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

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Early diagnostic strategies for colorectal cancer

At present, cancer is still an important factor threatening human health. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the top three most common cancers worldwide and one of the deadliest malignancies in humans. The latest data showed that CRC incidence and mortality rank third and second, respectively, among global malignancies. Early and accurate diagnosis is crucial to reduce the morbidity, mortality and improve survival of patients with CRC, but the current early diagnostic methods have limitations. The effectiveness and compliance of diagnostic methods have a certain impact on whether people choose screening. In this editorial, we explore strategies for the early diagnosis of CRC, including stool-based, blood-based, direct visualization, and imaging examinations.

Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer: A Review of the Literature

Colorectal cancer (CRC) has the highest mortality rate among men and is the second highest among women under fifty, with incidence and mortality rates rising in younger populations. Studies indicate that up to one-third of patients diagnosed before fifty have a family history or genetic factors, highlighting the need for earlier screening. Contrariwise, diagnosis in healthy subjects through screening strategies enables early-stage detection of the tumor and better clinical outcomes. In recent years, mortality rates of CRC in Western countries have been on a steady decline, which is largely attributed to widespread screening programs and advancements in treatment modalities. Indeed, early detection through screening significantly improves prognosis, with stark differences in survival rates between localized and metastatic disease. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the existing literature, delving into the performance and efficacy of various CRC screening strategies. It navigates through available screening tools, evaluating their efficacy and cost-effectiveness. The discussion extends to delineating target populations for screening, emphasizing the importance of tailored approaches for individuals at heightened risk.

Optimization of colorectal cancer screening strategies: New insights

In this editorial, we discuss the article by Agatsuma et al. We concentrate specifically on the current routinely used screening tests recommended by society guidelines and delve into the significance of early diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) and its substantial impact on both incidence and mortality rates. Screening is highly recommended, and an early diagnosis stands out as the most crucial predictor of survival for CRC patients. Therefore, it is essential to identify and address the barriers hindering adherence to screening measures, as these barriers can vary among different populations. Furthermore, we focus on screening strategy optimization by selecting high-risk groups. Patients with comorbidities who regularly visit hospitals have been diagnosed at an early stage, showing no significant difference compared to patients undergoing regular screening. This finding highlights the importance of extending screening measures to include patients with comorbidities who do not routinely visit the hospital.

Rationalizing polyp matching criteria in colon capsule endoscopy: an international expert consensus through RAND (modified DELPHI) process

Background

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has gained momentum as an alternative modality for the investigation of the lower gastrointestinal tract. Of the few challenges that remain, the comparison and - eventually - matching of polyps at different timestamps leads to the potential for double reporting and can contribute to false-positive findings and inaccuracies. With the impending artificial intelligence integration, the risk of double reporting the same polyp due to the lack of information on spatial orientation underscores the necessity for establishing criteria for polyp matching.

Objectives

This RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (modified Delphi) process aims to identify the key factors or components used to match polyps within a CCE video. This involves exploring the attributes of each factor to create comprehensive polyp-matching criteria based on international expert consensus.

Design

A systematic qualitative study using surveys.

Methods

A panel of 11 international CCE experts convened to assess a survey comprised of 60 statements. Participants anonymously rated statement appropriateness on a 1-9 scale (1-3: inappropriate, 4-6: uncertain and 7-9: appropriate). Following a virtual group discussion of the Round 1 results, a Round 2 survey was developed and completed before the final analysis.

Results

The factors that were agreed to be essential for polyp matching include (1) timestamp, (2) polyp localization, (3) polyp vascular pattern, (4) polyp size, (5) time interval of the polyp appearance between the green and yellow camera, (6) surrounding tissue, (7) polyp morphology and (8) polyp surface and contour. When five or more factors are satisfied, it was agreed that the comparing polyps are likely the same polyp.

Conclusion

This study has established the first complete criteria for polyp matching in CCE. While it might not provide a definitive solution for matching difficult, small and common polyps, these criteria serve as a framework to guide and facilitate the process of polyp-matching.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal cancer remains the third leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Colorectal cancer screening allows for prevention and early detection of precancerous and cancerous lesions, and screening has been shown to be effective in preventing colorectal cancer deaths. Screening recommendations vary by patient risk profile. A variety of screening modalities exist.

