PillCam colon capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy for colorectal tumor diagnosis: a prospective pilot study

A Review on Emerging Techniques for Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer

Common detection methods in practice for diagnosing colorectal cancer (CRC) are painful and invasive leading to less participation of individuals for CRC diagnosis. Whereas, improved or enhanced imaging systems and other minimally invasive techniques with shorter detection times deliver greater detail and less discomfort in individuals. Thus, this review is a summary of the diagnostic tests, ranging from the simple potential use in developing a flexible CRC treatment to the patient's potential benefits in receiving less invasive procedures and the advanced treatments that might provide a better assessment for the diagnosis of CRC and reduce the mortality related to CRC.

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.

Factors of easy and difficult cecal intubation during unsedated colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

difficulty of cecal intubation should be a main indicator for the need of sedated colonoscopy and skilled endoscopists. The present study aimed to explore the factors associated with easy and difficult cecal intubation in unsedated colonoscopy.

METHODS

all consecutive patients who underwent unsedated colonoscopy at our department by the same endoscopist from December 3, 2020 to August 30, 2022 were retrospectively collected. Age, gender, body mass index (BMI), reasons for colonoscopy, position change, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score, cecal intubation time (CIT) and major colonoscopic findings were analyzed. CIT < 5 min, CIT 5-10 min and CIT > 10 min or failed cecal intubation were defined as easy, moderate and difficult cecal intubation, respectively. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent factors associated with easy and difficult cecal intubation.

RESULTS

overall, 1,281 patients were included. The proportions of easy and difficult cecal intubation were 29.2 % (374/1,281) and 27.2 % (349/1,281), respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis found that age ≤ 50 years, male, BMI > 23.0 kg/m2 and the absence of position change were independently associated with easy cecal intubation, and that age > 50 years, female, BMI ≤ 23.0 kg/m2, position change, and insufficient bowel preparation were independently associated with difficult cecal intubation.

CONCLUSIONS

some convenient factors independently associated with easy and difficult cecal intubation have been identified, which will be potentially helpful to determine whether a colonoscopy should be sedated and a skilled endoscopist should be selected. The current findings should be further validated in large-scale prospective studies.

The Accuracy of Different Modalities Used for Preoperative Primary Tumour Localisation in Operated Colorectal Cancer Patients

Aim Colonoscopy and computed tomography (CT) scans of the abdomen and pelvis are routine pre-operative assessment tools in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. There have been some discrepancies regarding the location of cancer when seen by colonoscopy versus CT scan. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of a colonoscopy with a computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast, which is done routinely before surgery to localise the exact site of the tumour within the large bowel, whilst comparing both to the operative, gross and histopathology findings of the exact location. Methods A retrospective study was carried out on 165 colorectal cancer patients operated on between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014, using electronic hospital records that were reviewed anonymously, comparing the location of cancer within the large bowels as was found on colonoscopy and CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast, comparing both to post-operative histopathology specimen or intra-operative assessment in cases where no resection of the primary tumour was performed. Results CT and colonoscopy were both accurate in diagnosing 70.5% of cases that had done both investigations pre-operatively. The best results were obtained when the cancer was located in the caecum as confirmed post-operatively; the combined accuracy rate was 100%. CT was accurate, whilst colonoscopy was not in eight (6.2%) cases (all are rectal or sigmoid cancers), and colonoscopy was accurate and CT was not in 12 cases, 10 of them were rectal and two were ascending colonic. Colonoscopy was not performed in 36 (21%) cases for a variety of reasons, including large bowel obstruction or perforation on presentation. In 32 of these cases, CT scan managed to accurately predict the location of cancer (mostly rectal and caecal), and CT scan was inaccurate in 20.6% of cases (34 out of 165), whilst colonoscopy was inaccurate in 13.9% of cases (18 out of 129). Conclusion Colonoscopy is more accurate in localising colorectal cancers than CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast. CT scan diagnoses regional and distant spread of colorectal cancers such as nodal status, invasion of neighbouring organs and/or peritoneum and the presence of liver metastases, whilst colonoscopy is limited to intraluminal diagnosis but can be both a diagnostic and therapeutic tool, with higher accuracy, in general, in localising colorectal cancers. Both CT scan and colonoscopy were equal in appendicular, caecal, splenic flexure and descending colon cancer localisation accuracy.

The optimal use of colon capsule endoscopes in clinical practice

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has been available for nearly two decades but has grappled with being an equal diagnostic alternative to optical colonoscopy (OC). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, CCE has gained more foothold in clinical practice. In this cutting-edge review, we aim to present the existing knowledge on the pros and cons of CCE and discuss whether the modality is ready for a larger roll-out in clinical settings. We have included clinical trials and reviews with the most significant impact on the current position of CCE in clinical practice and discuss the challenges that persist and how they could be addressed to make CCE a more sustainable imaging modality with an adenoma detection rate equal to OC and a low re-investigation rate by a proper preselection of suitable populations. CCE is embedded with a very low risk of severe complications and can be performed in the patient's home as a pain-free procedure. The diagnostic accuracy is found to be equal to OC. However, a significant drawback is low completion rates eliciting a high re-investigation rate. Furthermore, the bowel preparation before CCE is extensive due to the high demand for clean mucosa. CCE is currently not suitable for large-scale implementation in clinical practice mainly due to high re-investigation rates. By a better preselection before CCE and the implantation of artificial intelligence for picture and video analysis, CCE could be the alternative to OC needed to move away from in-hospital services and relieve long-waiting lists for OC.

