Cargando…

Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under routine screening conditions

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy (CSPY) for colorectal cancer screening has several limitations. Colon Capsule Endoscopy (PillCam Colon, CCE) was compared to CSPY under routine screening conditions. METHODS: We performed a prospective, single-center pilot study at a University Hospital. Data were obtained fr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pilz, Julia B, Portmann, Susanne, Peter, Shajan, Beglinger, Christoph, Degen, Lukas
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2905323/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20565828
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-10-66
_version_ 1782183945059696640
author Pilz, Julia B
Portmann, Susanne
Peter, Shajan
Beglinger, Christoph
Degen, Lukas
author_facet Pilz, Julia B
Portmann, Susanne
Peter, Shajan
Beglinger, Christoph
Degen, Lukas
author_sort Pilz, Julia B
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy (CSPY) for colorectal cancer screening has several limitations. Colon Capsule Endoscopy (PillCam Colon, CCE) was compared to CSPY under routine screening conditions. METHODS: We performed a prospective, single-center pilot study at a University Hospital. Data were obtained from November 2007 until May 2008. Patients underwent CCE on Day 1 and CSPY on Day 2. Outcomes were evaluated regarding sensitivity and specificity of polyp detection rate, with a significance level set at >5 mm. RESULTS: 59 individuals were included in this study, the results were evaluable in 56 patients (males 34, females 22; median age 59). CCE was complete in 36 subjects. Polyp detection rate for significant polyps was 11% on CSPY and 27% on CCE. 6/56 (11%) patients had polyps on CSPY not detected on CCE (miss rate). Overall sensitivity was 79% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61 to 90), specificity was 54% (95% CI, 35 to 70), positive predictive value (PPV) was 63% and negative predictive value (NPV) was 71%. Adjusted to significance of findings, sensitivity was 50% (95% CI, 19 to 81), specificity was 76% (95% CI, 63 to 86), PPV was 20% and NPV was 93%. CONCLUSION: In comparison to the gold standard, the sensitivity of CCE for detection of relevant polyps is low, however, the high NPV supports its role as a possible screening tool. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00991003.
format Text
id pubmed-2905323
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-29053232010-07-17 Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under routine screening conditions Pilz, Julia B Portmann, Susanne Peter, Shajan Beglinger, Christoph Degen, Lukas BMC Gastroenterol Research Article BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy (CSPY) for colorectal cancer screening has several limitations. Colon Capsule Endoscopy (PillCam Colon, CCE) was compared to CSPY under routine screening conditions. METHODS: We performed a prospective, single-center pilot study at a University Hospital. Data were obtained from November 2007 until May 2008. Patients underwent CCE on Day 1 and CSPY on Day 2. Outcomes were evaluated regarding sensitivity and specificity of polyp detection rate, with a significance level set at >5 mm. RESULTS: 59 individuals were included in this study, the results were evaluable in 56 patients (males 34, females 22; median age 59). CCE was complete in 36 subjects. Polyp detection rate for significant polyps was 11% on CSPY and 27% on CCE. 6/56 (11%) patients had polyps on CSPY not detected on CCE (miss rate). Overall sensitivity was 79% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61 to 90), specificity was 54% (95% CI, 35 to 70), positive predictive value (PPV) was 63% and negative predictive value (NPV) was 71%. Adjusted to significance of findings, sensitivity was 50% (95% CI, 19 to 81), specificity was 76% (95% CI, 63 to 86), PPV was 20% and NPV was 93%. CONCLUSION: In comparison to the gold standard, the sensitivity of CCE for detection of relevant polyps is low, however, the high NPV supports its role as a possible screening tool. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00991003. BioMed Central 2010-06-18 /pmc/articles/PMC2905323/ /pubmed/20565828 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-10-66 Text en Copyright ©2010 Pilz et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pilz, Julia B
Portmann, Susanne
Peter, Shajan
Beglinger, Christoph
Degen, Lukas
Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under routine screening conditions
title Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under routine screening conditions
title_full Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under routine screening conditions
title_fullStr Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under routine screening conditions
title_full_unstemmed Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under routine screening conditions
title_short Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under routine screening conditions
title_sort colon capsule endoscopy compared to conventional colonoscopy under routine screening conditions
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2905323/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20565828
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-10-66
work_keys_str_mv AT pilzjuliab coloncapsuleendoscopycomparedtoconventionalcolonoscopyunderroutinescreeningconditions
AT portmannsusanne coloncapsuleendoscopycomparedtoconventionalcolonoscopyunderroutinescreeningconditions
AT petershajan coloncapsuleendoscopycomparedtoconventionalcolonoscopyunderroutinescreeningconditions
AT beglingerchristoph coloncapsuleendoscopycomparedtoconventionalcolonoscopyunderroutinescreeningconditions
AT degenlukas coloncapsuleendoscopycomparedtoconventionalcolonoscopyunderroutinescreeningconditions