Colorectal cancer screening: A review of current knowledge and progress in research

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most prevalent malignancies worldwide, being the third most commonly diagnosed malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Despite the progress in screening, early diagnosis, and treatment, approximately 20%-25% of CRC patients still present with metastatic disease at the time of their initial diagnosis. Furthermore, the burden of disease is still expected to increase, especially in individuals younger than 50 years old, among whom early-onset CRC incidence has been increasing. Screening and early detection are pivotal to improve CRC-related outcomes. It is well established that CRC screening not only reduces incidence, but also decreases deaths from CRC. Diverse screening strategies have proven effective in decreasing both CRC incidence and mortality, though variations in efficacy have been reported across the literature. However, uncertainties persist regarding the optimal screening method, age intervals and periodicity. Moreover, adherence to CRC screening remains globally low. In recent years, emerging technologies, notably artificial intelligence, and non-invasive biomarkers, have been developed to overcome these barriers. However, controversy exists over the actual impact of some of the new discoveries on CRC-related outcomes and how to effectively integrate them into daily practice. In this review, we aim to cover the current evidence surrounding CRC screening. We will further critically assess novel approaches under investigation, in an effort to differentiate promising innovations from mere novelties.

Pan-Enteric Capsule Endoscopy: Current Applications and Future Perspectives

Background

The role of capsule endoscopy in the evaluation of the small bowel is well established, and current guidelines position it as a first-line test in a variety of clinical scenarios. The advent of double-headed capsules further enabled the endoscopic assessment of colonic mucosa and the opportunity for a one-step noninvasive examination of the entire bowel (pan-enteric capsule endoscopy [PCE]).

Summary

We reviewed the technical procedure and preparation of patients for PCE, as well as its current clinical applications and future perspectives. In non-stricturing and non-penetrating Crohn's disease affecting the small bowel and colon, PCE monitors disease activity by assessing mucosal healing, a major treatment outcome, with a higher diagnostic yield than cross-sectional imaging or conventional colonoscopy. Also in ulcerative colitis, double-headed capsules have been used to monitor disease activity noninvasively. Currently, validated scoring systems have been specifically devised for these double-headed capsules and permit a standardized assessment of the inflammatory burden. In suspected mid-lower digestive bleeding, some exploratory studies have demonstrated the feasibility and high diagnostic yield of PCE, which may work as a filter indicating which patients may benefit of further invasive procedures, namely, for planned hemostatic procedures. The possibility of using PCE is also discussed in the context of polyposis syndromes with simultaneous involvement of the small intestine and colon.

Key Messages

PCE is a feasible, effective, and safe diagnostic procedure to evaluate the small bowel and colon. It has been increasingly explored in the setting of inflammatory bowel diseases and, more recently, in suspected mid-lower digestive bleeding. PCE is expected to reduce the demand for invasive procedures and expand the scope of noninvasive intestinal evaluation in the coming future.

A qualitative interview study on colorectal cancer screening in China

Background

The effectiveness of triage screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is not fully achieved in Chinese populations, mainly due to low compliance to colonoscopy follow-up. This study aimed to collect viewpoints of experts in China on ongoing screening programs and emerging screening tests for CRC, which may help to improve effectiveness of CRC screening in the country.

Methods

We conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with experts involving CRC screening in China during October to November of 2020. Interview topics included personal characteristics, work context, opinions on ongoing screening programs, challenges and opportunities in optimization of screening strategies, and prospects for CRC screening in near future. To analyze the data, we used a generic qualitative research approach inspired by grounded theory, including open, axial, and selective coding.

Results

This analysis revealed a total of 83 initial categories, 37 subcategories and 10 main categories, which included 4 core categories of current modality for CRC screening, factors influencing screening effectiveness, optimization of CRC screening modality, and prospects for development of CRC screening. The results provide insight into the factors underlying the challenges of the ongoing CRC screening programs in China: the most important concern is the low compliance to colonoscopy, followed by the low specificity of the currently-used initial tests. The experts proposed to use quantitative instead of qualitative fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and optimize risk assessment tools to improve specificity of initial tests. Regarding the emerging screening tests, 9 of 15 experts did not think that the novel techniques are good enough to replace the current tests, but can be used complementarily in opportunistic screening for CRC.

Conclusion

The viewpoints of Chinese experts suggested that use quantitative FIT or optimize risk assessment tools may help to identify high-risk individuals of CRC more accurately, improve adherence to colonoscopy, and thus fully achieve the effectiveness of screening.

