Tue Kjølhede1, Anne Mette Ølholm1, Lasse Kaalby2,3, Kristian Kidholm1, Niels Qvist2, Gunnar Baatrup2,3. 1. Centre for Innovative Medical Technology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 2. Department of Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 3. Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a technology that might contribute to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs as a filter test between fecal immunochemical testing and standard colonoscopy. The aim was to systematically review the literature for studies investigating the diagnostic yield of second-generation CCE compared with standard colonoscopy. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Study characteristics including quality of bowel preparation and completeness of CCE transits were extracted. Per-patient sensitivity and specificity were extracted for polyps (any size, ≥ 10 mm, ≥ 6 mm) and lesion characteristics. Meta-analyses of diagnostic yield were performed. RESULTS: The literature search revealed 1077 unique papers and 12 studies were included. Studies involved a total of 2199 patients, of whom 1898 were included in analyses. The rate of patients with adequate bowel preparation varied from 40 % to 100 %. The rates of complete CCE transit varied from 57 % to 100 %. Our meta-analyses demonstrated that mean (95 % confidence interval) sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were: 0.85 (0.73-0.92), 0.85 (0.70-0.93), and 30.5 (16.2-57.2), respectively, for polyps of any size; 0.87 (0.82-0.90), 0.95 (0.92-0.97), and 136.0 (70.6-262.1), respectively, for polyps ≥ 10 mm; and 0.87 (0.83-0.90), 0.88 (0.75-0.95), and 51.1 (19.8-131.8), respectively, for polyps ≥ 6 mm. No serious adverse events were reported for CCE. CONCLUSION: CCE had high sensitivity and specificity for per-patient polyps compared with standard colonoscopy However, the relatively high rate of incomplete investigations limits the application of CCE in a CRC screening setting. Thieme. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a technology that might contribute to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs as a filter test between fecal immunochemical testing and standard colonoscopy. The aim was to systematically review the literature for studies investigating the diagnostic yield of second-generation CCE compared with standard colonoscopy. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Study characteristics including quality of bowel preparation and completeness of CCE transits were extracted. Per-patient sensitivity and specificity were extracted for polyps (any size, ≥ 10 mm, ≥ 6 mm) and lesion characteristics. Meta-analyses of diagnostic yield were performed. RESULTS: The literature search revealed 1077 unique papers and 12 studies were included. Studies involved a total of 2199 patients, of whom 1898 were included in analyses. The rate of patients with adequate bowel preparation varied from 40 % to 100 %. The rates of complete CCE transit varied from 57 % to 100 %. Our meta-analyses demonstrated that mean (95 % confidence interval) sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were: 0.85 (0.73-0.92), 0.85 (0.70-0.93), and 30.5 (16.2-57.2), respectively, for polyps of any size; 0.87 (0.82-0.90), 0.95 (0.92-0.97), and 136.0 (70.6-262.1), respectively, for polyps ≥ 10 mm; and 0.87 (0.83-0.90), 0.88 (0.75-0.95), and 51.1 (19.8-131.8), respectively, for polyps ≥ 6 mm. No serious adverse events were reported for CCE. CONCLUSION: CCE had high sensitivity and specificity for per-patient polyps compared with standard colonoscopy However, the relatively high rate of incomplete investigations limits the application of CCE in a CRC screening setting. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Authors: Sarah Moen; Fanny E R Vuik; Trudy Voortman; Ernst J Kuipers; Manon C W Spaander Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 4.396
Authors: Fanny E R Vuik; Sarah Moen; Stella A V Nieuwenburg; Eline H Schreuders; Ernst J Kuipers; Manon C W Spaander Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2021-12-14