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?”.

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.

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.

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.

Automatic lumen detection and magnetic alignment control for magnetic-assisted capsule colonoscope system optimization

We developed a magnetic-assisted capsule colonoscope system with integration of computer vision-based object detection and an alignment control scheme. Two convolutional neural network models A and B for lumen identification were trained on an endoscopic dataset of 9080 images. In the lumen alignment experiment, models C and D used a simulated dataset of 8414 images. The models were evaluated using validation indexes for recall (R), precision (P), mean average precision (mAP), and F1 score. Predictive performance was evaluated with the area under the P-R curve. Adjustments of pitch and yaw angles and alignment control time were analyzed in the alignment experiment. Model D had the best predictive performance. Its R, P, mAP, and F1 score were 0.964, 0.961, 0.961, and 0.963, respectively, when the area of overlap/area of union was at 0.3. In the lumen alignment experiment, the mean degrees of adjustment for yaw and pitch in 160 trials were 21.70° and 13.78°, respectively. Mean alignment control time was 0.902 s. Finally, we compared the cecal intubation time between semi-automated and manual navigation in 20 trials. The average cecal intubation time of manual navigation and semi-automated navigation were 9 min 28.41 s and 7 min 23.61 s, respectively. The automatic lumen detection model, which was trained using a deep learning algorithm, demonstrated high performance in each validation index.

Diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy for Crohn's disease lesions in the whole gastrointestinal tract

BACKGROUND

Crohn's disease (CD) can involve the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract as well as the small and large bowel. PillCam colon capsule endoscopy (PCCE-2) enables observation of the whole GI tract, but its diagnostic yield for CD lesions in the whole GI tract remains unknown.

AIM

To elucidate the diagnostic yield of PCCE-2 in patients with CD.

METHODS

Patients with CD who underwent PCCE-2 and double-balloon endoscopy (DBE) using oral and anal approaches were evaluated for CD lesions in the whole GI tract. We divided the small bowel into three segments (jejunum, ileum, and terminal ileum), and the large bowel into four segments (right colon, transverse colon, left colon, rectum). Detection of ulcer scars, erosion, ulcers, bamboo joint-like appearance, and notch-like appearance was assessed in each segment. The diagnostic yield of PCCE-2 was analyzed based on the DBE results as the gold standard.

RESULTS

Of the total 124 segments, the sensitivities of PCCE-2 for ulcer scars, erosion, and ulcers were 83.3%, 93.8%, and 88.5%, respectively, and the specificities were 76.0%, 78.3%, and 81.6%, respectively. For the 60 small bowel segments, the sensitivities were 84.2%, 95.5%, and 90.0%, respectively, and the specificities were 63.4%, 86.8%, and 87.5%, respectively. For the 64 large bowel segments, the sensitivities were 80.0%, 90.0%, and 83.3%, respectively, and the specificities were 84.7%, 72.2%, and 77.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

PCCE-2 provides a high diagnostic yield for lesions in the whole GI tract of patients with CD. Thus, we recommend its use as a pan-enteric tool in clinical settings.

Enabling the future of colonoscopy with intelligent and autonomous magnetic manipulation

Early diagnosis of colorectal cancer significantly improves survival. However, over half of cases are diagnosed late due to demand exceeding the capacity for colonoscopy - the "gold standard" for screening. Colonoscopy is limited by the outdated design of conventional endoscopes, associated with high complexity of use, cost and pain. Magnetic endoscopes represent a promising alternative, overcoming drawbacks of pain and cost, but struggle to reach the translational stage as magnetic manipulation is complex and unintuitive. In this work, we use machine vision to develop intelligent and autonomous control of a magnetic endoscope, for the first time enabling non-expert users to effectively perform magnetic colonoscopy in-vivo. We combine the use of robotics, computer vision and advanced control to offer an intuitive and effective endoscopic system. Moreover, we define the characteristics required to achieve autonomy in robotic endoscopy. The paradigm described here can be adopted in a variety of applications where navigation in unstructured environments is required, such as catheters, pancreatic endoscopy, bronchoscopy, and gastroscopy. This work brings alternative endoscopic technologies closer to the translational stage, increasing availability of early-stage cancer treatments.

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.

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

Background/Aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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.

PillCamColon2 after incomplete colonoscopy - A prospective multicenter study

AIM

To evaluate the ability of PillCamColon2 to visualize colonic segments missed by incomplete optical colonoscopy (OC) and to assess the diagnostic yield.

METHODS

This prospective multicentre study included 81 patients from nine centres who underwent second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) following incomplete OC performed by an experienced gastroenterologist (> 1000 colonoscopies). Patients with stenosis were excluded. According to patient preferences, CCE was performed the following day (protocol A) after staying on clear liquids and 0.75 L Moviprep in the morning or within 30 d after new split-dose Moviprep (protocol B). Boosts consisted of 0.75 L and 0.25 L Moviprep, and phospho-soda was given as a rescue if the capsule was not excreted after seven hours.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients were analysed (51% of them in group A; 49% in group B). Bowel cleansing was adequate in 67% of cases, and CCE could visualize colonic segments missed by incomplete colonoscopy in 90% of patients under protocol A and 97% of patients under protocol B (P = 0.35, n.s.). Significant polyps including adenocarcinoma were detected in 24% of cases. Detection rates for all polyps and significant polyps per patient were similar in both protocols. Polyps were found predominantly in the right colon (86%) in segments that were not reached by OC. Extracolonic findings - such as reflux esophagitis, suspected Barrett esophagus, upper GI-bleeding, gastric polyps, gastric erosions and angiectasia - were detected in eight patients. PillCamColon2 capsule was retained in the ileum of one patient (1.4%) without symptoms and removed during an uneventful resection for unknown Crohn’s disease that was diagnosed as the cause of anemia, which was the indication for colonoscopy. CCE was well tolerated. One patient suffered from self-limiting vomiting after consuming the phospho-soda.

