Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Jun 18:10:66.
doi: 10.1186/1471-230X-10-66.

Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under routine screening conditions

Julia B Pilz  1 , Susanne Portmann, Shajan Peter, Christoph Beglinger, Lukas Degen
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under routine screening conditions

Julia B Pilz et al. BMC Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Original size of PillCam® Colon Capsule 11 mm × 31 mm
Figure 2
Figure 2
Images of colon polyps on Colonoscopy (left) vs. CCE (right). A: Polyp smaller or as big as 5 mm, B, C: Polyps bigger than 5 mm
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Parkin DM, Whelan SL, Ferlay J, Raymand L, Young J, (eds) Cancer incidence in five continents. Lyon: VII. IARC Scientific Publications; 1997. International Agency for Research on Cancer. WHO and International Association of cancer registries.
    1. Krebsmortalität in der Schweiz. (Last accessed 10/15/2009. http://asrt.ch/asrt/newstat/in4ch8605.pdf
    1. Hawk ET, Levin B. Colorectal cancer prevention. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(2):378–91. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.08.097. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, Godlee F, Stolar MH, Mulrow CD, Woolf SH, Glick SN, Ganiats TG, Bond JH, Rosen L, Zapka JG, Olsen SJ, Giardello FM, Sisk JE, Van Antwerp R, Brown-Davis C, Mrciniak DA, Mayer RJ. Colorectal cancer screening - clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology. 1997;112:594–642. doi: 10.1053/gast.1997.v112.agast970594. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, O'Brien MJ, Ho MT, Gottlieb L, Sternberg SS, Waye JD, Bond JH, Schapiro M, Panish JF, Ackroyd F, shike M, Kurtz RC, Hornsby-Lewis L, Gerdes H, Stewart ET. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(27):1977–81. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199312303292701. - DOI - PubMed

Associated data