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

Unifying terminology, reporting, and bowel preparation standards in colon capsule endoscopy: Nyborg Consensus

Background and study aims

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is becoming increasingly popular in Europe. However, development of quality assurance and standardized terminology has not kept pace with clinical integration of this technology. As a result, there are significant variations in reporting standards, highlighting the need for a standardized terminology and framework. We used the RAND process to achieve a consensus of experts to determine the terminology in CCE, bowel cleansing assessment, and quality assurance reporting and future research priorities.

Methods

A panel comprising 14 European CCE experts evaluated 45 statements during the international REFLECT symposium (Nyborg, Denmark) through three survey rounds and face-to-face and virtual discussions in the initial two rounds. Participants anonymously rated statement appropriateness.

Results

Twenty-eight consensus statements were developed. Eight statements focus on consistent terminology for confirming CCE-detected polypoid and inflammatory colonic lesions with colonoscopy. To ensure standardization and quality assurance, 13 mandatory fields were recommended for inclusion in a CCE report. Three endorsed reporting methodologies were suggested, emphasizing prompt notification for suspected malignant findings, recommending a generic disclaimer regarding stomach and small bowel visualization intentions, and establishing reporting timelines at an interdepartmental level based on urgency. Four bowel preparation scale-related statements led to the recommendation to adoptithe Colon Capsule CLEansing Assessment and Reporting (CC-CLEAR) scale as the preferred scale.

Conclusions

This study established a framework for terminology, reporting, and assessment of bowel cleansing for CCE. Future research should focus on optimizing bowel preparation regimens and exploring artificial intelligence applications in CCE.

Best Approach for Incomplete Colonoscopy: Colon Capsule Endoscopy or Repeat Conventional Colonoscopy?

Background: The most appropriate strategy for completing a previous incomplete colonoscopy (IC) is not standardized. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of two strategies for completing a previous IC: colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) versus repeat conventional colonoscopy. Methods: A retrospective cohort study that included consecutive adult patients referred to our center after IC under sedation due to irreducible loop formation or colonic fixed angulation was performed. Patients underwent CCE (PillCam COLON2 Medtronic®) or repetition of conventional colonoscopy under sedation. In this setting, an appropriate CCE progression was defined as the capsule reaching the segment achieved during the previous IC. Repeated conventional colonoscopy was considered complete when cecal intubation was accomplished. We compared the rate of appropriate CCE colon progression with the cecal intubation rate from repeated conventional colonoscopy. Quality of colon preparation, diagnostic yield, and rate of adverse events for CCE and colonoscopy was also analyzed. Results: A total of 192 CCE and 181 colonoscopies were performed for IC, primarily due to fixed angulation of the left colon (69.2%, n = 258). There were no significant differences between the two groups (CCE vs. colonoscopy) concerning age, sex, overweight/obesity status, previous abdominal surgery, and reasons for IC. The rate of appropriate colon progression with CCE was not significantly different from the cecal intubation rate of repeated colonoscopy (95.3% vs. 90.1%, p = 0.073, respectively), even after adjusting for the quality of colon preparation (p = 0.122), which differed significantly between the groups (76.0% vs. 92.8%, p < 0.001, respectively). There were no significant differences in overall colorectal findings identified between the CCE and colonoscopy groups (55.2% vs. 62.4%, p = 0.172, respectively), and no adverse events were reported in either group. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that both CCE and repeat conventional colonoscopy are effective and safe options for completing a previous IC.

TOP 100 and detection of colorectal lesions in colon capsule endoscopy: more than meets the eye

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a well-known method for the detection of colorectal lesions. Nevertheless, there are no studies reporting the accuracy of TOP 100, a CCE software tool, for the automatic detection of colorectal lesions in CCE. We aimed to evaluate the performance of TOP 100 in detecting colorectal lesions in patients submitted to CCE for incomplete colonoscopy compared with classic reading. A retrospective cohort study including adult patients submitted to CCE (PillCam COLON 2; Medtronic) for incomplete colonoscopy. Blinded for each other's evaluation, one experienced reader analyzed the TOP 100 images and the other performed classic reading to identify colorectal lesions. Detection of colorectal lesions, namely polyps, angioectasia, blood, diverticula, erosions/ulcers, neoplasia, and subepithelial lesions was assessed and TOP 100 performance was evaluated compared with the gold standard (classic reading). A total of 188 CCEs were included. Prevalence of colorectal lesions, polyps, angioectasia, blood, diverticula, erosions/ulcers, neoplasia, and subepithelial lesions were 77.7, 54.3, 8.5, 1.6, 50.0, 0.5, 0.5, and 1.1%, respectively. TOP 100 had a sensitivity of 92.5%, specificity of 69.1%, negative predictive value of 72.5%, positive predictive value of 91.2%, and accuracy of 87.2% for detecting colorectal lesions. TOP 100 had a sensitivity of 89.2%, specificity of 84.9%, negative predictive value of 86.9%, positive predictive value of 87.5%, and accuracy of 87.2% in detecting polyps. All colorectal lesions other than polyps were identified with 100% accuracy by TOP 100. TOP 100 has been shown to be a simple and useful tool in assisting the reader in the prompt identification of colorectal lesions in CCE.

Capsule endoscopy and panendoscopy: A journey to the future of gastrointestinal endoscopy

In 2000, the small bowel capsule revolutionized the management of patients with small bowel disorders. Currently, the technological development achieved by the new models of double-headed endoscopic capsules, as miniaturized devices to evaluate the small bowel and colon [pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy (PCE)], makes this non-invasive procedure a disruptive concept for the management of patients with digestive disorders. This technology is expected to identify which patients will require conventional invasive endoscopic procedures (colonoscopy or balloon-assisted enteroscopy), based on the lesions detected by the capsule, i.e., those with an indication for biopsies or endoscopic treatment. The use of PCE in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases, namely Crohn's disease, as well as in patients with iron deficiency anaemia and/or overt gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, after a non-diagnostic upper endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy), enables an effective, safe and comfortable way to identify patients with relevant lesions, who should undergo subsequent invasive endoscopic procedures. The recent development of magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy to evaluate the upper GI tract, is a further step towards the possibility of an entirely non-invasive assessment of all the segments of the digestive tract, from mouth-to-anus, meeting the expectations of the early developers of capsule endoscopy.