An evaluation of a novel bowel preparation regimen and its effect on the utility of colon capsule endoscopy: a prospective cohort study with historical controls

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel bowel preparation and booster regimen for colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) using macrogol, phospho-soda and gastrografin, compared with a control regimen consisting of polyethylene glycol and sodium picosulfate.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study using historical controls. Symptomatic patients undergoing CCE between 11/07/2021 and 21/12/2021 using the novel regimen were included. Symptomatic patients who underwent CCE in the ScotCap evaluation using the control regimen were used as historical controls. We measured the rate of complete test (visualisation of the whole colon and rectum), adequate bowel preparation, successful test (complete and adequate bowel preparation) and need for further test following CCE. The rate of adverse events was also collected.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing CCE using the new and control regimen were 200 and 316, respectively. The median age, age range and proportion of female patients in the new and control regimen cohorts was 61 vs 60 years, 16-86 vs 20-83 years, and 60.5% vs 56.6%. The rate of complete test, adequate bowel reparation and successful test for the new and control regimen was 69% vs 72.2%, 86.6% vs 80.7% and 60.5% vs 65.8%. Comparing the new and control regimen, 39.5% vs 37.3% of patients required no test following CCE, 26% vs 32.6% required a colonoscopy, 31.5% vs 21.5% required a flexible sigmoidoscopy and 3% vs 2.9% required a computed tomography colonogram. No adverse events were reported using the new regimen compared to 2 (0.6%) in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of adequate bowel preparation has improved following the introduction of a new regimen. However, further work is needed to increase the complete test rate. A significant proportion of patients continue to avoid colonoscopy following CCE.

Robotic Colonoscopy and Beyond: Insights into Modern Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Lower gastrointestinal endoscopy is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis and removal of colonic polyps. Delays in colonoscopy following a positive fecal immunochemical test increase the likelihood of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer (CRC) occurrence. However, patients may refuse to undergo conventional colonoscopy (CC) due to fear of possible risks and pain or discomfort. In this regard, patients undergoing CC frequently require sedation to better tolerate the procedure, increasing the risk of deep sedation or other complications related to sedation. Accordingly, the use of CC as a first-line screening strategy for CRC is hampered by patients' reluctance due to its invasiveness and anxiety about possible discomfort. To overcome the limitations of CC and improve patients' compliance, several studies have investigated the use of robotic colonoscopy (RC) both in experimental models and in vivo. Self-propelling robotic colonoscopes have proven to be promising thanks to their peculiar dexterity and adaptability to the shape of the lower gastrointestinal tract, allowing a virtually painless examination of the colon. In some instances, when alternatives to CC and RC are required, barium enema (BE), computed tomographic colonography (CTC), and colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) may be options. However, BE and CTC are limited by the need for subsequent investigations whenever suspicious lesions are found. In this narrative review, we discussed the current clinical applications of RC, CTC, and CCE, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of different endoscopic procedures, with a particular focus on RC.

A real-life study of alemtuzumab in persons with multiple sclerosis: Kuwait's experience

BACKGROUND

Alemtuzumab, a humanized anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody, has been approved as a treatment in persons with active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Real-world data in middle east is very limited. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of alemtuzumab in a real-world clinical setting.

METHODS

This observational, registry based study assessed persons with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) who were treated with alemtuzumab and completed at least follow up one year after second course. Baseline clinical and radiological characteristics within one year prior to alemtuzumab initiation were collected. The relapse rate, disability measures, radiological activity and adverse events at last follow-up visits were assessed.

RESULTS

Data of seventy-three persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) was analyzed, of which 53 (72.6%) were females. Mean age and mean disease duration were 34.25 ± 7.62 and 9.23 ± 6.20 years respectively. Alemtuzumab was started in 32 (43.8%) naïve patients due to highly active disease and in 25 (34.2%) (PwMS) who were on prior therapies and  in 16 (22%) patients due to adverse events on prior medications. Mean follow-up period was 4 ± 1.67 years. In the last follow-up visits, most of our cohort was relapse free (79.5% vs. 17.8%; p < 0.001) compared to baseline before alemtuzumab treatment while mean EDSS score was reduced (2.21 ± 2.15 vs. 2.41 ± 1.85; p < 0.059). The proportion of PwMS who had MRI activity (new T2/ Gd-enhancing) lesions were significantly reduced compared to baseline (15.1% vs. 82.2%; p < 0.001). NEDA-3 was achieved in 57.5% of (PwMS). NEDA-3 was significantly better in naïve patients (78% versus. 41.5%; p < 0.002) and in patients with disease duration < 5 years, (82.6% v 43.2%; p < 0.002). Several adverse events such as infusion reactions (75.3%), autoimmune thyroiditis (16.4%) and glomerulonephritis (2.7%) were reported.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness and safety profile of alemtuzumab in this cohort were consistent with data of clinical trials. Early initiation of Alemtuzumab is associated with favorable outcome.