CONCLUSION

Second-generation CCE using a low-volume preparation is useful after incomplete OC, and it allows for the detection of additional relevant findings, but cleansing efficiency could be improved.

Recent Advance in Colon Capsule Endoscopy: What's New?

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a relatively new diagnostic procedure for patients with suspected colonic diseases. This convenient,noninvasive method enables the physician to explore the entire colon without significant discomfort to the patient. However, while CCEcan be performed painlessly without bowel air insufflation, the need for vigorous bowel preparation and other technical limitationsexist. Due to such limitations, CCE has not replaced conventional colonoscopy. In this review, we discuss historical and recentadvances in CCE including technical issues, ideal bowel preparation, indications and contraindications and highlight further technicaladvancements and clinical studies which are needed to develop CCE as a potential diagnostic tool.

Colon capsule endoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in those with family histories of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has been recognized as an alternative for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk people. Our aim was to prospectively assess the accuracy of CCE as a screening tool in first-degree relatives (FDRs) of people with CRC by using optical colonoscopy (OC) with segmental unblinding as the reference standard.

METHODS

Consecutive patients admitted with a CRC diagnosis (index cases) were prospectively evaluated and invited to contact their FDRs. Available FDRs were invited to undergo CCE and OC on the following day, with segmental unblinding of CCE results. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) of CCE were assessed for detecting patients with any polyp ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm.

RESULTS

A total of 177 FDRs (median age 57.0 years, 54.8% female) identified from 211 index cases were included. Both CCE and OC were completed in all the included FDRs. Overall, CCE identified 51 of 56 FDRs with polyps ≥6 mm (sensitivity 91%; 95% CI, 81-96) and correctly classified as negative 107 of 121 participants without lesions ≥6 mm (specificity 88%; 95% CI, 81-93). Per-patient positive and negative predictive values for ≥6 mm lesions were 78% (95% CI, 67-87) and 95% (95% CI, 90-98), respectively. CCE detected 24 of 27 patients with polyps ≥10 mm and correctly classified as negative 142 of 150 patients, corresponding to 89% sensitivity and 95% specificity. Post-CCE referral rates to colonoscopy were 37% and 18%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

CCE is an accurate method to screen FDRs of patients with CRC and could be offered as an alternative to those who decline or are unfit for colonoscopy screening. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01184781.).

Multicenter, randomized study to optimize bowel preparation for colon capsule endoscopy

AIM

To assess the cleansing efficacy and safety of a new Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) bowel preparation regimen.

METHODS

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 1^st and 2^nd 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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

A CCE bowel preparation regimen using oral sulfate solution and diatrizoate solution as a boost agent is effective, safe, and achieved superior CCE completion.

Colorectal cancer, screening and primary care: A mini literature review

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common health problem, representing the third most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide and causing a significant burden in terms of morbidity and mortality, with annual deaths estimated at 700000. The western way of life, that is being rapidly adopted in many regions of the world, is a well discussed risk factor for CRC and could be targeted in terms of primary prevention. Furthermore, the relatively slow development of this cancer permits drastic reduction of incidence and mortality through secondary prevention. These facts underlie primary care physicians (PCPs) being assigned a key role in health strategies that enhance prevention and prompt diagnosis. Herein, we review the main topics of CRC in the current literature, in order to better understand its pathogenesis, risk and protective factors, as well as screening techniques. Furthermore, we discuss preventive and screening policies to combat CRC and the crucial role served by PCPs in their successful implementation. Relevant articles were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE and through manual searches of reference lists.

Feasibility of a novel low-volume and sodium phosphate-free bowel preparation regimen for colon capsule endoscopy

Bowel preparation regimens for colon capsule endoscopy are not yet standardized since they are not well optimized. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility of a novel low-volume and sodium phosphate-free bowel preparation regimen for colon capsule endoscopy. A total of 31 patients were prospectively enrolled. In the novel regimen, on the day prior to examination, a low-fiber diet was permitted, 5 mg mosapride citrate was administered twice (1 h prior to lunch and supper) and 1 l polyethylene glycol was administered in the evening. On the day of the examination, an additional 1 l polyethylene glycol, 5 mg mosapride citrate and 200 mg simethicone were administered before capsule ingestion. Polyethylene glycol booster (0.5 l) was administered twice, at 1 and 4 h following capsule ingestion. Colon cleansing levels, ileocecal valve transit time and completion rate were evaluated. A total of 29 patients were included in the final analysis, 90% of whom achieved adequate preparation of the overall colon. Ileocecal valve transit time was 2.35±0.82 h and completion rate was 79.3%. The results revealed that the novel low-volume and sodium phosphate-free bowel preparation regimen for colon capsule endoscopy was feasible, with adequate colon cleansing and completion rates, and has the potential to be used as an alternative regimen.

