Search

Background: The diagnostic accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) depends on a well-cleansed bowel. Evaluating the cleansing quality can be difficult with a substantial interobserver variation. Objectives: Our primary aim was to establish a standard of agreement for bowel cleansing in CCE based on evaluations by expert readers. Then, we aimed to investigate the interobserver agreement on bowel cleansing. Design: We conducted an interobserver agreement study on bowel cleansing quality. Methods: Readers with different experience levels in CCE and colonoscopy evaluated bowel cleansing quality on the Leighton–Rex scale and Colon Capsule CLEansing Assessment and Report (CC-CLEAR), respectively. All evaluations were reported on an image level. A total of 24 readers rated 500 images on each scale. Results: An expert opinion-based agreement standard could be set for poor and excellent cleansing but not for the spectrum in between, as the experts agreed on only a limited number of images representing fair and good cleansing. The overall interobserver agreement on the Leighton–Rex full scale was good (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.84, 95% CI (0.82–0.85)) and remained good when stratified by experience level. On the full CC-CLEAR scale, the overall agreement was moderate (ICC 0.62, 95% CI (0.59–0.65)) and remained so when stratified by experience level. Conclusion: The interobserver agreement was good for the Leighton–Rex scale and moderate for CC-CLEAR, irrespective of the reader’s experience level. It was not possible to establish an expert-opinion standard of agreement for cleansing quality in CCE images. Dedicated training in using the scales may improve agreement and enable future algorithm calibration for artificial intelligence supported cleansing evaluation. Trial registration: All included images were derived from the CAREforCOLON 2015 trial (Registered with The Regional Health Research Ethics Committee (Registration number: S-20190100), the Danish data protection agency (Ref. 19/29858), and ClinicalTrials.gov (registration number: NCT04049357)).

Background: Social inequalities in colorectal cancer screening participation are evident. Barriers to screening participation include discomfort from diagnostic modalities. We aimed to describe the discomfort experienced from colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and investigate the discrepancy between expected and experienced discomfort stratified by socioeconomic status. Methods: A randomised controlled trial was conducted offering half of the colorectal cancer screening invitees the choice between CCE and colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test. This paper includes those who elected to undergo CCE. A positive CCE elicited referral for a therapeutic colonoscopy. Participants reported their discomfort from CCE and from any following colonoscopies in electronically distributed questionnaires. Discomfort was measured using visual analogue scales and compared between socioeconomic subgroups determined by educational level and income. Results: The experienced discomfort from CCE and colonoscopy differed significantly between educational levels but not income levels. The bowel preparation contributed the most to the experienced discomfort in both CCE and colonoscopy. The discrepancy between expected and experienced discomfort from colonoscopy increased with increasing educational and income levels. A similar trend was seen in CCE between educational levels but not income levels. Conclusions: None of the results indicated a higher discomfort in lower socioeconomic subgroups. Regardless of the investigation modality, the bowel preparation was the main contributor to experienced discomfort. The discrepancy between expected and experienced discomfort did not seem to be larger in lower socioeconomic subgroups, indicating that this is not a major barrier causing inequalities in screening uptake. This is the first study investigating individual discomfort discrepancy in both CCE and colonoscopy, while being able to stratify by socioeconomic status.

Background: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has gained momentum as an alternative modality for the investigation of the lower gastrointestinal tract. Of the few challenges that remain, the comparison and – eventually – matching of polyps at different timestamps leads to the potential for double reporting and can contribute to false-positive findings and inaccuracies. With the impending artificial intelligence integration, the risk of double reporting the same polyp due to the lack of information on spatial orientation underscores the necessity for establishing criteria for polyp matching. Objectives: This RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (modified Delphi) process aims to identify the key factors or components used to match polyps within a CCE video. This involves exploring the attributes of each factor to create comprehensive polyp-matching criteria based on international expert consensus. Design: A systematic qualitative study using surveys. Methods: A panel of 11 international CCE experts convened to assess a survey comprised of 60 statements. Participants anonymously rated statement appropriateness on a 1–9 scale (1–3: inappropriate, 4–6: uncertain and 7–9: appropriate). Following a virtual group discussion of the Round 1 results, a Round 2 survey was developed and completed before the final analysis. Results: The factors that were agreed to be essential for polyp matching include (1) timestamp, (2) polyp localization, (3) polyp vascular pattern, (4) polyp size, (5) time interval of the polyp appearance between the green and yellow camera, (6) surrounding tissue, (7) polyp morphology and (8) polyp surface and contour. When five or more factors are satisfied, it was agreed that the comparing polyps are likely the same polyp. Conclusion: This study has established the first complete criteria for polyp matching in CCE. While it might not provide a definitive solution for matching difficult, small and common polyps, these criteria serve as a framework to guide and facilitate the process of polyp-matching.