Colon Capsule Endoscopy - Shining the Light through the Colon

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a non-invasive, wireless capsule endoscope. In this article, we review its current applications, compare its performance with optical colonoscopy (OC) and alternative imaging modalities like CT colonography (CTC), and highlight developments that may increase potential future use.

RECENT FINDINGS

By comparison to OC both CCE and CTC have a good sensitivity and specificity in detecting colonic polyps. CCE is more sensitive in detecting sub centimetre polyps. CCE is capable of detecting colonic inflammation and anorectal pathologies, commonly missed by CTC. However, rates of complete CCE examinations are limited by inadequate bowel preparation or incomplete colonic transit, whereas CTC can be performed with less bowel purgatives. Patients tolerate CCE better than OC, however patient preference between CCE and CTC vary. CCE and CTC are both reasonable alternatives to OC. Strategies to improve completion rates and adequacy of bowel preparation will improve cost and clinical effectiveness of CCE.

Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second largest cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Current CRC screening in various countries involves stool-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and/or colonoscopy, yet public uptake remains sub-optimal. This review assessed the literature regarding acceptability of alternative CRC screening modalities compared to standard care in average-risk adults.

METHOD

Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science were conducted up to February 3rd, 2022. The alternative interventions examined were computed tomography colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colon capsule endoscopy and blood-based biomarkers. Outcomes for acceptability were uptake, discomfort associated with bowel preparation, discomfort associated with screening procedure, screening preferences and willingness to repeat screening method. A narrative data synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Differences between intervention and comparison modalities in uptake did not reach statistical significance in most of the included studies. The findings do suggest FIT as being more acceptable as a screening modality than flexible sigmoidoscopy. There were no consistent significant differences in bowel preparation discomfort, screening procedure discomfort, screening preference and willingness to repeat screening between the standard care and alternative modalities.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence comparing standard colonoscopy and stool-based CRC screening with novel modalities does not demonstrate any clear difference in acceptability. Due to the small number of studies available and included in each screening comparison and lack of observed differences, further research is needed to explore factors influencing acceptability of alternative CRC modalities that might result in improvement in population uptake within different contexts.

Patient Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests in Light of Lowering the Screening Age to 45 Years

BACKGROUND & AIMS

In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force lowered the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening age to 45 years. We used conjoint analysis, a method that assesses complex decision making, to update our understanding on people's CRC screening test preferences in the context of new guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted a conjoint analysis survey among unscreened individuals ≥40 years at average risk for CRC to determine the relative importance of screening test attributes in their decision making (eg, modality, effectiveness at reducing CRC risk, bowel prep). We also performed simulations to estimate the proportion of people who would prefer each US Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) on CRC-recommended test. The analyses were stratified among those aged 40-49 years (newly or soon-to-be eligible for screening) and ≥50 years (have been eligible).

RESULTS

Overall, 1000 participants completed the conjoint analysis (40-49 years, n = 456; ≥50 years, n = 544). When considering all 5 US MSTF-recommended tests, there were differences in test preferences between age groups (P = .019), and the most preferred test was a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-fecal DNA every 3 years: 40-49 years, 34.6%; ≥50 years, 37.3%. When considering only the US MSTF tier 1 tests, most 40- to 49- (68.9%) and ≥50-year-olds (77.4%; P = .004) preferred an annual FIT over a colonoscopy every 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that more than one-third of people may want to do a FIT-fecal DNA every 3 years for their CRC screening. When only considering US MSTF tier 1 tests, three-fourths of people may prefer an annual FIT over colonoscopy. Further research examining CRC screening test preferences among broader populations is warranted to inform and enhance screening programs.