International core curriculum for capsule endoscopy training courses

Capsule endoscopy (CE) has become a first-line noninvasive tool for visualisation of the small bowel (SB) and is being increasingly used for investigation of the colon. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines have specified requirements for the clinical applications of CE. However, there are no standardized recommendations yet for CE training courses in Europe. The following suggestions in this curriculum are based on the experience of European CE training courses directors. It is suggested that 12 hours be dedicated for either a small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) or a colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) course with 4 hours for an introductory CCE course delivered in conjunction with SBCE courses. SBCE courses should include state-of-the-art lectures on indications, contraindications, complications, patient management and hardware and software use. Procedural issues require approximately 2 hours. For CCE courses 2.5 hours for theoretical lessons and 3.5 hours for procedural issued are considered appropriate. Hands-on training on reading and interpretation of CE cases using a personal computer (PC) for 1 or 2 delegates is recommended for both SBCE and CCE courses. A total of 6 hours hands-on session- time should be allocated. Cases in a SBCE course should cover SB bleeding, inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), tumors and variants of normal and cases with various types of polyps covered in CCE courses. Standardization of the description of findings and generation of high-quality reports should be essential parts of the training. Courses should be followed by an assessment of trainees' skills in order to certify readers' competency.

Colon capsule endoscopy: toward the future

Colon capsule endoscopy is a wireless and minimally invasive technique for visualization of the whole colon. With recent improvements of technical features in second-generation systems, a more important role for colon capsule endoscopy is rapidly emerging. Although several limitations and drawbacks are yet to be resolved, its usefulness as a tool for colorectal cancer screening and monitoring disease activity in inflammatory bowel diseases has become more apparent with increased use. Further investigations, including multicenter trials, are required to evaluate the substantial role of the colon capsule in managing colorectal diseases.

Prospective study of factors important to achieve observation of the entire colon on colon capsule endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a procedure in which capsule swallowing facilitates observation of the lumen of the entire digestive tract. It does not require an air supply, and is a noninvasive procedure with a markedly low risk of adverse events in comparison with conventional colonoscopy (CS). It reduces patient stress, and may be acceptable to patients. A limitation of this procedure is that the entire colon observation rate (CCE excretion rate, completed CCE rate) is not 100%. In this study, we prospectively investigated clinical factors important to achieve observation of the entire colon on CCE.

METHODS

The participants were 70 patients for whom CCE was scheduled, and from whom written informed consent regarding participation in this study was obtained. We selected patient background/examination factors, and analyzed all factors involved in observation of the entire colon and factors for completion of the CCE within 4 h after the start of examination using multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 70 enrolled patients, 64 were analyzed, excluding 6. On multiple logistic analysis, only a water intake of ⩾12.0 ml/min during examination [p = 0.025, odds ratio (OR): 46.753, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.630-1341.248] was identified as an independent predictive factor involved in observation of the entire colon. With respect to factors involved in the completion of CCE within 4 h, multiple logistic analysis showed that a body mass index (BMI) of ⩾25 (p = 0.039, OR: 13.723, 95% CI: 1.135-165.913), the absence of constipation (p = 0.030, OR: 13.988, 95% CI: 1.287-152.047), and a water intake of ⩾12.0 ml/min during examination (p = 0.004, OR: 12.028, 95% CI: 2.225-65.029) were independent predictive factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Completion of a CCE was most closely related to water intake per hour. In addition to water intake, CCE-promoting factors included a high BMI and the absence of constipation.

Accuracy of First- and Second-Generation Colon Capsules in Endoscopic Detection of Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a noninvasive technique used to explore the colon without sedation or air insufflation. A second-generation capsule was recently developed to improve accuracy of detection, and clinical use has expanded globally. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the accuracy of CCE in detecting colorectal polyps.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other databases from 1966 through 2015 for studies that compared accuracy of colonoscopy with histologic evaluation with CCE. The risk of bias within each study was ascertained according to Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy in Systematic Reviews recommendations. Per-patient accuracy values were calculated for polyps, overall and for first-generation (CCE-1) and second-generation (CCE-2) capsules. We analyzed data by using forest plots, the I² statistic to calculate heterogeneity, and meta-regression analyses.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies provided data from 2420 patients (1128 for CCE-1 and 1292 for CCE-2). CCE-2 and CCE-1 detected polyps >6 mm with 86% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 82%-89%) and 58% sensitivity (95% CI, 44%-70%), respectively, and 88.1% specificity (95% CI, 74.2%-95.0%) and 85.7% specificity (95% CI, 80.2%-90.0%), respectively. CCE-2 and CCE-1 detected polyps >10 mm with 87% sensitivity (95% CI, 81%-91%) and 54% sensitivity (95% CI, 29%-77%), respectively, and 95.3% specificity (95% CI, 91.5%-97.5%) and 97.4% specificity (95% CI, 96.0%-98.3%), respectively. CCE-2 identified all 11 invasive cancers detected by colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity in detection of polyps >6 mm and >10 mm increased substantially between development of first-generation and second-generation colon capsules. High specificity values for detection of polyps by CCE-2 seem to be achievable with a 10-mm cutoff and in a screening setting.

Extracolonic findings with the PillCam Colon: is panendoscopy with capsule endoscopy closer?

