BACKGROUND & AIMS: Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a reliable option for screening subjects who are unable or unwilling to undergo optical colonoscopy (OC). A colon capsule (PillCam Colon2 [CC2]; GivenImaging Ltd., Yokneam, Israel) has shown promising results in detecting polyps larger than 6 mm. We compared the accuracy of CC2 and CTC in identifying individuals with at least 1 polyp greater than 6 mm and subjects' attitude toward the procedures. METHODS: Fifty individuals (mean age, 59.2 ± 5.8 y; 58% male) with positive results from the immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT-positive) underwent CC2, CTC, and OC. The unblinded colonoscopy, integrating OC, CTC, and CC2 results, was used as the reference standard. In a per-patient analysis, the accuracy of CC2 and CTC were assessed for individuals with at least 1 polyp 6 mm or larger. Individuals were asked to choose which procedure they would be willing to repeat between CTC and CC2. RESULTS: The combination of OC, CTC, and CC2 identified 16 cases with at least 1 polyp 6 mm or larger (reference standard). CTC identified the polyps with 88.2% sensitivity, 84.8% specificity, a 3.0 positive likelihood ratio, and a 0.07 negative likelihood ratio. CC2 identified the polyps with 88.2% sensitivity, 87.8% specificity, a 3.75 positive likelihood ratio, and a 0.06 negative likelihood ratio. Thirty-nine subjects (78%) said they preferred CC2 to CTC. CONCLUSIONS: CC2 and CTC detect polyps 6 mm and larger with high levels of accuracy; these techniques are effective in selecting iFOBT-positive individuals who do not need to be referred for colonoscopy. CC2 seems to be better tolerated than CTC, and could be a reliable alternative to CTC for iFOBT-positive individuals who are unable or unwilling to undergo OC. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01744509.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a reliable option for screening subjects who are unable or unwilling to undergo optical colonoscopy (OC). A colon capsule (PillCam Colon2 [CC2]; GivenImaging Ltd., Yokneam, Israel) has shown promising results in detecting polyps larger than 6 mm. We compared the accuracy of CC2 and CTC in identifying individuals with at least 1 polyp greater than 6 mm and subjects' attitude toward the procedures. METHODS: Fifty individuals (mean age, 59.2 ± 5.8 y; 58% male) with positive results from the immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT-positive) underwent CC2, CTC, and OC. The unblinded colonoscopy, integrating OC, CTC, and CC2 results, was used as the reference standard. In a per-patient analysis, the accuracy of CC2 and CTC were assessed for individuals with at least 1 polyp 6 mm or larger. Individuals were asked to choose which procedure they would be willing to repeat between CTC and CC2. RESULTS: The combination of OC, CTC, and CC2 identified 16 cases with at least 1 polyp 6 mm or larger (reference standard). CTC identified the polyps with 88.2% sensitivity, 84.8% specificity, a 3.0 positive likelihood ratio, and a 0.07 negative likelihood ratio. CC2 identified the polyps with 88.2% sensitivity, 87.8% specificity, a 3.75 positive likelihood ratio, and a 0.06 negative likelihood ratio. Thirty-nine subjects (78%) said they preferred CC2 to CTC. CONCLUSIONS: CC2 and CTC detect polyps 6 mm and larger with high levels of accuracy; these techniques are effective in selecting iFOBT-positive individuals who do not need to be referred for colonoscopy. CC2 seems to be better tolerated than CTC, and could be a reliable alternative to CTC for iFOBT-positive individuals who are unable or unwilling to undergo OC. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01744509.
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: Ervin Toth; Diana E Yung; Artur Nemeth; Gabriele Wurm Johansson; Henrik Thorlacius; Anastasios Koulaouzidis Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2017-05