Green endoscopy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Accreditation Group (JAG) and Centre for Sustainable Health (CSH) joint consensus on practical measures for environmental sustainability in endoscopy

GI endoscopy is highly resource-intensive with a significant contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and waste generation. Sustainable endoscopy in the context of climate change is now the focus of mainstream discussions between endoscopy providers, units and professional societies. In addition to broader global challenges, there are some specific measures relevant to endoscopy units and their practices, which could significantly reduce environmental impact. Awareness of these issues and guidance on practical interventions to mitigate the carbon footprint of GI endoscopy are lacking. In this consensus, we discuss practical measures to reduce the impact of endoscopy on the environment applicable to endoscopy units and practitioners. Adoption of these measures will facilitate and promote new practices and the evolution of a more sustainable specialty.

The Effectiveness of a Very Low-Volume Compared to High-Volume Laxative in Colon Capsule Endoscopy

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a promising modality for colonic investigations, but completion rates (CR) and adequate cleansing rates (ACR) must be improved to meet established standards for optical colonoscopy. Improvements should be made with patient acceptability in mind. We aimed to compare a very low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) laxative to a conventional high-volume laxative. We carried out a single-center retrospective comparative cohort study including patients referred for CCE. One hundred and sixty-six patients were included in the final analysis, with eighty-three patients in each group. We found a CR and ACR of 77% and 67% in the high-volume group and 72% and 75% in the very low-volume group, respectively. In the high-volume group, 54% had complete transit and adequate cleansing, whereas this was the case for 63% in the very low-volume group. No statistically significant difference in CR, ACR, or a combination of the two was found. A very low-volume bowel preparation regimen was non-inferior to a high-volume regimen before CCE in terms of CR and ACR.

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.

Castor Oil in Bowel Preparation Regimens for Colon Capsule Endoscopy: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Completing colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) investigations rely on successful transit and acceptable bowel preparation quality. We investigated the effect of adding castor oil to the CCE bowel preparation regimen on the completion rate using a meta-analysis of existing literature. We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Included studies underwent quality assessment, and data for meta-analysis were extracted. Pooled estimates for excretion rate and acceptable bowel preparation rate were calculated. We identified 72 studies matching our search criteria, and six were included in the meta-analysis. Three of the studies had control groups, although two used historical cohorts. The pooled excretion rate (92%) was significantly higher in patients who received castor oil than in those who did not (73%). No significant difference in acceptable colonic cleanliness was observed. Castor oil has been used in a few studies as a booster for CCE. This meta-analysis shows the potential for this medication to improve excretion rates, and castor oil could be actively considered in conjunction with other emerging laxative regimens in CCE. Still, prospective randomized trials with appropriate control groups should be conducted before any conclusions can be drawn. Prospero ID: CRD42022338939.

Robotic, self-propelled, self-steerable, and disposable colonoscopes: Reality or pipe dream? A state of the art review

Robotic colonoscopes could potentially provide a comfortable, less painful and safer alternative to standard colonoscopy. Recent exciting developments in this field are pushing the boundaries to what is possible in the future. This article provides a comprehensive review of the current work in robotic colonoscopes including self-propelled, steerable and disposable endoscopes that could be alternatives to standard colonoscopy. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these systems currently in development and highlight the technical readiness of each system to help the reader understand where and when such systems may be available for routine clinical use and get an idea of where and in which situation they can best be deployed.

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?”.

Performance of a Deep Learning System for Automatic Diagnosis of Protruding Lesions in Colon Capsule Endoscopy

Background: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is an alternative for patients unwilling or with contraindications for conventional colonoscopy. Colorectal cancer screening may benefit greatly from widespread acceptance of a non-invasive tool such as CCE. However, reviewing CCE exams is a time-consuming process, with risk of overlooking important lesions. We aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm using a convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture for automatic detection of colonic protruding lesions in CCE images. An anonymized database of CCE images collected from a total of 124 patients was used. This database included images of patients with colonic protruding lesions or patients with normal colonic mucosa or with other pathologic findings. A total of 5715 images were extracted for CNN development. Two image datasets were created and used for training and validation of the CNN. The AUROC for detection of protruding lesions was 0.99. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 90.0%, 99.1%, 98.6% and 93.2%, respectively. The overall accuracy of the network was 95.3%. The developed deep learning algorithm accurately detected protruding lesions in CCE images. The introduction of AI technology to CCE may increase its diagnostic accuracy and acceptance for screening of colorectal neoplasia.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality. 2021 US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines and available evidence support routine screening from ages 45 to 75, and individualized consideration of screening ages 76 to 85. USPSTF guidelines recommend annual guaiac fecal occult blood testing, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), annual to every 3-year multitarget stool DNA-FIT, every 5-year sigmoidoscopy, every 10-year sigmoidoscopy with annual FIT, every 5-year computed tomographic colonography, and every 10-year colonoscopy as options for screening. The "best test is the one that gets done."

