Diagnostic accuracy of capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy for polyp detection: systematic review and meta-analyses

Kjølhede, Tue; Ølholm, Anne Mette; Kaalby, Lasse; Kidholm, Kristian; Qvist, Niels; Baatrup, Gunnar

doi:10.1055/a-1249-3938

Cited by 45 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(86 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The lesions were classified as follows: Type I: 4 (1.36%); Type II: 75 (25.42%); Type III: 101 (34.24%); Type IV: 115 (38.98%). Under endoscopy, Yamada classified the raised lesions in the stomach into four types according to their morphology, regardless of their nature: Type I: Mound-shaped, and the raised part is smooth without a clear boundary; Type II: Hemispherical shape, with a definite boundary in the uplifting part; Type III: The uplift is slightly smaller, forming Yati; and Type IV: The uplift has an obvious pedicle[ 7 , 8 ]. All 295 polyps were divided into four groups according to Yamada type for analysis: The age differences and distributions of polyps were not statistically significant among groups ( P > 0.05).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of 234 cases of colorectal polyps treated by endoscopic mucosal resection

Yu¹,

Li²,

Zhang³

et al. 2020

WJCC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Colorectal polyps refer to all neoplasms that protrude into the intestinal cavity. Researchers believe that 50%-70% of colorectal cancers originate from adenomatous polyps. AIM To investigate the endoscopic morphologic features, pathologic types, and clinical situation; evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR); and guide clinicians in their daily practice. METHODS Two hundred thirty-four patients who underwent EMR in our hospital from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019 were recruited. Data including sex, age, endoscopic morphology of the polyps, and pathological characteristics were analyzed among groups. RESULTS A total of 295 polyps were resected from the 234 subjects enrolled in the study, of which 4 (1.36%) were Yamada type I. There were 75 (25.42%) type II, 101 (34.24%) type III, and 115 (38.98%) type IV adenomas. Among them, 41 were non-adenomas, 110 were low-risk adenomas, 139 were high-risk adenomas, and 5 were carcinomas. The differences in distribution were not statistically significant, with P values greater than 0.05. The risk of cancer significantly increased for polyps ≥ 1 cm in diameter (c 2 = 199.825, P = 0.00). Regarding the endoscopic morphological features, congestion, erosion, and lobulation were more common on the surface morphology of high-risk adenomas and cancerous polyps (c 2 = 75.257, P = 0.00), and most of them were Yamada types III and IV. In all, 6 of the 295 polyps could not be removed completely, with a one-time resection rate of 97.97%. There were two cases of postoperative bleeding and no cases of perforation, with an overall complication rate of 0.09%. CONCLUSION Colorectal polyps ranging from non-adenomatous polyps, low-risk adenomas, and high-risk adenomas to adenocarcinomas each has their own endoscopic features, while EMR, as a mature intervention, has good safety and operability and should be promoted clinically, especially at the primary care level.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of 234 cases of colorectal polyps treated by endoscopic mucosal resection

Yu¹,

Li²,

Zhang³

et al. 2020

WJCC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One such strategy to visualize the colon is by means of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), which allows for a pain-free colonic assessment by eliminating the need for instrument insertion, gas insufflation or sedation [ 1 , 2 ]. This has allowed for the extension of CCE’s role in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the average-risk population, as well as an alternative for patients who refuse optical colonoscopy (OC) or in whom the latter is contraindicated [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Although CT colonography (CTC), like CCE, can visualise the colon without biopsy or therapy capabilities, in CTC, gas insufflation is required while concerns remain as to the ”allowed” frequency of use due to radiation exposure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scoring Systems for Clinical Colon Capsule Endoscopy—All You Need to Know

