Current Issues in Computed Tomography Colonography

Scoring Systems for Clinical Colon Capsule Endoscopy-All You Need to Know

In the constantly developing era of minimal diagnostic invasiveness, the role of colon capsule endoscopy in colonic examination is being increasingly recognised, especially in the context of curtailed endoscopy services due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is a safe diagnostic tool with low adverse event rates. As with other endoscopic modalities, various colon capsule endoscopy scores allow the standardisation of reporting and reproducibility. As bowel cleanliness affects CCE’s diagnostic yield, a few operator-dependent scores (Leighton–Rex and CC-CLEAR scores) and a computer-dependent score (CAC score) have been developed to grade bowel cleanliness objectively. CCE can be used to monitor IBD mucosal disease activity through the UCEIS and the panenteric CECDAIic score for UC and CD, respectively. CCE may also have a role in CRC screening, given similar sensitivity and specificity rates to conventional colonoscopy to detect colonic polyps ≥ 10 mm and CRC. Given CCE’s diagnostic yield and reproducible clinical scores with high inter-observer agreements, CCE is fast becoming a suitable alternative to conventional colonoscopy in specific patient populations.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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