Background Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a technology that might contribute to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs as a filter test between fecal immunochemical testing and standard colonoscopy. The aim was to systematically review the literature for studies investigating the diagnostic yield of second-generation CCE compared with standard colonoscopy. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Study characteristics including quality of bowel preparation and completeness of CCE transits were extracted. Per-patient sensitivity and specificity were extracted for polyps (any size, ≥ 10 mm, ≥ 6 mm) and lesion characteristics. Meta-analyses of diagnostic yield were performed. Results The literature search revealed 1077 unique papers and 12 studies were included. Studies involved a total of 2199 patients, of whom 1898 were included in analyses. The rate of patients with adequate bowel preparation varied from 40 % to 100 %. The rates of complete CCE transit varied from 57 % to 100 %. Our meta-analyses demonstrated that mean (95 % confidence interval) sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were: 0.85 (0.73–0.92), 0.85 (0.70–0.93), and 30.5 (16.2–57.2), respectively, for polyps of any size; 0.87 (0.82–0.90), 0.95 (0.92–0.97), and 136.0 (70.6–262.1), respectively, for polyps ≥ 10 mm; and 0.87 (0.83–0.90), 0.88 (0.75–0.95), and 51.1 (19.8–131.8), respectively, for polyps ≥ 6 mm. No serious adverse events were reported for CCE. Conclusion CCE had high sensitivity and specificity for per-patient polyps compared with standard colonoscopy However, the relatively high rate of incomplete investigations limits the application of CCE in a CRC screening setting.

Purpose: To investigate whether the prokinetic prucalopride increases the completion rate of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). Secondary outcomes included demographic distribution, polyp detection rate (PDR), distribution of Leighton–Rex grade, and adverse events. Patients and Methods: In a nested cohort within the CareForColon2015 trial, a subgroup of 406 individuals underwent CCE in 2021. The first half (control) received the standard bowel preparation and the second half (prucalopride) was supplemented with 2 mg of prucalopride. Transit times and bowel preparations were analyzed and completion rates calculated as those having timely transit and acceptable bowel cleanliness. Major adverse events were recorded continuously and minor adverse events were quantified from questionnaires. Results: The group demographics were homogenous. The prevalence ratio for complete CCE was 1.32 (CI 95% 1.15; 1.53) in the prucalopride group compared to the control group. Completion rate was 74.9% in the prucalopride group and 56.7% in the control group. The proportions of acceptable bowel preparation and complete transits were higher in the prucalopride group. The mean CCE transit time was 2 hours and 8 minutes faster in the prucalopride group. The PDR was higher in the intervention group with 55.7% compared to 36.0% in the control group for polyps greater than 9 mm, whereas the groups’ PDRs were similar for small and diminutive polyps. In all, 589 polyps (mean 2.9) were found in the prucalopride group compared to 522 polyps (mean 2.6) in the control group. Conclusion: Prucalopride led to an increase in CCE completion rates. The proportions of complete transits and acceptable bowel preparations were higher in the prucalopride group. The PDR was higher in the prucalopride group compared to the control group. No major adverse events were identified. Nausea, diarrhea, headache and fatigue were more commonly reported in the prucalopride group.

Video-capsule endoscopy (VCE) reading is a time- and energy-consuming task. Agreement on findings between readers (either different or the same) is a crucial point for increasing performance and providing valid reports. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to provide an evaluation of inter/intra-observer agreement in VCE reading. A systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science was performed throughout September 2022. The degree of observer agreement, expressed with different test statistics, was extracted. As different statistics are not directly comparable, our analyses were stratified by type of test statistics, dividing them in groups of “None/Poor/Minimal”, “Moderate/Weak/Fair”, “Good/Excellent/Strong” and “Perfect/Almost perfect” to report the proportions of each. In total, 60 studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 579 comparisons. The quality of included studies, assessed with the MINORS score, was sufficient in 52/60 studies. The most common test statistics were the Kappa statistics for categorical outcomes (424 comparisons) and the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for continuous outcomes (73 comparisons). In the overall comparison of inter-observer agreement, only 23% were evaluated as “good” or “perfect”; for intra-observer agreement, this was the case in 36%. Sources of heterogeneity (high, I² 81.8–98.1%) were investigated with meta-regressions, showing a possible role of country, capsule type and year of publication in Kappa inter-observer agreement. VCE reading suffers from substantial heterogeneity and sub-optimal agreement in both inter- and intra-observer evaluation. Artificial-intelligence-based tools and the adoption of a unified terminology may progressively enhance levels of agreement in VCE reading.

Introduction The use of capsule endoscopy has become an approved method in small bowel diagnostics, but the same level of integration is not seen in large bowel diagnostics. We will use colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) as a filter test in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening between the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy. We aim to investigate the clinical performance, population acceptability, and economic implications of the procedure in a large-scale clinical trial. Methods and analysis We will randomly allocate 124 214 Danish citizens eligible for participation in the national CRC screening programme within the Region of Southern Denmark to either an intervention group or a control group. Prior to submitting a FIT, citizens randomised to the intervention group will be informed about their opportunity to undergo CCE, instead of colonoscopy, if the FIT is positive. Suspected cancers; >3 adenomas 10 mm in size or >4 adenomas regardless of size, detected during CCE will generate an invitation to colonoscopy as per regular screening guidelines, whereas citizens with suspected low risk polyps will re-enter the biennial screening programme. Citizens with no CCE findings will be excluded from screening for 8 years. In the control group, citizens will follow standard screening procedures. Ethics and dissemination All participants must consent prior to capsule ingestion. All collected data will be handled and stored in accordance with current data protection legislation. Approvals from the regional ethics committee (ref. S-20190100) and the Danish data protection agency have been obtained (ref. 19/29858). Trial registration details The study has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov under: NCT04049357.

Following incomplete colonoscopy (IC) patients often undergo computed tomography colonography (CTC), but colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) may be an alternative. We compared the completion rate, sensitivity and diagnostic yield for polyp detection from CCE and CTC following IC. A systematic literature search resulted in twenty-six studies. Extracted data included inter alia, complete/incomplete investigations and polyp findings. Pooled estimates of completion rates of CCE and CTC and complete colonic view rates (CCE reaching the most proximal point of IC) of CCE were calculated. Per patient diagnostic yields of CCE and CTC were calculated stratified by polyp sizes. CCE completion rate and complete colonic view rate were 76% (CI 95% 68–84%) and 90% (CI 95% 83–95%). CTC completion rate was 98% (CI 95% 96–100%). Diagnostic yields of CTC and CCE were 10% (CI 95% 7–15%) and 37% (CI 95% 30–43%) for any size, 13% (CI 95% 9–18%) and 21% (CI 95% 12–32%) for >5-mm and 4% (CI 95% 2–7%) and 9% (CI 95% 3–17%) for >9-mm polyps. No study performed a reference standard follow-up after CCE/CTC in individuals without findings, rendering sensitivity calculations unfeasible. The increased diagnostic yield of CCE could outweigh its slightly lower complete colonic view rate compared to the superior CTC completion rate. Hence, CCE following IC appears feasible for an introduction to clinical practice. Therefore, randomized studies investigating CCE and/or CTC following incomplete colonoscopy with a golden standard reference for the entire population enabling estimates for sensitivity and specificity are needed.