Background and study aims: Colon capsules display images from the moment they are ingested, making the study of other extracolonic areas possible. The aim of this study was to analyze the significance of these extracolonic findings. Patients and methods: In this single-center, prospective study, 165 patients underwent colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) between September 2009 and October 2012 to rule out colonic pathology. Images were recorded, without interruptions, from the moment the capsule was ingested until its battery ran out. The study was deemed complete when the capsule had traveled from the esophagus to excretion or until the hemorrhoidal plexus was observed. Results: CCE was used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening (81.2 %), to investigate for chronic diarrhea (9.7 %) and chronic iron deficiency anemia (6.1 %), and for patients with incomplete colonoscopy (3.0 %). The capsule returned findings in the esophagus in 52.1 % of patients, in the stomach in 45.5 % of patients, and in the small bowel in 70.7 % of patients, with the findings being considered relevant in 4.9 %, 9.7 %, and 22.6 % of patients, respectively. The whole extent of the digestive tract was fully recorded in 86.1 % of patients and the Z line could be fully observed in 57.6 % of patients. There were no adverse events. Conclusions: CCE allows the recording of images from almost the whole extent of the digestive tract in most patients, enabling relevant pathologies to be identified in extracolonic areas, particularly the small bowel. Technical and procedural improvements are still necessary in order to achieve better observation of the stomach and esophagus.

Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Where Are We and Where Are We Going

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a noninvasive technique for diagnostic imaging of the colon. It does not require air inflation or sedation and allows minimally invasive and painless colonic evaluation. The role of CCE is rapidly evolving; for example, for colorectal screening (colorectal cancer [CRC]) in average-risk patients, in patients with an incomplete colonoscopy, in patients refusing a conventional colonoscopy, and in patients with contraindications for conventional colonoscopy. In this paper, we comprehensively review the technical characteristics and procedure of CCE and compare CCE with conventional methods such as conventional colonoscopy or computed tomographic colonography. Future expansion of CCE in the area of CRC screening for the surveillance of polyps and adenomatous lesions and for assessment of inflammatory bowel disease is also discussed.

Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Review and Perspectives

Colon capsule endoscopy utilizing PillCam COLON 2 capsule allows for visualization potentially of the entire colon and is currently approved for patients who cannot withstand the rigors of traditional optical colonoscopy (OC) and associated sedation as well as those that had an OC that was incomplete for technical reasons other than a poor preparation. We will then describe the prior experience and current status of colon capsule endoscopy.

Diagnostic Role of Colon Capsule Endoscopy in Patients with Optimal Colon Cleaning

Background. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a diagnostic test with relatively rare usage. In this study, we aimed to evaluate both the optimal cleaning regimen for CCE and the diagnostic value of test in the study group. Methods. A total of 62 patients were enrolled in this study. In the first step, 3 different colon preparing regimens were given to 30 patients [Group A: 3 days of liquid diet, sodium phosphate (NaP) (90 mL), and NaP enema; Group B: 3 days of liquid diet, 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG), and metoclopramide; Group C: 3 days of liquid diet, 4 L of PEG, NaP (45 mL), and bisacodyl after capsule ingestion] (10 patients in each group). The other consecutive 32 patients were cleaned with the best regimen which was NaP + PEG and CCE was performed. The results of CCE were controlled with colonoscopy in 28 patients. Results. Group C had the highest cleaning score, compared with the other groups (2.2 ± 0.4 versus 2.7 ± 0.4 versus 3.7 ± 0.4, p value = 0.000). The CCE findings were as follows in 28 patients who were also examined with colonoscopy: polyp (range: 5–10 mm) in 6 patients, internal hemorrhoids in 3 patients, angiodysplasia in 1 patient, diverticula in 1 patient, and ulcerative colitis in 1 patient. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of CCE were 100%, 92%, 93%, and 100%, respectively. Conclusions. Low dosage NaP combined with PEG provides optimal bowel preparation for CCE. CCE appears to be a highly sensitive diagnostic modality for detecting colonic pathologies.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The efficacy of screening colonoscopy in first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) is limited by suboptimal uptake. We compared screening uptake of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) vs colonoscopy in this population.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study of 329 asymptomatic FDRs of patients with CRC who were randomly assigned to groups examined by CCE (PillCam, second generation; n = 165) or colonoscopy (n = 164) at a tertiary hospital in Spain from July 2012 through December 2013. Crossover was permitted for patients who did not wish to undergo the assigned procedure. Subjects assigned to CCE who had a significant lesion (polyp ≥ 10 mm, >2 polyps of any size, or CRC) were invited to undergo colonoscopy.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty subjects in the CCE group and 113 in the colonoscopy group were eligible for inclusion. In the intention-to-screen analysis, uptake was similar between groups (55.8% CCE vs 52.2% colonoscopy; odds ratio [OR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-1.44; P = .57); 57.4% of subjects crossed over from the CCE group, and 30.2% crossed over from the colonoscopy group (OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.51-6.41; P = .002). Unwillingness to repeat bowel preparation in the case of a positive result was the main reason that subjects assigned to the CCE group crossed over; fear of colonoscopy was the reason that most patients in this group crossed over. A significant lesion was detected in 14 subjects (11.7%) in the CCE group and 13 subjects (11.5%) in the colonoscopy group (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.45-2.26; P = .96).