Introduction Follow-up after an episode of colonic diverticulitis is a common indication for colonoscopy, even though studies have shown a low risk of positive findings in this population. Our objective is to investigate colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) as a follow-up examination in patients with colonic diverticulitis compared with colonoscopy, particularly regarding patient satisfaction and clinical performance.Methods and analysis We will conduct a single-centre prospective randomised controlled trial. Patients seen at Odense University Hospital with acute diverticulitis confirmed by CT will be included and randomised to either follow-up by colonoscopy or CCE. Detection of suspected cancer, more than two polyps or any number of polyps larger than 9 mm in CCE will generate an invitation to a diagnostic colonoscopy for biopsies or polyp removal. We will compare colonoscopy and CCE regarding patient satisfaction and tolerance, the number of complete examinations, the number of patients referred to a subsequent colonoscopy after CCE and the prevalence of diverticula, polyps, cancers and other abnormal findings.Ethics and dissemination Informed consent will be obtained from all participants before randomisation. The study was approved by the regional ethics committee (ref. S-20210127) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (ref. 22/43235). After completion of the trial, we plan to publish two articles in high-impact journals. One article on both primary and secondary outcomes.Trial registration number NCT05700981.

Capsule retention is a rare complication to capsule endoscopy. It is often asymptomatic and resolves itself spontaneously. In some cases, endoscopy or surgery is necessary to remove the capsule. Cases of capsule retention in the colon are not reported very often and precautions in subsequent investigations must be considered. We present a case of a 74-year-old woman who underwent colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) due to a positive fecal immunochemical test. The CCE was incomplete, and the patient was referred to conventional colonoscopy, which was complicated by perforation of the large bowel during the procedure. This lead to a CT scan showing the capsule proximal to a stenotic colon segment which was subsequently surgically removed. In patients who report lack of capsule excretion and stenosis is not verified, colonoscopy can be carried out, but with caution.

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a promising modality for colonic investigations, but completion rates (CR) and adequate cleansing rates (ACR) must be improved to meet established standards for optical colonoscopy. Improvements should be made with patient acceptability in mind. We aimed to compare a very low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) laxative to a conventional high-volume laxative. We carried out a single-center retrospective comparative cohort study including patients referred for CCE. One hundred and sixty-six patients were included in the final analysis, with eighty-three patients in each group. We found a CR and ACR of 77% and 67% in the high-volume group and 72% and 75% in the very low-volume group, respectively. In the high-volume group, 54% had complete transit and adequate cleansing, whereas this was the case for 63% in the very low-volume group. No statistically significant difference in CR, ACR, or a combination of the two was found. A very low-volume bowel preparation regimen was non-inferior to a high-volume regimen before CCE in terms of CR and ACR.

Completing colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) investigations rely on successful transit and acceptable bowel preparation quality. We investigated the effect of adding castor oil to the CCE bowel preparation regimen on the completion rate using a meta-analysis of existing literature. We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Included studies underwent quality assessment, and data for meta-analysis were extracted. Pooled estimates for excretion rate and acceptable bowel preparation rate were calculated. We identified 72 studies matching our search criteria, and six were included in the meta-analysis. Three of the studies had control groups, although two used historical cohorts. The pooled excretion rate (92%) was significantly higher in patients who received castor oil than in those who did not (73%). No significant difference in acceptable colonic cleanliness was observed. Castor oil has been used in a few studies as a booster for CCE. This meta-analysis shows the potential for this medication to improve excretion rates, and castor oil could be actively considered in conjunction with other emerging laxative regimens in CCE. Still, prospective randomized trials with appropriate control groups should be conducted before any conclusions can be drawn. Prospero ID: CRD42022338939.