Diffusion of an innovation: growth in video capsule endoscopy in the U.S. Medicare population from 2003 to 2019

Background

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE), approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2001, represented a disruptive technology that transformed evaluation of the small intestine. Adoption of this technology over time and current use within the U.S. clinical population has not been well described.

Methods

To assess the growth of capsule endoscopy within the U.S. Medicare provider population (absolute growth and on a population-adjusted basis), characterize the providers performing VCE, and describe potential regional differences in use. Medicare summary data from 2003 to 2019 were used to retrospectively analyze capsule endoscopy use in a multiple cross-sectional design. In addition, detailed provider summary files were used from 2012 to 2018 to characterize provider demographics.

Results

VCE use grew rapidly from 2003 to 2008 followed by a plateau from 2008 to 2019. There was significant variation in use of VCE between states, with up to 10-fold variation between states (14.6 to 156.1 per 100,000 enrollees in 2018). During this time, the adjusted VCE use on a population-adjusted basis declined, reflecting saturation of growth.

Conclusions

Growth of VCE use over time follows an S-shaped diffusion of innovation curve demonstrating a successful diffusion of innovation within gastroenterology. The lack of additional growth since 2008 suggests that current levels of use are well matched to overall population need within the constraints of reimbursement. Future studies should examine whether this lack of growth has implications for access and healthcare inequities.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07780-2.

Deep learning and colon capsule endoscopy: automatic detection of blood and colonic mucosal lesions using a convolutional neural network

Background and study aims  Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a minimally invasive alternative to conventional colonoscopy. However, CCE produces long videos, making its analysis time-consuming and prone to errors. Convolutional neural networks (CNN) are artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms with high performance levels in image analysis. We aimed to develop a deep learning model for automatic identification and differentiation of significant colonic mucosal lesions and blood in CCE images. Patients and methods  A retrospective multicenter study including 124 CCE examinations was conducted for development of a CNN model, using a database of CCE images including anonymized images of patients with normal colon mucosa, several mucosal lesions (erosions, ulcers, vascular lesions and protruding lesions) and luminal blood. For CNN development, 9005 images (3,075 normal mucosa, 3,115 blood and 2,815 mucosal lesions) were ultimately extracted. Two image datasets were created and used for CNN training and validation. Results  The mean (standard deviation) sensitivity and specificity of the CNN were 96.3 % (3.9 %) and 98.2 % (1.8 %) Mucosal lesions were detected with a sensitivity of 92.0 % and a specificity of 98.5 %. Blood was detected with a sensitivity and specificity of 97.2 % and 99.9 %, respectively. The algorithm was 99.2 % sensitive and 99.6 % specific in distinguishing blood from mucosal lesions. The CNN processed 65 frames per second. Conclusions  This is the first CNN-based algorithm to accurately detect and distinguish colonic mucosal lesions and luminal blood in CCE images. AI may improve diagnostic and time efficiency of CCE exams, thus facilitating CCE adoption to routine clinical practice.

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

Aim

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Diagnostic Accuracy of Wireless Capsule Endoscopy in Polyp Recognition Using Deep Learning: A Meta-Analysis

AIM

As the completed studies have small sample sizes and different algorithms, a meta-analysis was conducted to assess the accuracy of WCE in identifying polyps using deep learning.

METHOD

Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for potentially eligible studies published up to December 8, 2021, which were analysed on a per-image basis. STATA RevMan and Meta-DiSc were used to conduct this meta-analysis. A random effects model was used, and a subgroup and regression analysis was performed to explore sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Eight studies published between 2017 and 2021 included 819 patients, and 18,414 frames were eventually included in the meta-analysis. The summary estimates for the WCE in identifying polyps by deep learning were sensitivity 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95-0.98); specificity 0.97 (95% CI, 0.94-0.98); positive likelihood ratio 27.19 (95% CI, 15.32-50.42); negative likelihood ratio 0.03 (95% CI 0.02-0.05); diagnostic odds ratio 873.69 (95% CI, 387.34-1970.74); and the area under the sROC curve 0.99.

CONCLUSION

WCE uses deep learning to identify polyps with high accuracy, but multicentre prospective randomized controlled studies are needed in the future.