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective study, similar numbers of FDRs of patients with CRC assigned to undergo CCE or colonoscopy agreed to participate, but most preferred to undergo colonoscopy. CCE was as effective as colonoscopy in detecting significant lesions; it could be a valid rescue strategy for subjects who reject screening colonoscopy. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01557101.

Gastrografin as an alternative booster to sodium phosphate in colon capsule endoscopy: safety and efficacy pilot study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Sodium phosphate is a key component of bowel preparation regimen for colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), but may cause serious complications. The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of Gastrografin, substituted for sodium phosphate, in CCE bowel preparation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In total, 29 patients (median age 64 years; 23 females) underwent CCE, covered by the national health insurance system of Japan. All had a history of laparotomy and/or previously incomplete colonoscopy. On the day before examination, patients ingested 1 L of polyethylene glycol + ascorbic acid with 0.5 L of water in the evening, and again the same laxative on the morning of examination. After capsule ingestion, 50 mL of Gastrografin diluted with 0.9 L of magnesium citrate was administered, and then repeated after 1 hour.

RESULTS

The capsule excretion rate was 97 % (28/29). The median colon transit time was 2 hours 45 minutes and rapid transit (< 40 minutes) through the colon occurred in one patient (3.4 %). Bowel cleansing level was adequate in 90 % of patients. The polyp (≥ 6 mm) detection rate was 52 %. Diluted Gastrografin was well tolerated by patients. No adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

Gastrografin can be an alternative to sodium phosphate in CCE bowel preparation regimen.

Evaluation of the clinical efficacy of colon capsule endoscopy in the detection of lesions of the colon: prospective, multicenter, open study

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a new procedure for colon imaging. Limited information is available regarding visualization of flat colon lesions and patient acceptability in Japan.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to evaluate the sensitivity of CCE in detecting polyps and other lesions compared with optical colonoscopy (OC) and to evaluate its safety and acceptability in a cohort of Japanese patients.

DESIGN

A prospective, open-label, clinical study in Japan.

SETTING

Multicenter.

PATIENTS

Patients referred for OC because of personal history of polyps ≥6 mm or any other colon lesion that required endoscopic or surgical treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

CCE followed by therapeutic colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The primary endpoint was per-patient sensitivity of CCE in detecting significant colon lesion. The secondary endpoints were CCE safety and patient acceptability.

RESULTS

Sixty-six of the 72 patients enrolled in the study were evaluated for efficacy. The per-patient sensitivity was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.2%-99.7%). The per-polyp sensitivity was 86.6% (95% CI, 81.3%-91.9%) when pathology-confirmed polyps were considered true positives. There were no adverse events related to CCE, and the acceptability of CCE was high.

LIMITATIONS

All patients had previously confirmed colon lesions, which may have falsely elevated the sensitivity of CCE.

CONCLUSION

CCE had a high sensitivity for detecting significant colon lesions. CCE was safe and had a high level of patient acceptability. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

University Hospital Medical Information Network, UMIN000007258.).

Design of Endoscopic Capsule With Multiple Cameras

In order to reduce the miss rate of the wireless capsule endoscopy, in this paper, we propose a new system of the endoscopic capsule with multiple cameras. A master-slave architecture, including an efficient bus architecture and a four level clock management architecture, is applied for the Multiple Cameras Endoscopic Capsule (MCEC). For covering more area of the gastrointestinal tract wall with low power, multiple cameras with a smart image capture strategy, including movement sensitive control and camera selection, are used in the MCEC. To reduce the data transfer bandwidth and power consumption to prolong the MCEC's working life, a low complexity image compressor with PSNR 40.7 dB and compression rate 86% is implemented. A chipset is designed and implemented for the MCEC and a six cameras endoscopic capsule prototype is implemented by using the chipset. With the smart image capture strategy, the coverage rate of the MCEC prototype can achieve 98% and its power consumption is only about 7.1 mW.

Safety and Feasibility of Using the Second-Generation Pillcam Colon Capsule to Assess Active Colonic Crohn's Disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The second-generation Pillcam Colon Capsule Endoscope (PCCE-2; Given Imaging Ltd, Yoqneam, Israel) is an ingestible capsule for visualization of the colon. We performed a multicenter pilot study to assess its safety and feasibility in evaluating the severity of Crohn's disease (CD).

METHODS

In a prospective study, 40 patients with active colonic CD underwent PCCE-2 and optical colonoscopy procedures. Using both techniques, we generated values for the Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS), the Simple Endoscopic Score for CD, and global evaluation of lesion severity. In the first stage of the study, we calculated the correlation between PCCE-2 and optical colonoscopy scores. In the second stage, we performed interobserver agreement analysis for a random subset of 20 PCCE-2 recordings, graded in duplicate by 2 independent readers.

RESULTS

There was substantial agreement between PCCE-2 and optical colonoscopy in the measurement of the CDEIS (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.80). There was substantial interobserver agreement between 2 independent PCCE-2 readers for the CDEIS (ICC, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.35-0.86) and the Simple Endoscopic Score for CD (ICC, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.32-0.85). However, the PCCE-2 scoring systematically underestimated the severity of disease compared with optical colonoscopy; based on our results, PCCE-2 detected colonic ulcerations with 86% sensitivity and 40% specificity. No adverse events were observed and PCCE-2 was better tolerated than colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

PCCE-2 is feasible, safe, and well tolerated for the assessment of mucosal CD activity in selected populations. Larger studies are needed to assess its operating characteristics further. European clinical trials database number: 2014-003854-15.