Tabone

Koulaouzidis

Ellul

2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the constantly developing era of minimal diagnostic invasiveness, the role of colon capsule endoscopy in colonic examination is being increasingly recognised, especially in the context of curtailed endoscopy services due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is a safe diagnostic tool with low adverse event rates. As with other endoscopic modalities, various colon capsule endoscopy scores allow the standardisation of reporting and reproducibility. As bowel cleanliness affects CCE’s diagnostic yield, a few operator-dependent scores (Leighton–Rex and CC-CLEAR scores) and a computer-dependent score (CAC score) have been developed to grade bowel cleanliness objectively. CCE can be used to monitor IBD mucosal disease activity through the UCEIS and the panenteric CECDAIic score for UC and CD, respectively. CCE may also have a role in CRC screening, given similar sensitivity and specificity rates to conventional colonoscopy to detect colonic polyps ≥ 10 mm and CRC. Given CCE’s diagnostic yield and reproducible clinical scores with high inter-observer agreements, CCE is fast becoming a suitable alternative to conventional colonoscopy in specific patient populations.

show abstract

“…Juvenile polyps are charactered by fewer than ve hamartomatous polyps without extraintestinal manifestations or a positive family history [2]. Four morphological subgroups of polyps can be further described according to Yamada's classi cation: type I: a mound-shaped polyp with a raised part that is smooth without a clear boundary; type II: a hemispherical shaped sessile polyp with an uplifted part that has a de nite boundary; type III: a polyp with an uplift that is slightly smaller, forming a stubby pedicle; and type IV: a polyp that has an obvious pedicle [3,4]. Previous studies have demonstrated that polyps with diameters > 10 mm and those classi ed as Yamada type III are considered risk factors associated with bleeding after the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps with delayed bleeding [2,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Value of Colorectal Filling Contrast Ultrasonography in Diagnosing Paediatric Juvenile Polyps

Zhang

Lin

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To describe a facilitated procedure of colorectal filling contrast ultrasonography (CFCUS) and investigate its potential role in the assessment of paediatric juvenile polyps. Methods: The general information, clinical symptoms, ultrasound image characteristics, and colonoscopy findings of 101 children with clinical signs of colorectal polyps admitted to our hospital between May 2018 and May 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. All children underwent conventional transabdominal ultrasonography (CTUS), and CFCUS before colonoscopy, and the latter served as the gold standard. Chi-squared tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for the statistical analysis. Results: Forty-five children with fifty-two colorectal polyps were diagnosed by colonoscopy. Ten polyps had false-negative results on CTUS, six of which were detected by CFCUS. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of CFCUS vs CTUS was 92.3% vs 80.7%, 100% vs 100%, 100% vs 100%, 93.3% vs 84.8%, respectively. The maximum diameter of polyps (mean ± standard deviation) missed by CTUS was significantly smaller than that detected by CTUS (7.50±2.12 mm [range 4–12 mm] vs. 19.62±7.89 mm [range 6–41 mm], P<0.0001). A significant difference was observed between CTUS and CFCUS. The difference between CTUS and CFCUS regarding the detection rate of polyps with a diameter < 1 cm (P=0.031). A statistical difference was observed in the detection rate of polyps (P=0.031), and pedicles (P<0.001) between CTUS and CFCUS. The Kappa values for the assessment of Yamada’s classification between CTUS and colonoscopy and CFCUS and colonoscopy were 0.51 and 0.84, respectively. Six colonic polyps were accompanied by a punctate hyperechoic area on the surface, which may be suggestive of a correlation with erosion and bleeding findings.Conclusion: CFCUS can increase the detection rate of polyps and pedicles, especially polyps with diameters <1 cm, and accurately evaluate Yamada’s classification, providing useful preoperative information for colonoscopy.

show abstract

Diagnostic accuracy of capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy for polyp detection: systematic review and meta-analyses

Cited by 45 publications

References 36 publications

Analysis of 234 cases of colorectal polyps treated by endoscopic mucosal resection

Analysis of 234 cases of colorectal polyps treated by endoscopic mucosal resection

Scoring Systems for Clinical Colon Capsule Endoscopy—All You Need to Know

The Value of Colorectal Filling Contrast Ultrasonography in Diagnosing Paediatric Juvenile Polyps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About