUSION

CSUC predicts relapse within 1 year in UC patients in clinical remission, especially when used 6 months after induction treatment.

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.

The Entire Intestinal Tract Surveillance Using Capsule Endoscopy after Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Administration: A Prospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Despite the proven efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) against various types of malignancies, they have been found to induce immune-related adverse events, such as enterocolitis; however, the clinical features of ICI-induced enterocolitis remain to be sufficiently elucidated, which is significant, considering the importance of early detection in the appropriate management and treatment of ICI-induced enterocolitis. Therefore, the current study aimed to determine the utility of capsule endoscopy as a screening tool for ICI-induced enterocolitis.

METHODS

This single-center, prospective, observational study was conducted on patients with malignancy who received any ICI between April 2016 and July 2020 at Keio University Hospital. Next, second-generation capsule endoscopy (CCE-2) was performed on day 60 after ICI initiation to explore the entire gastrointestinal tract.

RESULTS

Among the 30 patients enrolled herein, 23 underwent CCE-2. Accordingly, a total of 23 findings were observed in 14 (60.8%) patients at any portion of the gastrointestinal tract (7 patients in the colon, 4 patients in the small intestine, 2 patients in both the colon and the small intestine, and 1 patient in the stomach). After capsule endoscopy, 2 patients (8.7%) developed ICI-induced enterocolitis: both had significantly higher Capsule Scoring of Ulcerative Colitis than those who had not developed ICI-induced enterocolitis (p = 0.0455). No adverse events related to CCE-2 were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

CCE-2 might be a safe and useful entire intestinal tract screening method for the early detection of ICI-induced enterocolitis in patients with malignancies.

Feasibility of a second-generation colon capsule in visualization of the upper gastrointestinal tract

Background

Capsule endoscopy for visualization of the entire gastrointestinal tract is a challenge. A second-generation colon capsule endoscopy system (CCE-2) performed well in the colon and small intestine, but its utility in the upper gastrointestinal duct is not clear. We evaluated the use of the CCE-2 in the visualization of the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study and further evaluated CCE-2 images using the typical landmarks of esophagus and stomach. The two imagers located at each end of the CCE-2 system were defined as imager1 (green) and imager2 (yellow). Two endoscopists read the images, and they were blinded to the other reader’s results. All of the images from the two imagers were separately reviewed.

Results

Images from 127 subjects were analyzed. This study demonstrated the comprehensive visualization of 71.7% of esophageal landmarks and 89.8% of gastric landmarks using the CCE-2. The two CCE-2 imagers were not identical, and the lighter imager (imager2, yellow) was superior to the heavier imager (imager1, green) (78% vs. 33.1%) in the stomach. Compared with the use of one imager, the use of two imagers was superior (two-imager vs. imager1, 89.8% vs. 33.1%; two-imager vs. imager2, 89.8% vs. 78%) in the stomach. Two-imager combination analysis detected a total of 160 positive findings. In contrast, single-imager analysis with imager1 and imager2 detected 133 and 137 findings, respectively. Two-imager combination analysis provided 20.3% and 16.8% more findings than imager1 and imager2, respectively. The two imagers complemented each other to detect more lesions.

Conclusions

The CCE-2 system is feasible for use in the upper gastrointestinal tract and may be considered an optional tool for upper gastrointestinal imaging. This system may represent a good choice for complete gastrointestinal duct screening. Compared with the use of one imager, the two-imager combination provided improved upper gastrointestinal tract mucosal visualization.

Capsule Endoscopy Versus Colonoscopy in Patients With Previous Colorectal Surgery: A Prospective Comparative Study

Background

Colonic capsule endoscopy (CCE) derived from the video capsule endoscopy, initially proposed to explore the small bowel, has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for colonic polyp detection. The primary outcome of the study was to assess the safety, feasibility, and reliability of CCE after colorectal surgery. Secondary outcomes were to identify the detection rate of colonic lesions and recognition of the surgical anastomosis as compared to colonoscopy.

Methods

This is a prospective single-center study conducted over a 2-year period. Thirty-seven patients with a history of colorectal surgery were prospectively included in this study. Each patient received both CCE and colonoscopy, performed by different operators blinded to each other’s results.

Results

Thirty-two patients (86.5%) completed the study and were included in the final analysis. All capsules were naturally expelled. In three patients (9.4%), the anal verge was not identified during the CCE recording and the examination of the colon was considered incomplete. Surgical anastomosis was accurately identified by CCE in 78.2% of the patients versus 93.8% for colonoscopy (P = 0.65). Thirty-eight lesions were detected in 14 patients. The sensitivity of CCE to detect colonic polyps was 95.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 77.3-99.2%), the specificity 82.4% (95% CI: 59.0-93.8%). Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of CCE to detect colonic polyps were 87.0% and 93.3%, respectively. No complications related to the passage of the capsule through the intestinal anastomosis were detected.

Conclusions

CCE proved to be safe and feasible, reporting a similar detection rate of colonic lesion compared to colonoscopy.

Colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in FIT-positive colorectal cancer screening subjects: a prospective randomised trial-the VICOCA study

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and CT colonography (CTC) are minimally invasive techniques for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Our objective is to compare CCE and CTC for the identification of patients with colorectal neoplasia among participants in a CRC screening programme with positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT). Primary outcome was to compare the performance of CCE and CTC in detecting patients with neoplastic lesions.

METHODS

The VICOCA study is a prospective, single-centre, randomised trial conducted from March 2014 to May 2016; 662 individuals were invited and 349 were randomised to CCE or CTC before colonoscopy. Endoscopists were blinded to the results of CCE and CTC.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-nine individuals were included: 173 in the CCE group and 176 in the CTC group. Two hundred ninety individuals agreed to participate: 147 in the CCE group and 143 in the CTC group. In the intention-to-screen analysis, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for the identification of individuals with colorectal neoplasia were 98.1%, 76.6%, 93.7% and 92.0% in the CCE group and 64.9%, 95.7%, 96.8% and 57.7% in the CTC group. In terms of detecting significant neoplastic lesions, the sensitivity of CCE and CTC was 96.1% and 79.3%, respectively. Detection rate for advanced colorectal neoplasm was higher in the CCE group than in the CTC group (100% and 93.1%, respectively; RR = 1.07; p = 0.08). Both CCE and CTC identified all patients with cancer. CCE detected more patients with any lesion than CTC (98.6% and 81.0%, respectively; RR = 1.22; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Although both techniques seem to be similar in detecting patients with advanced colorectal neoplasms, CCE is more sensitive for the detection of any neoplastic lesion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02081742 . Registered: September 16, 2013.

Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy for detection of colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis

Background: Colorectal cancer counts as the third prevalent type of cancer and the fourth cause of death worldwide. The second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE-2) is a new technology for the diagnosis of colon cancer. The aim of this review was to provide information on the diagnostic accuracy (diagnostic effectiveness) of the second-generation colon capsule endoscopy compared to colonoscopy for the diagnosis of colon cancer and disorders.

Methods: A systematic review of literature in PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library and Iranian databases, such as MagIran, SID, Irandoc, the grey literature (via Google Scholar) was conducted on February 30, 2018. QUADAS-2 was used to assess the quality of the studies. MetaDiSc 2.0 software was used for the meta-analysis.

Results: In this review, 480 records were identified. Eight prospective cohort articles were included among which 7 included in the meta-analysis. For the diagnosis of colorectal polyps with a diameter of 6-10 mm, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 84% (95% CI, 80% -88%) and 88% (95%CI, 85% -90%). For the diagnosis of 10 mm or bigger colorectal polyps, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 84% (95% CI, 76%-89%) and 96% (95% CI, 94 %-97%). The sensitivity and specificity of the capsule in the detection of any size polyps were 93% (95% CI, 97%-84%) and 66% (95% CI, 48%-81%), respectively.

Conclusion: There is little evidence to show the accuracy of CCE-2. Nevertheless, this review showed that the second-generation colon capsule endoscopy has good accuracy in the detection of polyps and colorectal cancer among high- and middle-risk patients.

Update on Flexible Sigmoidoscopy, Computed Tomographic Colonography, and Capsule Colonoscopy

This article reviews alternative colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests, including flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), computed tomography (CT) colonography, and colon capsule endoscopy. FS has abundant and convincing evidence supporting its use for CRC screening and is a commonly used CRC test worldwide. CT colonography has demonstrated convincing results for CRC screening, but concerns regarding cost, accuracy for flat or sessile neoplasia, reproducibility, extracolonic findings, and lack of coverage have limited its use and development. Colon capsule endoscopy has demonstrated encouraging results for polyp detection in average-risk individuals, but is not approved for CRC screening at the current time.

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.).

Colon Capsule Endoscopy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Colon capsule endoscopy was initially introduced in 2006. Since the results of a prospective study to evaluate first-generation colon capsule endoscopy efficacy for the detection of colonic neoplasia were unsatisfactory, second-generation colon capsule endoscopy was developed and reported in 2009. In this review article, we provide an overview of the current state of colon capsule endoscopy for evaluation of inflammatory bowel disease in a clinical setting and describe our clinical experience with this technology and its application. Among the various types of inflammatory bowel diseases, ulcerative colitis is the primary target for application of colon capsule endoscopy. Nevertheless, the initial results of studies using first-generation colon capsule endoscopy to evaluate inflammation were unclear. More recently, second-generation colon capsule endoscopy has provided higher accuracy for assessment of inflammation in patients with ulcerative colitis. Colon capsule endoscopy enables noninvasive observation (with reduced volume preparation) of mucosal inflammation severity in patients with ulcerative colitis.

Time-saving polyp detection in colon capsule endoscopy: evaluation of a novel software algorithm

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a reliable method to detect colonic polyps in the well-prepared colon. As CCE evaluation can be time consuming, a new software algorithm might aid in reducing evaluation time.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to evaluate whether it is feasible to reliably detect colon polyps in CCE videos with a new software algorithm the "collage mode" (Rapid 8 Software, Covidien/Medtronic®).

