The efficiency of colonic capsule endoscopy in detection of colorectal polyps and cancers compared to colonoscopy – multicenter, prospective, cross-over study

Czech version

Authors: M. Zavoral ¹; O. Májek ²; I. Tachecí ³; M. Beneš ^4,5; P. Drastich ^4,5; G. Vojtěchová ¹; J. Martínek ^1,4; M. Voška ¹; J. Bureš ³; J. Špičák ⁴; Š. Suchánek ¹
Authors‘ workplace: Interní klinika 1. LF UK a ÚVN – VFN, Praha ¹; Institut biostatistiky a analýz, LF a PřF MU, Brno ²; II. interní gastroenterologická klinika LF UK a FN Hradec Králové ³; Klinika hepatogastroenterologie, IKEM, Praha ⁴; G. E. P. Clinic, s. r. o., Praha ⁵
Published in: Gastroent Hepatol 2014; 68(3): 218-224
Category: Important Anniversary: Original Article

Overview

The national colorectal cancer screening program has been running in the Czech Republic (CR) since 2000. It is based on an examination by faecal occult blood test (FOBT) and colonoscopy. In 2012 the target population coverage reached the level of 25.8%. The European guidelines set the acceptable participation rate to at least 45%, and the recommended aim is 65%. For this reason, other screening modalities are examined. Capsule colonoscopy is one of these possible methods. In CR, a multicentre study has been running since 2011. Its interim analysis is presented here. The main aim of the study was to assess the accuracy of second-generation capsule colonoscopy (CCE2) in detection of colorectal neoplasia (polyps, adenomas, cancers) in comparison to colonoscopy (OC). The secondary aims were: comparison of colon cleansing, number of complications and target population acceptance of both methods (CCE2 and OC).

Material and methods:
Individuals examined prospectively in years 2011–2014 at four specialized endoscopy centres by capsule colonoscopy and optical colonoscopy (standard method) were enrolled. Only the “screening population” was included: asymptomatic persons aged over 50, with no personal or familial history of colorectal neoplasia. The primary outcomes were the accuracy of detection of all polyps; polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 10 mm; adenomas ≥ 10 mm and cancers. Colon cleansing was grouped to adequate and inadequate. Complications were assessed as serious (bleeding, perforation) and mild. Acceptance of the methods was evaluated based on a patient questionnaire filled in after both procedures (CCE2 and OC) were finished.

Results:
In total, 203 individuals (109 men, 54%; 94 women, 46%; mean age 59 years) were enrolled. 175 (86%) of them underwent the complete examination and were further analysed. During optical colonoscopy polyps were diagnosed in 83 persons (47%), polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 10 mm in 25 (14%) and 11 (6%) patients, respectively. In 40 (23%) patients the adenoma was diagnosed, in seven (4%) its size was ≥ 10 mm. The sensitivity of CCE2 for polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 10 mm and adenomas ≥ 10 mm reached 76%, 91% and 100%, respectively. The specificity for polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 10 mm was 97% and 98%, respectively. Only one cancer was diagnosed at both CCE2 and OC. There were no serious complications registered. Adequate colon cleansing was achieved in 87% (CCE2) and 91% (OC) individuals. 46% of people preferred colon capsule as the primary screening test.

Conclusion:
Colon capsule is a safe, non-invasive and sensitive method for diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. It is acceptable as the primary test for colorectal cancer screening.

Key words:
colorectal cancer – adenoma – colonic capsule – optical colonoscopy

The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.

Redakční rada potvrzuje, že rukopis práce splnil ICMJE kritéria pro publikace zasílané do biomedicínských časopisů.

Submitted:
5. 5. 2014

Accepted:
6. 6. 2014

Sources

1. Dušek L, Mužík J, Pavlík T et al. Epidemiologie zhoubných nádorů trávicího traktu v České republice – současný stav a predikce. Gastroent Hepatol 2012; 66(5): 331–339.

2. Zavoral M, Suchánek Š, Májek O et al. Národní program screeningu kolorektálního karcinomu v České republice – minulost, přítomnost a budoucnost. Gastroent Hepatol 2012; 66(5): 345–349.

3. Zavoral M, Suchanek S, Majek O et al. Colorectal cancer screening: 20 years of development and recent progress. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20(14): 3825–3834. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i14.3825.

4. Von Karsa L, Patnick J, Segnan N et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication. Endoscopy 2013; 45(1): 51–59. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1325997.

5. Tachecí I, Drastich P, Suchánek Š et al. Kapslová endoskopie – standard endoskopického vyšetření tenkého střeva. Čes a Slov Gastroent Hepatol 2007; 61(5): 269–275.

6. Spada C, Riccioni ME, Hassan C et al. PillCam colon capsule endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial comparing two regimens of preparation. J Clin Gastroenterol 2011; 45(2): 119–124. doi: 10.1097//MCG.0b013e3181dac04b.

7. Spada C, Hassan C, Galmiche JP et al. Colon capsule endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2012; 44(5): 527–536. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1291717.

8. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58 (6 Suppl): S3–S43.

9. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med 1993; 328(19): 1365–1371.

10. Van Rossum LG, van Rijn AF, Laheij RJ et al. Random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer in a screening population. Gastroenterology 2008; 135(1): 82–90. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.03.040.

11. Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I et al. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010; 375(9726): 1624–1633. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60551-X.

12. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362(19): 1795–1803. doi: 10.1056//NEJMoa0907667.

13. Van Gossum A, Munoz-Navas M, Fernandez-Urien I et al. Capsule endoscopy versus colonoscopy for the detection of polyps and cancer. N Engl J Med 2009; 361(3): 264–270. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0806347.

14. Eliakim R, Yassin K, Niv Y et al. Prospective multicenter performance evaluation of the second-generation colon capsule compared with colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2009; 41(12): 1026–1031. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1215360.

15. Spada C, Hassan C, Munoz-Navas M et al. Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74(3): 581–589. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.03.1125.

16. Suchanek S, Majek O, Vojtechova G et al. Colorectal cancer prevention in the Czech Republic: time trends in performance indicators and current situation after 10 years of screening. Eur J Cancer Prev 2014; 23(1): 18–26. doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0b013e328364f203.

17. Spada C, De Vincentis F, Cesaro P et al. Accuracy and safety of second-generation PillCam COLON capsule for colorectal polyp detection. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2012; 5(3): 173–178. doi: 10.1177/1756283X12438054.

18. Holleran G, Leen R, O'Morain C et al. Colon capsule endoscopy as possible filter test for colonoscopy selection in a screening population with positive fecal immunology. Endoscopy 2014; 46(6): 473–478. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1365402.