Lucian Negreanu1, Ruxandra Babiuc, Andreea Bengus, Roxana Sadagurschi. 1. Lucian Negreanu, Ruxandra Babiuc, Andreea Bengus, Roxana Sadagurschi, Internal Medicine 2 Gastroenterology Department, University Hospital, Carol Davila University of Medicine Bucharest, 011465 Bucharest, Romania.
Abstract
AIM: To assess the feasibility, accuracy and acceptability of PillCam Colon 2 in detection of significant lesions in colorectal cancer risk patients, unable or unwilling to perform colonoscopy. METHODS: This is a prospective, single center study using the second generation of PillCam Colon capsule. In all patients the readers were instructed to review the entire colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) examination using Rapid 7 software and additionally to note significant extra-colonic findings. Colonic significant findings were described according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines. CCE procedure completion rate, level of bowel preparation and rate of adverse events were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 70 patients at risk of colorectal cancer were enrolled in the study. In three patients the procedure failed because the capsule was not functioning when entered the colon. PillCam Colon 2 showed positive findings in 23 (34%, 95%CI: 21.6%-44.1%) of the remaining 67 patients. Six patients were diagnosed with tumors: 4 with colon cancers, 1 with gastric cancer and 1 with a small bowel cancer. The capsule findings were confirmed after surgery in all these patients. The capsule excretion rate in twelve hours was 77% with 54 patients having a complete examination. The rectum was not explored during CCE procedure, in 16 patients (23%, 95%CI: 13.7%-34.1%). Every patient accepted CCE as an alternative exploration tool and 65/70 (93%) agreed to have another future control by CCE. No complications were reported during or after CCE examination. CONCLUSION: PillCam Colon 2 capsule was effective in detecting significant lesions and might be considered an adequate alternative diagnostic tool in patients unable or unwilling to undergo colonoscopy.
AIM: To assess the feasibility, accuracy and acceptability of PillCam Colon 2 in detection of significant lesions in colorectal cancer risk patients, unable or unwilling to perform colonoscopy. METHODS: This is a prospective, single center study using the second generation of PillCam Colon capsule. In all patients the readers were instructed to review the entire colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) examination using Rapid 7 software and additionally to note significant extra-colonic findings. Colonic significant findings were described according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines. CCE procedure completion rate, level of bowel preparation and rate of adverse events were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 70 patients at risk of colorectal cancer were enrolled in the study. In three patients the procedure failed because the capsule was not functioning when entered the colon. PillCam Colon 2 showed positive findings in 23 (34%, 95%CI: 21.6%-44.1%) of the remaining 67 patients. Six patients were diagnosed with tumors: 4 with colon cancers, 1 with gastric cancer and 1 with a small bowel cancer. The capsule findings were confirmed after surgery in all these patients. The capsule excretion rate in twelve hours was 77% with 54 patients having a complete examination. The rectum was not explored during CCE procedure, in 16 patients (23%, 95%CI: 13.7%-34.1%). Every patient accepted CCE as an alternative exploration tool and 65/70 (93%) agreed to have another future control by CCE. No complications were reported during or after CCE examination. CONCLUSION: PillCam Colon 2 capsule was effective in detecting significant lesions and might be considered an adequate alternative diagnostic tool in patients unable or unwilling to undergo colonoscopy.
Authors: C Spada; C Hassan; J P Galmiche; H Neuhaus; J M Dumonceau; S Adler; O Epstein; G Gay; M Pennazio; D K Rex; R Benamouzig; R de Franchis; M Delvaux; J Devière; R Eliakim; C Fraser; F Hagenmuller; J M Herrerias; M Keuchel; F Macrae; M Munoz-Navas; T Ponchon; E Quintero; M E Riccioni; E Rondonotti; R Marmo; J J Sung; H Tajiri; E Toth; K Triantafyllou; A Van Gossum; G Costamagna Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2012-03-02 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Paula L McClements; Vichithranie Madurasinghe; Catherine S Thomson; Callum G Fraser; Francis A Carey; Robert J C Steele; Gill Lawrence; David H Brewster Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Judy Yee; Max Paul Rosen; Michael A Blake; Mark E Baker; Brooks D Cash; Jeff L Fidler; Thomas H Grant; Frederick L Greene; Bronwyn Jones; Douglas S Katz; Tasneem Lalani; Frank H Miller; William C Small; Gary S Sudakoff; David M Warshauer Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: R Eliakim; Z Fireman; I M Gralnek; K Yassin; M Waterman; Y Kopelman; J Lachter; B Koslowsky; S N Adler Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: M Pioche; A de Leusse; B Filoche; P A Dalbiès; P Adenis Lamarre; P Jacob; J L Gaudin; P Coulom; J C Letard; E Borotto; A Duriez; J-M Chabaud; D Crampon; R Gincul; P Levy; E ben-Soussan; M Garret; J Lapuelle; J C Saurin Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2012-08-14 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: U Deding; J Herp; A-L Havshoei; M Kobaek-Larsen; M M Buijs; E S Nadimi; G Baatrup Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Cristiano Spada; Cesare Hassan; Davide Bellini; David Burling; Giovanni Cappello; Cristina Carretero; Evelien Dekker; Rami Eliakim; Margriet de Haan; Michal F Kaminski; Anastasios Koulaouzidis; Andrea Laghi; Philippe Lefere; Thomas Mang; Sebastian Manuel Milluzzo; Martina Morrin; Deirdre McNamara; Emanuele Neri; Silvia Pecere; Mathieu Pioche; Andrew Plumb; Emanuele Rondonotti; Manon Cw Spaander; Stuart Taylor; Ignacio Fernandez-Urien; Jeanin E van Hooft; Jaap Stoker; Daniele Regge Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-05 Impact factor: 5.315