Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Colon capsule endoscopy: the evidence is piling up
  1. George Koulaouzidis1,
  2. Alexander Robertson2,
  3. Hagen Wenzek3,
  4. Anastasios Koulaouzidis1
  1. 1Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
  2. 2Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
  3. 3Corporate Health International, Odense, Denmark
  1. Correspondence to Dr Anastasios Koulaouzidis, Department of Social Medicine & Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, Szczecin, Zachodniopomorskie, Poland; akoulaouzidis{at}hotmail.com

Statistics from Altmetric.com

We read with interest the multicentre comparison study by Cash et al on the diagnostic yield (DY) of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) versus CT colonography (CTC) in a screening population.1 Out of 320 enrolled, data from 286 (89.4%) subjects were evaluated. CCE was superior to CTC in the detection of polyps ≥6 mm and non-inferior for polyps ≥10 mm. A recent meta-analysis2 of the use of CCE and CTC in patients with incomplete optical colonoscopy (OC) showed the DY of CTC at 10% (95% CI 7%–15%) and of CCE at 37% (95% CI 30%–43%) for any size polyp, suggesting the increased DY of CCE could outweigh its lower completion rate compared with the superiority of CTC there. Furthermore, a recent systematic review,3 including 2485 patients across 13 studies, confirmed that CCE is highly sensitive for clinically …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors contributed equally to writing, reviewing and accepting the final version.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests AK is cofounder of AJM Medicaps and codirector of iCERV. He has received honoraria from Dr Falk Pharma UK, Jinshan, and travel support from Jinshan, Dr Falk and Aquilant. He has been on advisory board meetings for Dr Falk Pharma UK, Tillots Pharma AG, Ankon. HW is the chief innovation officer for CorpHealth International. GK and AR have no disclosures.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.