Current and future colorectal cancer screening strategies

Despite strong evidence of effectiveness, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underused. Currently, there are several options for CRC screening, each with its own performance characteristics and considerations for practice. This Review aims to cover current CRC screening guidelines and highlight future blood-based and imaging-based options for screening. In current practice, the leading non-invasive option is the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) based on its high specificity, good sensitivity, low cost and ease of use in mailed outreach programmes. There are currently five blood-based CRC screening tests in varying stages of evaluation, including one that is currently sold in the USA as a laboratory-developed test. There are ongoing studies on the diagnostic accuracy and longitudinal performance of blood tests and they have the potential to disrupt the CRC screening landscape. Imaging-based options, including the colon capsule, MR colonography and the CT capsule, are also being tested in active studies. As the world attempts to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and adapts to the start of CRC screening among people at average risk starting at age 45 years, non-invasive options will become increasingly important.

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.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Preferences for Colon Capsule Endoscopy and Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Colon capsule endoscopy as an alternative to colonoscopy for the diagnosis of colonic disease may serve as a less invasive and more tolerable investigation for patients. Our aim was to examine patient-reported outcomes for colon capsule endoscopy compared to conventional optical colonoscopy including preference of investigation modality, tolerability and adverse events. A systematic literature search was conducted in Web of Science, PubMed and Embase. Search results were thoroughly screened for in- and exclusion criteria. Included studies underwent assessment of transparency and completeness, after which, data for meta-analysis were extracted. Pooled estimates of patient preference were calculated and heterogeneity was examined including univariate meta-regressions. Patient-reported tolerability and adverse events were reviewed. Out of fourteen included studies, twelve had investigated patient-reported outcomes in patients who had undergone both investigations, whereas in two the patients were randomized between investigations. Pooled patient preferences were estimated to be 52% (CI 95%: 41-63%) for colon capsule endoscopy and 45% (CI 95%: 33-57%) for conventional colonoscopy: not indicating a significant difference. Procedural adverse events were rarely reported by patients for either investigation. The tolerability was high for both colon capsule endoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Patient preferences for conventional colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy were not significantly different. Procedural adverse events were rare and the tolerability for colon capsule endoscopy was consistently reported higher or equal to that of conventional colonoscopy.

Artificial intelligence for the detection of polyps or cancer with colon capsule endoscopy

Colorectal cancer is common and can be devastating, with long-term survival rates vastly improved by early diagnosis. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is increasingly recognised as a reliable option for colonic surveillance, but widespread adoption has been slow for several reasons, including the time-consuming reading process of the CCE recording. Automated image recognition and artificial intelligence (AI) are appealing solutions in CCE. Through a review of the currently available and developmental technologies, we discuss how AI is poised to deliver at the forefront of CCE in the coming years. Current practice for CCE reporting often involves a two-step approach, with a ‘pre-reader’ and ‘validator’. This requires skilled and experienced readers with a significant time commitment. Therefore, CCE is well-positioned to reap the benefits of the ongoing digital innovation. This is likely to initially involve an automated AI check of finished CCE evaluations as a quality control measure. Once felt reliable, AI could be used in conjunction with a ‘pre-reader’, before adopting more of this role by sending provisional results and abnormal frames to the validator. With time, AI would be able to evaluate the findings more thoroughly and reduce the input required from human readers and ultimately autogenerate a highly accurate report and recommendation of therapy, if required, for any pathology identified. As with many medical fields reliant on image recognition, AI will be a welcome aid in CCE. Initially, this will be as an adjunct to ‘double-check’ that nothing has been missed, but with time will hopefully lead to a faster, more convenient diagnostic service for the screening population.

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

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

How should we do colon capsule endoscopy reading: a practical guide

In this article, we aim to provide general principles as well as personal views for colonic capsule endoscopy. To allow an in-depth understanding of the recommendations, we also present basic technological characteristics and specifications, with emphasis on the current as well as the previous version of colonic capsule endoscopy and relevant software. To date, there is no scientific proof to support the optimal way of reading a colonic capsule endoscopy video, or any standards or guidelines exist. Hence, any advice is a mixture of recommendations by the capsule manufacturer and experts’ opinion. Furthermore, there is a paucity of data regarding the use of term(s) (pre-reader/reader-validator) in colonic capsule endoscopy. We also include a couple of handy tables in order to get info at a glance.