Wireless capsule endoscopy in adolescents with familial adenomatous polyposis

Aims and background

Guidelines for surveillance in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) recommend mutation carriers to undergo periodic colorectal examination starting in the early teens. Performing colonoscopy in children may lead to complications. Wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) has been introduced recently to evaluate both the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract, and seems suitable as a first screening examination for adolescents. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pros and cons of WCE.

Methods

This was a retrospective review of a single institution database of adolescent patients with FAP identified through the Hereditary Colorectal Tumor Registry between 2007 and 2013. The main outcomes were identification of upper and lower gastrointestinal tract polyps, tolerance of the examination, and number and size of polyps.

Results

Of 46 adolescent patients with FAP, 14 (30.4%) patients carrying adenomatous polyposis coli gene ( APC) mutation, 6 male and 8 female, age (median, range) 12 (10-17) years, body mass index 19 (13-24), underwent WCE as first screening examination. The examination was completed in 13 patients (93.3%). Wireless capsule endoscopy identified the duodenal papilla in 4 patients and colonic and rectal polyps in all 13 patients. In 7 patients, fewer than 25 polyps were identified. No complications were recorded related to the use of the video capsule.

Conclusions

Wireless capsule endoscopy is feasible and well-tolerated as a first screening examination in adolescent patients. It cannot be used as alternative to the colonoscopy, but could improve compliance with colonoscopy, and increase early adherence to a surveillance program.

Colon capsule endoscopy

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a minimally invasive technique specifically designed to explore the colon without sedation and air insufflation. CCE may overcome some of the limitations of colonoscopy. Second-generation CCE (CCE-2) was proved accurate in detecting colonic neoplastic lesions when used in average-risk individuals. The evidence to date supports the use of CCE-2 in cases of colonoscopy failure, in patients unwilling to undergo colonoscopy, and when colonoscopy is contraindicated. Other potential applications, such as colorectal cancer screening or diagnostic surveillance of inflammatory bowel disease, require clarification.

Colon PillCam: why not just take a pill?

This review article deals with the clinical value of capsule endoscopy for visualization of the colon. Since its introduction in 2006, the colon capsule endoscopy underwent major technological improvements. The improved performance of colon capsule endoscopy is reviewed based on three multicenter prospective studies. Screening patients for colonic adenomatous polyps is reasonable in patients who are unwilling to undergo conventional colonoscopy. Another prospective study proved that colon capsule endoscopy is effective in incomplete colonoscopy. Colon capsule endoscopy was shown to be superior to virtual colonography in the evaluation of patients with incomplete colonoscopy. Further improvements are expected in colon capsule endoscopy.

Capsule endoscopy--not just for the small bowel: a review

Video capsule endoscopy is being increasingly used to investigate the esophagus and colon as well as the small bowel. With the advancement of technology used in capsule endoscopy there have been marked improvements in diagnostic rates for colon capsule endoscopy in the detection of colonic polyps and colorectal cancer. It is also being increasingly used in the field if inflammatory bowel disease to investigate for mucosal inflammation and could potentially be used to assess mucosal healing. It also has role in completing the evaluation of colonic pathology in those in whom colonoscopy is incomplete. Esophageal capsule is preferred by patients over esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) but as yet does not rival EGD in terms of diagnostic accuracy however the advent of magnetically steerable capsules may improve this. This review covers advances in the field of colon and esophageal capsule endoscopy; it covers diagnostic capabilities of these 2 tools as well as technical aspects of both procedures and preparation.

Current status of capsule endoscopy through a whole digestive tract

More than a decade has passed since small-bowel capsule endoscopy (CE) was first reported. Small-bowel CE is a non-invasive tool that allows visualization of the entire small-intestinal mucosa and facilitates detection of small-intestinal abnormalities. Several studies have shown benefit of small-bowel CE for certain disorders. Because it is non-invasive, CE has been applied to other organs including the esophagus, stomach, and colon. The main indications for esophageal CE (ECE) are screening for gastroesophageal reflux disease/Barrett's esophagus, and esophageal varices. However, the clinical benefit of ECE is unconfirmed. Magnetically guided CE (MGCE) was developed to visualize the gastric mucosa. MGCE is a new concept with room for improvement of capsule navigation and the preparation protocol. Recently, two new small-bowel CE tools were released. First-generation colon CE (CCE-1) has moderate sensitivity and specificity compared with colonoscopy for colorectal neoplasia surveillance. To obtain higher accuracy, a second-generation CCE (CCE-2) was developed with a high sensitivity for detecting clinically relevant polypoid lesions. A possible application of CCE is for inflammatory bowel disease. In the near future, CE may include diagnostic and therapeutic functions such as magnifying endoscopy systems, targeted biopsy forceps, and drug delivery systems.

The role of capsule endoscopy in assessing mucosal inflammation in ulcerative colitis

Assessment of mucosal inflammation is important in the management of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has recently been shown to be effective in colorectal polyp detection. However, its role in the evaluation of mucosal inflammation in UC is unclear. This systematic review aims to clarify the state of the art with an evidence-based summary of current studies on the utility of CCE in UC. The overall results show that the accuracy of CCE for assessment of mucosal inflammation in UC appeared to be comparable with that of colonoscopy. Long-term follow-up studies with larger sample size are needed to further validate the utility of CCE in the management of UC subjects in clinical practice.

