Literature DB >> 19605831

Capsule endoscopy versus colonoscopy for the detection of polyps and cancer.

André Van Gossum1, Miguel Munoz-Navas, Miguel Munoz Navas, Iñaqui Fernandez-Urien, Cristina Carretero, Gérard Gay, Michel Delvaux, Marie Georges Lapalus, Thierry Ponchon, Horst Neuhaus, Michael Philipper, Guido Costamagna, Maria Elena Riccioni, Cristiano Spada, Lucio Petruzziello, Chris Fraser, Aymer Postgate, Aine Fitzpatrick, Friedrich Hagenmuller, Martin Keuchel, Nathalie Schoofs, Jacques Devière.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: An ingestible capsule consisting of an endoscope equipped with a video camera at both ends was designed to explore the colon. This study compared capsule endoscopy with optical colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer.
METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter study comparing capsule endoscopy with optical colonoscopy (the standard for comparison) in a cohort of patients with known or suspected colonic disease for the detection of colorectal polyps or cancer. Patients underwent an adapted colon preparation, and colon cleanliness was graded from poor to excellent. We computed the sensitivity and specificity of capsule endoscopy for polyps, advanced adenoma, and cancer.
RESULTS: A total of 328 patients (mean age, 58.6 years) were included in the study. The capsule was excreted within 10 hours after ingestion and before the end of the lifetime of the battery in 92.8% of the patients. The sensitivity and specificity of capsule endoscopy for detecting polyps that were 6 mm in size or bigger were 64% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59 to 72) and 84% (95% CI, 81 to 87), respectively, and for detecting advanced adenoma, the sensitivity and specificity were 73% (95% CI, 61 to 83) and 79% (95% CI, 77 to 81), respectively. Of 19 cancers detected by colonoscopy, 14 were detected by capsule endoscopy (sensitivity, 74%; 95% CI, 52 to 88). For all lesions, the sensitivity of capsule endoscopy was higher in patients with good or excellent colon cleanliness than in those with fair or poor colon cleanliness. Mild-to-moderate adverse events were reported in 26 patients (7.9%) and were mostly related to the colon preparation.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of capsule endoscopy of the colon allows visualization of the colonic mucosa in most patients, but its sensitivity for detecting colonic lesions is low as compared with the use of optical colonoscopy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00604162.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19605831     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0806347

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  80 in total

1.  Colon capsule endoscopy: Advantages, limitations and expectations. Which novelties?

Authors:  Maria Elena Riccioni; Riccardo Urgesi; Rossella Cianci; Alessandra Bizzotto; Cristiano Spada; Guido Costamagna
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2012-04-16

2.  Advances in endoscopy: current developments in diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy.

Authors: 
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2010-03

3.  New endoscopy devices to improve population adherence to colorectal cancer prevention programs.

Authors:  Asimina Gaglia; Ioannis S Papanikolaou; Wilfried Veltzke-Schlieker
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2010-07-16

Review 4.  Colon capsule endoscopy: toward the future.

Authors:  Naoki Muguruma; Kumiko Tanaka; Satoshi Teramae; Tetsuji Takayama
Journal:  Clin J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-01-13

Review 5.  New vision in video capsule endoscopy: current status and future directions.

Authors:  Laurel R Fisher; William L Hasler
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2012-05-08       Impact factor: 46.802

6.  Accuracy and safety of second-generation PillCam COLON capsule for colorectal polyp detection.

Authors:  Cristiano Spada; Fabio De Vincentis; Paola Cesaro; Cesare Hassan; Maria Elena Riccioni; Leonardo Minelli Grazioli; Santiago Bolivar; Andrade Zurita; Guido Costamagna
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 4.409

Review 7.  GUCY2C ligand replacement to prevent colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Erik S Blomain; Amanda M Pattison; Scott A Waldman
Journal:  Cancer Biol Ther       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 4.742

Review 8.  Colorectal cancer screening--optimizing current strategies and new directions.

Authors:  Ernst J Kuipers; Thomas Rösch; Michael Bretthauer
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 66.675

9.  Robotics in Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Dan Cater; Arpita Vyas; Dinesh Vyas
Journal:  Am J Robot Surg       Date:  2014-06

10.  Study protocol: population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy or CT colonography: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Thomas R de Wijkerslooth; Margriet C de Haan; Esther M Stoop; Marije Deutekom; Paul Fockens; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Maarten Thomeer; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Monique E van Leerdam; Ernst J Kuipers; Evelien Dekker; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 3.067

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.