METHODS

Twenty-nine CCE videos were randomly presented to three experienced and to three inexperienced investigators. Videos were evaluated by applying the collage mode. Investigation time was documented and the results (≥one polyp vs. no polyp) were compared with the findings of two highly experienced central readers who read the CCE videos in the standard mode beforehand.

RESULTS

It took a median time of 9.8, 3.5, and 7.5 vs. 4.3, 4.6 and 12.5 min for experienced vs. inexperienced investigators to review the CCE videos. For detecting ≥one polyp vs. no polyp, sensitivity of 93.3%, 73.3%, and 93.3% was observed for the experienced and sensitivity of 46.7%, 33.3%, and 93.3% for the inexperienced CCE readers.

CONCLUSION

Collage mode might allow for a quick review of CCE videos with a high polyp detection rate for experienced CCE readers. Future prospective studies should include CCE collage mode for rapid polyp detection to further prove the feasibility of practical colon polyp detection by CCE and possibly support the role of CCE as a screening tool in CRC prevention.

The detection of interval colorectal cancers following screening by fecal immunochemical test may predict worse outcomes and prompt ethical concerns: a 6-year population-based cohort study in a full district

The rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) interval surveyed in screen-detected patients using a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are not negligible. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of interval cancer on outcomes compared with a population with cancer diagnosed after a positive test result. All patients between 50 and 71 years of age, who were residents of the Mantua district, affected by CRC and operated on from 2005 to 2010 were reviewed. Other than patient-related, disease-related, and treatment-related factors and tumor location, this population was differentiated as either participating or not to screening and then into populations developing interval cancer after a negative FIT result. Mortality was investigated by univariate analysis and by overall survival rates. The mean age of the 975 patients enrolled was 62 years (61.7% males). Most patients (n=575, 59%) were not screen detected, and 400 (41%) were screen detected. Fifty-six (5.7%) patients in the latter group, representing 14% of the participants, developed interval cancer after a negative FIT result. Their cancer was mostly localized in the right colon (41.1%) instead of the left colon and rectum (P=0.02). They also showed higher stages (P=0.001), a moderate degree of differentiation (P=0.001), and overall higher mortality rates than patients with cancer diagnosed after a positive test result (P=0.001). The effect of interval CRC after screening with FIT resulted in worse outcomes compared with the FIT-positive group. With such findings, patients who had negative results for FIT should be informed of the risk of developing cancer within the rounds of screening to independently gain educational skills in the area of health prevention.

Addressing priority challenges in the detection and assessment of colorectal polyps from capsule endoscopy and colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening using machine learning

BACKGROUND

Colorectal capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a potentially valuable patient-friendly technique for colorectal cancer screening in large populations. Before it can be widely applied, significant research priorities need to be addressed. We present two innovative data science algorithms which can considerably improve acquisition and analysis of relevant data on colorectal polyps obtained from capsule endoscopy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A fully paired study was performed (2015-2016), where 255 participants from the Danish national screening program had CCE, colonoscopy, and histopathology of all detected polyps. We developed: (1) a new algorithm to match CCE and colonoscopy polyps, based on objective measures of similarity between polyps, and (2) a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) for autonomous detection and localization of colorectal polyps in colon capsule endoscopy.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Unlike previous matching methods, our matching algorithm is able to objectively quantify the similarity between CCE and colonoscopy polyps based on their size, morphology and location, and provides a one-to-one unequivocal match between CCE and colonoscopy polyps. Compared to previous methods, the autonomous detection algorithm showed unprecedented high accuracy (96.4%), sensitivity (97.1%) and specificity (93.3%), calculated in respect to the number of polyps detected by trained nurses and gastroenterologists after visualizing frame-by-frame the CCE videos.

Progress of colorectal cancer screening in United States: Past achievements and future challenges

The United States has seen progress with colorectal cancer with both falling incidence and mortality rates. Factoring into this decline, the significance of early detection and removal of precancerous lesions through screening must be underscored. With the advancement of screening modalities, attention has been directed towards optimizing the quality of screening and detecting adenomas. Colorectal cancer screening has been a major agenda item for national gastroenterology societies, culminating in a major victory with passage of the Balanced Budget Act that allowed for Medicare coverage of colorectal cancer screening. Colonoscopy as the primary screening modality was solidified in the 1990s after landmark studies demonstrated its superiority over modalities for detecting precancerous polyps. Despite progress, colorectal cancer screening disparities between race and gender continue to exist. Legislative efforts are on-going and include the SCREEN Act and Dent Act that aim to further improve access to screening. The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable has launched colorectal cancer screening initiatives targeting at risk populations. Today, the current goal of these initiatives is to reach colorectal screening rate of 80% of eligible patients by 2018. With these initiatives, efforts to narrow the gaps in screening disparities and lower overall mortality have been prioritized and continued by the medical community. This review article details colorectal cancer screening progress to date and highlights major studies and initiatives that have solidified its success in the United States.

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.