Colon capsule endoscopy: Current status and future directions

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE; PillCam Colon; Given Imaging; Yoqneam, Israel) is a minimally invasive wireless technique for the visualization of the colon. With the recent introduction of the second generation colon capsule the diagnostic accuracy of CCE for polyp detection has significantly improved and preliminary data suggest it may be useful to monitor mucosal inflammation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Limitations include the inability to take biopsies and the procedural costs. However, given the potentially higher acceptance within an average risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening population, its usefulness as a screening tool with regard to CRC prevention should be further evaluated.

Is there a role for colon capsule endoscopy beyond colorectal cancer screening? A literature review

Colon capsule endoscopy is recommended in Europe alternatively to colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in average risk individuals. The procedure has also been proposed to complete colon examination in cases of incomplete colonoscopy or when colonoscopy is contraindicated or refused by the patient. As tissue samples cannot be obtained with the current capsule device, colon capsule endoscopy has no place in diagnosing ulcerative colitis or in dysplasia surveillance. Nevertheless, data are accumulating regarding its feasibility to examine ulcerative colitis disease extent and to monitor disease activity and mucosal healing, even though reported results on the capsule's performance in this field vary greatly. In this review we present the currently available evidence for the use of colon capsule endoscopy to complement colonoscopy failure to reach the cecum and its use to evaluate ulcerative colitis disease activity and extent. Moreover, we provide an outlook on issues requiring further investigation before the capsule becomes a mainstream alternative to colonoscopy in such cases.

Wireless capsule endoscopy of the large intestine: a review with future projections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Video capsule endoscopy, which was initially developed for exploring the small bowel, has been adapted for investigating the colon. This review summarizes recent developments in colon capsule technology as well as indications for its use.

RECENT FINDINGS

Second-generation PillCam colon capsule endoscopy (CCE-2) has been recently developed and has significantly improved the sensitivity and specificity of colon capsules for detecting polyps and/or tumors in patients with suspected or known colonic lesions. The use of CCE-2 has been shown to be of value in patients with incomplete standard colonoscopy. The use of CCE-2 has also been investigated in patients with ulcerative colitis and in outpatient settings. Several trials have tried to simplify the colon preparation regimen.

SUMMARY

Colon capsule endoscopy is a novel technique for exploring the colon. CCE-2 has improved the diagnostic capability of this noninvasive method. There is still room for improvement and simplification of colon preparation regimens. Apart from detection of polyps or neoplasms, colon capsule endoscopy has also been assessed in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Modified bowel preparation regimen for use in second-generation colon capsule endoscopy in patients with ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

We have reported that second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE-2) might be feasible for assessing the severity of mucosal inflammation in ulcerative colitis (UC). However, because of the low rate (69%) of complete evaluation of the colon and owing to inadequate cleansing. We believe that the method of bowel preparation could be improved by reducing volume. In the present study, we attempted to improve the colon-cleansing regimen in order to optimize the usefulness of CCE-2 in the management of UC patients.

METHODS

Twenty patients with histologically confirmed UC were enrolled. Patients took a maximum 2.2 L lavage solution (polyethylene glycol solution and magnesium citrate) in two or three divided doses. To assess the effectiveness of the modified bowel preparation regimen, we evaluated the rate of total colonobservation, the effectiveness of bowel cleansing, andinterobserver agreement in assessing UC disease activity. We used a four-point grading scale (poor, fair, good, and excellent) for evaluating the quality of bowel cleansing. Matts' endoscopic score was used to evaluate disease activity.

RESULTS

The rate of total colon observation was 85%, and 15 patients (75%) excreted the CCE-2 within 8 h. The proportion of excellent plus good cleansing was approximately 60%. There was a substantial interobserver agreement (κ = 0.777) in assessment of overall cleansing, which was still substantial at the fair cleansing level (κ = 0.700).

CONCLUSION

Using CCE-2, the modified bowel preparation regimen, with reduced volume has the potential to succeed in the evaluation of mucosal severity in UC.

Colon capsule endoscopy is a safe and useful tool to assess disease parameters in patients with ulcerative colitis

OBJECTIVE

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a new endoscopic technique that is minimally invasive and allows evaluation of the colon mucosa without pain, sedation, and gas insufflation. To date, few studies have investigated the use of CCE in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). This study compares the ability of CCE and a conventional colonoscopy to assess mucosal disease activity and the extent of inflammatory mucosa in patients with UC.

METHODS

Forty-two patients (27 men, mean age 48.5 years) with known UC and indication for colonoscopy were enrolled in this single-blind, prospective study. All patients underwent CCE, followed by a colonoscopy. The activity and extent of the disease was assessed using Mayo scores and Montreal scores, respectively.

RESULTS

There was a good correlation between CCE and colonoscopy in disease severity (κ=0.79; 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.96) and extent of inflammation (κ=0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.52-0.90) observed. The ability of CCE to assess a broad segment of distal ileum led to a change in the diagnosis of UC to ileocolonic Crohn's disease in three patients. Bowel preparation was considered adequate in 80% of the patients and no serious adverse events related to the CCE procedure or bowel preparation were reported.

CONCLUSION

CCE is a safe and useful method for the evaluation of patients with UC. The ability of CCE to assess distal ileum provides an advantage to colonoscopy as CCE can identify patients who have been incorrectly diagnosed with UC, resulting in a change in their diagnosis to Crohn's disease.