Colon capsule endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial

Socioeconomic differences in discrepancies between expected and experienced discomfort from colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy

Background

Social inequalities in colorectal cancer screening participation are evident. Barriers to screening participation include discomfort from diagnostic modalities. We aimed to describe the discomfort experienced from colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and investigate the discrepancy between expected and experienced discomfort stratified by socioeconomic status.

Methods

A randomised controlled trial was conducted offering half of the colorectal cancer screening invitees the choice between CCE and colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test. This paper includes those who elected to undergo CCE. A positive CCE elicited referral for a therapeutic colonoscopy. Participants reported their discomfort from CCE and from any following colonoscopies in electronically distributed questionnaires. Discomfort was measured using visual analogue scales and compared between socioeconomic subgroups determined by educational level and income.

Results

The experienced discomfort from CCE and colonoscopy differed significantly between educational levels but not income levels. The bowel preparation contributed the most to the experienced discomfort in both CCE and colonoscopy. The discrepancy between expected and experienced discomfort from colonoscopy increased with increasing educational and income levels. A similar trend was seen in CCE between educational levels but not income levels.

Conclusions

None of the results indicated a higher discomfort in lower socioeconomic subgroups. Regardless of the investigation modality, the bowel preparation was the main contributor to experienced discomfort. The discrepancy between expected and experienced discomfort did not seem to be larger in lower socioeconomic subgroups, indicating that this is not a major barrier causing inequalities in screening uptake. This is the first study investigating individual discomfort discrepancy in both CCE and colonoscopy, while being able to stratify by socioeconomic status.

Conference Report: The FutuRE oF MinimalLy InvasivE GI and Capsule DiagnosTics (REFLECT) Nyborg, Denmark, October 2023

The gastrointestinal (GI) tract, particularly the small bowel (SB), can be challenging for novel investigation tools [...].

Interobserver agreement on landmark and flexure identification in colon capsule endoscopy

PURPOSE

When an optical colonoscopy is carried out, Scope Guide can assist the endoscopist in determining the localization. In colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), this support is not available. To our knowledge, the interobserver agreement on landmark identification has never been studied. This study aims to investigate the interobserver agreement on landmark identification in CCE.

METHODS

An interobserver study was carried out comparing the landmark identification (the ileocecal valve, hepatic flexure, splenic flexure, and anus) in CCE investigations between an external private contractor and three in-house CCE readers with different levels of experience. All CCE investigations analyzed in this study were carried out as a part of the Danish screening program for colorectal cancer. Patients were between 50 and 74 years old with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT). A random sample of 20 CCE investigations was taken from the total sample of more than 800 videos.

RESULTS

Overall interobserver agreement on all landmarks was 51%. Interobserver agreement on the first cecal image (ileocecal valve), hepatic flexure, splenic flexure, and last rectal image (anus) was 72%, 29%, 22%, and 83%, respectively. The overall interobserver agreement, including only examinations with adequate bowel preparation (n = 16), was 54%, and for individual landmarks, 73%, 32%, 24%, and 85%.

CONCLUSION

Overall interobserver agreement on all four landmarks from CCE was poor. Measures are needed to improve landmark identification in CCE investigations. Artificial intelligence could be a possible solution to this problem.

A Head-to-Head Comparison of Computed Tomography Colonography, Optical Colonoscopy, and Colon Endoscopic Capsule for the Detection of Polyps After Partial Colectomy or Rectosigmoidectomy for Colorectal Cancer: A Pilot Study

Background and objective Optical colonoscopy is the gold standard method for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) and it allows for biopsy and resection, as well as documentation of synchronous lesions. CT colonography (CTC) and colon endoscopic capsule (CEC) are also recommended as alternative minimally invasive or non-invasive procedures. Prospective studies comparing these three approaches are scarce in the current literature. In light of this, the aim of this pilot study was to compare the efficacy of polyp detection between these three methods in patients with a history of curative surgical resection of CRC. Methods Patients were consecutively recruited and all procedures were sequentially conducted on the same day. The primary endpoint was the detection rate of polyps, whereas secondary endpoints were the detection of polyps according to size and location, and the adverse events caused by these procedures. Results A total of 21 patients were consecutively included and all of them underwent all three interventions. No adverse events, local recurrences, or metachronous lesions were detected. In two cases with elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CTC unveiled distant metastasis. Optical colonoscopy registered a mean of 0.4 polyp >6 mm and 1.3 polyps <6 mm per patient. CTC unveiled only 0.5 polyp >6 mm/patient and no smaller lesions were documented, whereas findings for the colon capsule comprised an average of 0.4 polyps >6 mm and 0.7 polyps <6 mm per patient. Statistical difference was not demonstrated, except for virtual colonoscopy in terms of the total number of polyps detected in comparison to optical colonoscopy. Conclusions Optical colonoscopy showed superior results in comparison to virtual colonoscopy while there was no statistical difference in comparison to colon capsule. Notwithstanding occasional difficulties, all three techniques were well tolerated. Hence, decisions concerning the use of each diagnostic method should be based on their availability, professional expertise, contraindications, and patient preferences.

