Multicentre, prospective, randomised study comparing the diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in a screening population (the TOPAZ study)
- PMID: 33443017
- DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322578
Multicentre, prospective, randomised study comparing the diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in a screening population (the TOPAZ study)
Abstract
Objective: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has shown promise for colorectal neoplasia detection compared with optical colonoscopy (OC), but has not been compared with other screening tests in average risk screening patients.
Design: Patients 50 to 75 years of age (African Americans, 45-75 years) were randomised to CCE or CT colonography (CTC) and subsequent blinded OC. The primary endpoint was diagnostic yield of polyps ≥6 mm with CCE or CTC. Secondary endpoints included accuracy for size and histology, examination completeness, number/proportion of subjects with polyps and adenomas ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm, subject satisfaction and safety.
Results: From 320 enrolled subjects, data from 286 (89.4%) were evaluable. The proportion of subjects with any polyp ≥6 mm confirmed by OC was 31.6% for CCE versus 8.6% for CTC (pPr non-inferiority and superiority=0.999). The diagnostic yield of polyps ≥10 mm was 13.5% with CCE versus 6.3% with CTC (pPr non-inferiority=0.9954). The sensitivity and specificity of CCE for polyps ≥6 mm was 79.2% and 96.3% while that of CTC was 26.8% and 98.9%. The sensitivity and specificity of CCE for polyps ≥10 mm was 85.7% and 98.2% compared with 50% and 99.1% for CTC. Both tests were well tolerated/safe.
Conclusion: CCE was superior to CTC for detection of polyps ≥6 mm and non-inferior for identification of polyps ≥10 mm. CCE should be considered comparable or superior to CTC as a colorectal neoplasia screening test, although neither test is as effective as OC.
Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02754661.
Keywords: colonic adenomas; colonic polyps; colorectal cancer screening; endoscopic procedures.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: These authors disclose the following: BDC: Consultant to Medtronic, Salix, Allergan, Takeda; Speakers’ Bureau for Salix, Allergan, Takeda, AlfaSigma, RedHill, QOL. ER: Consultant to Olympus; IP with Medtronic. DMK: Consultant to Medtronic, Ferring, Salix, MotusGI; Research support from Medtronic, MotusGI. DP: Speakers’ Bureau: Gilead Life Sciences, Merck; Advisory Boards: Gilead, Novartis, Intercept. NPP: Consultant to Medtronic. IF-U received honorarium from Medtronic. IJS: Consultant to Medtronic. DKR: Consultant to Olympus Corporation, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Aries Pharmaceutical, Braintree Laboratories, Lumendi Ltd, Norgine, Endokey, GI Supply; Research support: EndoAid, Olympus Corporation, Medivators, Erbe USA Inc.; Ownership: Satisfai Health.
Comment in
-
Letter to the editor regarding: Multicentre, prospective, randomised study comparing the diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in a screening population (the TOPAZ study).Gut. 2022 Jan;71(1):214-215. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324396. Epub 2021 Feb 26. Gut. 2022. PMID: 33637597 No abstract available.
-
Colon capsule endoscopy: the evidence is piling up.Gut. 2022 Feb;71(2):440-441. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324246. Epub 2021 Mar 22. Gut. 2022. PMID: 33753419 No abstract available.
-
CT colonography remains an important test for colorectal cancer.Gut. 2022 Jan;71(1):217-218. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324399. Epub 2021 Mar 22. Gut. 2022. PMID: 33753420 No abstract available.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical