Anonymous User
Login / Registration

a hepatologie

Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Gastroent Hepatol 2019; 73(5): 398–403. doi:10.14735/amgh2019398.

Comparison of efficiencies of colon capsule endoscopy and optical colonoscopy in patients with a positive immunochemical fecal occult blood test – a multicentre, prospective study

Michal Voška  1, Tomáš Grega  2, Gabriela Vojtěchová2, Ondřej Ngo3,4, Ondřej Májek  5, Barbora Bučková4, Ilja Tachecí  6, Marek Beneš  7, Jan Bureš  6, Julius Špičák  7, Miroslav Zavoral  1, Štěpán Suchánek  1

+ Affiliation


Background: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has the potential to become a so-called filter test in individuals with a positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT). The main objective of the study is to determine the negative predictive value of the second generation colonial capsule (CCE2) for polyps ≥ 10 mm. Material and methods: Since 2016, asymptomatic individuals of screening age with a positive FIT, without an increased risk of colorectal neoplasia, who were examined by CCE2 (independently described by a doctor and a trained nurse) and then immediately by standard optical colonoscopy (OC) have been included in a prospective study in three Czech endoscopic workplaces. The main monitored parameter was the negative predictive value of CCE2 for large polyps (≥ 10 mm), followed by the detection of polyps ≥ 6 mm, ≥ 10 mm, adenomas ≥ 10 mm and carcinomas, intestinal preparation level, examination tolerance, and CCE complications. Results: So far, 248 individuals have been enrolled, and the data from 178 individuals with full results have been analyzed. OC polyps were diagnosed in 144 persons (81%), of whom 90 (51%) and 47 (26%) had polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 10 mm, resp. The sensitivities of CCE2 for polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 10 mm were 82% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 73–89%) and 79% (95% CI: 64–89%), respectively. The specificities for polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 10 mm reached 85% (95% CI: 76–92%) and 92% (95% CI: 86–96%), respectively. The negative predictive value of CCE2 for polyps ≥ 10 mm was 92% (95% CI: 86–96%). Nurses identified 73 polyps ≥ 6 mm in 90 individuals (83%) and 37 polyps ≥ 10 mm in 47 (79%) by OC. A total of 119 patients (66%) preferred CCE2 as the primary screening method. Conclusion: CCE2 achieves a high negative predictive value for large polyps. It is a well-accepted method with the potential of becoming a filter test in individuals with a positive FIT.


adenoma, faecal immunochemical tests, colonic capsule, colorectal cancer, optic colonoscopy

To read this article in full, please register for free on this website.

Benefits for subscribers

Benefits for logged users


1. Dušek L, Mužík J, Pavlík T et al. Epidemiologie zhoubných nádorů trávicího traktu v České republice – současný stav a predikce. Gastroent Hepatol 2012; 66 (5): 331–339.
2. Zavoral M, Suchánek Š, Májek O et al. Národní program screeningu kolorektálního karcinomu v České republice – minulost, přítomnost a budoucnost. Gastroent Hepatol 2012; 66 (5): 345–349.
3. European Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Working Group, von Karsa L, Parnick J et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication. Endoscopy 2013; 45 (1): 51–59. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1325997.
4. Spada C, Riccioni ME, Hassan C et al. PillCam colon capsule endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial comparing two regimens of preparation. J Clin Gastroenterol 2011; 45 (2): 119–124. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3181dac04b.
5. Spada C, Hassan C, Galmiche JP et al. Colon capsule endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2012; 44 (5): 527–536. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1291717.
6. Kastenberg D, Burch WC, Romeo DP et al. Multicenter, randomized study to optimize bowel preparation for colon capsule endosocpy. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23 (48): 8615–8625. doi: 10.3748/wjg. v23.i48.8615.
7. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362 (19): 1795–1803. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907 667.
8. Eliakim R, Fireman Z, Gralnek IM et al. Evaluation of the PillCam Colon capsule in the detection of colonic pathology: results of the first multicenter, prospective, comparative study. Endoscopy 2006; 38 (10): 963−970. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-944832.
9. Van Gossum A, Munoz-Navas M, Fernandez-Urien I et al. Capsule endoscopy versus colonoscopy for the detection of polyps and cancer. N Engl J Med 2009; 361 (3): 264–270. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0806347.
10. Eliakim R, Yassin K, Niv Y et al. Prospective multicenter performance evaluation of the second-generation colon capsule compared with colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2009; 41 (12): 1026–1031. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1215360.
11. Spada C, Hassan C, Munoz-Navas M et al. Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74 (3): 581–589. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.03.1125.
12. Rex DK, Adler SN, Aisenberg J et al. Accuracy of capsule colonoscopy in detecting colorectal polyps in a screening population. Gastroenterology 2015; 148 (5): 948–957. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.01.025.
13. Voska M, Zavoral M, Grega T et al. Accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy for colorectal neoplasia detection in individuals referred for a screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology Res Pract 2019. 5975438. doi: 10.1155/2019/5975 438.
14. Rezapour M, Amadi C, Gerson LB et al. Retention associated with video capsule endoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85 (6): 1157–1168. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.12.024.

Credited self-teaching test