Johannes Hausmann1, Jan-Peter Linke2,3, Jörg G Albert2,4, Johannes Masseli2, Andrea Tal2, Alica Kubesch2, Natalie Filmann5, Michael Philipper6, Michael Farnbacher7. 1. Department of Internal Medicine 1, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. Johannes.hausmann@kgu.de. 2. Department of Internal Medicine 1, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Heilig-Geist-Hospital, Bingen, Germany. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Robert-Bosch-Hospital, Stuttgart, Germany. 5. Institute of Biostatistics and Mathematical Modeling, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany. 6. Gastroenterologische Facharztpraxis, Düsseldorf, Germany. 7. Department of Internal Medicine 2, Klinikum Fürth, Fürth, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a reliable method to detect colonic polyps in the well-prepared colon. As CCE evaluation can be time consuming, a new software algorithm might aid in reducing evaluation time. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate whether it is feasible to reliably detect colon polyps in CCE videos with a new software algorithm the "collage mode" (Rapid 8 Software, Covidien/Medtronic®). METHODS: Twenty-nine CCE videos were randomly presented to three experienced and to three inexperienced investigators. Videos were evaluated by applying the collage mode. Investigation time was documented and the results (≥one polyp vs. no polyp) were compared with the findings of two highly experienced central readers who read the CCE videos in the standard mode beforehand. RESULTS: It took a median time of 9.8, 3.5, and 7.5 vs. 4.3, 4.6 and 12.5 min for experienced vs. inexperienced investigators to review the CCE videos. For detecting ≥one polyp vs. no polyp, sensitivity of 93.3%, 73.3%, and 93.3% was observed for the experienced and sensitivity of 46.7%, 33.3%, and 93.3% for the inexperienced CCE readers. CONCLUSION: Collage mode might allow for a quick review of CCE videos with a high polyp detection rate for experienced CCE readers. Future prospective studies should include CCE collage mode for rapid polyp detection to further prove the feasibility of practical colon polyp detection by CCE and possibly support the role of CCE as a screening tool in CRC prevention.
BACKGROUND: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a reliable method to detect colonic polyps in the well-prepared colon. As CCE evaluation can be time consuming, a new software algorithm might aid in reducing evaluation time. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate whether it is feasible to reliably detect colon polyps in CCE videos with a new software algorithm the "collage mode" (Rapid 8 Software, Covidien/Medtronic®). METHODS: Twenty-nine CCE videos were randomly presented to three experienced and to three inexperienced investigators. Videos were evaluated by applying the collage mode. Investigation time was documented and the results (≥one polyp vs. no polyp) were compared with the findings of two highly experienced central readers who read the CCE videos in the standard mode beforehand. RESULTS: It took a median time of 9.8, 3.5, and 7.5 vs. 4.3, 4.6 and 12.5 min for experienced vs. inexperienced investigators to review the CCE videos. For detecting ≥one polyp vs. no polyp, sensitivity of 93.3%, 73.3%, and 93.3% was observed for the experienced and sensitivity of 46.7%, 33.3%, and 93.3% for the inexperienced CCE readers. CONCLUSION: Collage mode might allow for a quick review of CCE videos with a high polyp detection rate for experienced CCE readers. Future prospective studies should include CCE collage mode for rapid polyp detection to further prove the feasibility of practical colon polyp detection by CCE and possibly support the role of CCE as a screening tool in CRC prevention.
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: Douglas K Rex; Samuel N Adler; James Aisenberg; Wilmot C Burch; Cristina Carretero; Yehuda Chowers; Steven A Fein; Steven E Fern; Ignacio Fernandez-Urien Sainz; Alexander Fich; Eyal Gal; John C Horlander; Kim L Isaacs; Revital Kariv; Adi Lahat; Wai-Keung Leung; Pramod R Malik; Doug Morgan; Neofytos Papageorgiou; David P Romeo; Smita S Shah; Matti Waterman Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: M Kobaek-Larsen; R Kroijer; A-K Dyrvig; M M Buijs; R J C Steele; N Qvist; G Baatrup Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Limin X Clegg; Elizabeth Ward; Lynn A G Ries; Xiaocheng Wu; Patricia M Jamison; Phyllis A Wingo; Holly L Howe; Robert N Anderson; Brenda K Edwards Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Melissa R Partin; Amy Gravely; Ziad F Gellad; Sean Nugent; James F Burgess; Aasma Shaukat; David B Nelson Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Robert S Kerrison; Lesley M McGregor; Sarah Marshall; John Isitt; Nicholas Counsell; Colin J Rees; Christian von Wagner Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 10.093