A review on mechanobiology of cell adhesion networks in different stages of sporadic colorectal cancer to explain its tumorigenesis

Sporadic colorectal cancer (CRC) is strongly linked to extraneous factors, like poor diet and lifestyle, but not to inherent factors like familial genetics. The changes at the epigenomics and signalling pathways are known across the sporadic CRC stages. The catch is that temporal information of the onset, the feedback loop, and the crosstalk of signalling and noise are still unclear. This makes it challenging to diagnose and treat colon cancer effectively with no relapse. Various microbial cells and native cells of the colon, contribute to sporadic CRC development. These cells secrete autocrine and paracrine for their bioenergetics and communications with other cell types. Imbalances of the biochemicals affect the epithelial lining of colon. One side of this epithelial lining is interfacing the dense colon tissue, while the other side is exposed to microbiota and excrement from the lumen. Hence, the epithelial lining is prone to tumorigenesis due to the influence of both biochemical and mechanical cues from its complex surrounding. The role of physical transformations in tumorigenesis have been limitedly discussed. In this context, cellular and tissue structures, and force transductions are heavily regulated by cell adhesion networks. These networks include cell anchoring mechanism to the surrounding, cell structural integrity mechanism, and cell effector molecules. This review will focus on the progression of the sporadic CRC stages that are governed by the underlaying cell adhesion networks within the epithelial cells. Additionally, current and potential technologies and therapeutics that target cell adhesion networks for treatments of sporadic CRC will be incorporated.

Colon capsule endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: Interim analyses of randomized controlled trial CareForColon2015

Background and study aims  The Danish CareForColon2015 trial, launched in 2020 as part of the Danish Colorectal Cancer Screening program, is the largest randomized controlled trial to date on colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). This paper presents the interim analysis with the objective of ensuring the safety of patients in the intervention group and evaluating the clinical performance of the trial's predefined clinical parameters. Patients and methods  We evaluated the initial 234 CCEs according to quality, safety, and completion. The participation rates and preference distribution of all individuals invited were analyzed and sample size calculations were adjusted. Results  Fecal immunochemical test and diagnostic participation rates were 62.1 % and 91.1 %, respectively. The completion rate for CCEs was 67.9 % and the rate of conclusive investigations was 80.3 %. The polyp detection rate (PDR) was high (73.5 %), only two (0.85 %) technical failures in 234 videos were observed, and six suspected cancers were identified (2.6 %). No major adverse events were recorded. The required number of invitations had been underestimated due to inaccurate assumptions in sample size calculations. Conclusions  The trial was efficient and safe in terms of CCE quality and time to diagnostic investigation. Participation rates and PDRs were high. The proportion of suspected cancers was lower than expected and will be followed. The completion rate for CCEs was acceptable but lower than expected and the CCE procedure was reviewed for potential improvements and Resolor was added to the regime. The number of invitations for the intervention group of the trial has been adjusted from 62,107 to 185,153.

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 as a Diagnostic Adjunct in Patients with Symptoms from the Lower Gastrointestinal Tract

Prompted by the core idea of wireless capsule endoscopy as a painless gastrointestinal examination, and the easy adoption of small bowel capsule endoscopy, the armamentarium of the capsule-based imaging platforms has grown to include colon capsule devices as well [...].

Bowel cancer screening workforce survey: developing the endoscopy workforce for 2025 and beyond

AIM

The demand for bowel cancer screening (BCS) is expected to increase significantly within the next decade. Little is known about the intentions of the workforce required to meet this demand. The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG), the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) developed the first BCS workforce survey. The aim was to assess endoscopist career intentions to aid in future workforce planning to meet the anticipated increase in BCS colonoscopy.

METHODS

A survey was developed by JAG, BSG and ACPGBI and disseminated to consultant, clinical and trainee endoscopists between February and April 2020. Descriptive and comparative analyses were undertaken, supported with BCS data.

RESULTS

There were 578 respondents. Screening consultants have a median of one programmed activity (PA) per week for screening, accounting for 40% of their current endoscopy workload. 38% of current screening consultants are considering giving up colonoscopy in the next 2-5 years. Retirement (58%) and pension issues (23%) are the principle reasons for this. Consultants would increase their screening PAs by 70% if able to do so. The top three activities that endoscopists would relinquish to further support screening were outpatient clinics, acute medical/surgical on call and ward cover. An extra 155 colonoscopists would be needed to fulfil increased demand and planned retirement at current PAs.

CONCLUSION

This survey has identified a serious potential shortfall in screening colonoscopists in the next 5-10 years due to an ageing workforce and job plan pressures of aspirant BCS colonoscopists. We have outlined potential mitigations including reviewing job plans, improving workforce resources and supporting accreditation and training.