Blog

Oct 18, 2024

Frontiers | Advances in colon capsule endoscopy: a review of current applications and challenges

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has been demonstrated to be comparable to traditional colonoscopy and better than CT colonography (CTC) for the detection of colonic pathology. It has been shown to have

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has been demonstrated to be comparable to traditional colonoscopy and better than CT colonography (CTC) for the detection of colonic pathology. It has been shown to have a high incremental yield after incomplete colonoscopy. It is a safe test with good patient acceptability. Challenges currently include great variability in completion rates and high rates of re-investigation. In this review, we will discuss the evidence to date regarding CCE in symptomatic and surveillance populations, and in those post incomplete colonoscopy. We will discuss current challenges faced by CCE and areas for further research.

The development of capsule endoscopy has modified our approach to the diagnosis of GI disease. Since its inception in the late 1990’s, the relatively rapid uptake of small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) as an important clinical tool can be largely ascribed to a number of key factors. It was designed as a non-invasive, ambulatory method of viewing the entire small bowel without the need for sedation, a day-ward bed or invasive endoscopy. There is no radiation associated risk. It is a relatively easy examination to perform in an outpatient setting and is superior when compared with endoscopic or radiological procedures in numerous situations, most notably obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (1–3).

CCE is a relatively newer technique. It is a non-invasive and safe method of viewing the large bowel, and represents an alternative to traditional colonoscopy and CT colonography (CTC). The PillCam system by Medtronic is the most widely referenced colon capsule to date. Results from their first generation colon capsules were disappointing with regard to polyp detection and completion rates when compared to colonoscopy or CTC (4–10). These studies prompted the development of a second-generation system with increased capsule frame rate and improved field of vision. A meta-analysis by Spada et al. comparing the first- and second-generation capsules in 2016 found both sensitivity and specificity increased substantially with the second generation (11). Other manufacturers with commercially available colon capsules include Jinshan’s OMOM system and Stratis Medical’s MiroCam in the United States. There are no studies comparing the efficacy of these various systems.

Guidance from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), updated in 2020, provided the first framework for healthcare providers for indications, preparation for, and reporting of CCE (12). This consensus document advises that CCE is safe, appears accurate in average-risk individuals, and is appropriate for use in those with incomplete colonoscopy and without stenosis. CCE use is recommended if colonoscopy is not deemed appropriate or not possible. It is advised that there remains a paucity of studies based in the setting of screening, and in comparing CCE with radiological imaging or traditional endoscopic modalities (12).

The adenoma-carcinoma sequence describes the transformation of normal colorectal epithelium to adenomatous polyp to invasive cancer. This temporal sequence of events offers an opportunity for endoscopic intervention at a precancerous stage. A well designed screening programme can detect disease early, allowing timely intervention by polypectomy at endoscopy (13). Despite this, CRC is currently the third most common cancer, and the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in the world (14). It is the third most common cause of cancer in Ireland, and accounts for 11% of all cancer related deaths (15).

Fecal immunohistochemical testing and traditional colonoscopy are the most commonly used screening tools worldwide currently, with CTC being used in certain subgroups (14). Colonoscopy remains the gold standard, enabling both diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. National screening programmes, such as the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Service (Bowel Screen) in Ireland, face significant challenges in attempting to deliver timely endoscopy. This has been exacerbated in recent years by the COVID-19 pandemic, but demographic changes alone are expected to lead to an increase in new CRC cases by 79% between 2012 and 2035 worldwide (16, 17). Recent change in guidance in the United States to begin screening from the age of 45 years will add an estimated 20 million individuals in the 45- 49 year age group to the screening population (18).

To date, CCE is playing a minor role in screening but there is a growing body of evidence supporting its use (19–21). Both the UK and Denmark have, in recent years, included CCE in their national CRC surveillance pathways and a wealth of data regarding its efficacy is expected in the coming years from these pilots (22). A recent systematic review of CCE use in a screening population by Vuik et al. identified 582 studies published up to September 2020, of which 13 were included, comprising 2485 patients (20). Eight studies used CCE as a filter test after a positive FIT result and five studies used CCE for primary screening. The polyp detection rate of CCE was 24% - 74%. For polyps > 6 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 79% - 96% and specificity was 66% - 97%. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 84% - 97%, which was superior to CTC. The CRC detection rate for completed CCEs was 93%. The authors concluded that the accuracy of CCE was comparable to colonoscopy and superior to CTC, making it a good alternative modality for screening programmes. A more recent meta-analysis by Kjolhede et al. comparing polyp detection rates between CCE and colonoscopy concluded that CCE demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for per-patients polyps compared to colonoscopy (19).

Back-to-back comparison of CCE and colonoscopy in surveillance populations has been performed in few small studies (23–27). Kobaek et al. compared the two modalities and found CCE, when complete, to have a superior polyp detection rate (PDR) of 86% versus 65% at colonoscopy (p < 0.001) (24). In another cohort, Holleran et al. showed good correlation between CCE and colonoscopy for any lesion with Cohen’s kappa of 0.62, and in their cohort use of CCE would have potentially reduced the number of colonoscopies required by 71% (23). Spada et al. analyzed 109 participants who underwent back to back procedures. CCE sensitivity for polyps of at least 6 mm was 84% and 88% for polyps at least 10mm in size, with a specificity of 64% and 95% respectively (25). In a pilot study by Spinzi et al, subjects participating in a national CRC surveillance programme underwent CCE, followed by both colonoscopy and CTC at day 15 (27). The primary end point was to evaluate CCE and CTC accuracy for identification of polyps > 6mm. Both CTC and CCE performed well with sensitivities of 88.2% and 88.2%, respectively, and specificities of 84.8% and 87.7% respectively. The main difference this study found was in patient preference and acceptability of the test with 78% selecting CCE as their preferred procedure.

In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, miss rates of 9% for advanced adenomas, 27% for serrated polyps and 34% for flat adenomas at colonoscopy were calculated (28). Data regarding CCE miss rates and detection of more challenging polyps remains limited. Two studies have looked at the ability of CCE to detect laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) (29, 30). LSTs are non-polypoid lesions > 10mm which extend laterally and circumferentially along the colonic wall rather than vertically (31). These lesions are typically more challenging to detect at traditional colonoscopy (32). They reported lower sensitivity of CCE for LSTs than colonoscopy (29, 30). CCE appears to have a higher accuracy than colonoscopy for cancer, however (11, 23, 25, 33, 34). To date only one case report has been published documenting a missed cancer at complete CCE (35).

Incomplete colonoscopies can occur in up 20% of patients and are associated with higher rates of missed lesions (36, 37). Completion depends on both the technical expertise of the endoscopist and patient tolerability. Tortuous, redundant colons or patients with a history of abdomino-pelvic surgery often present a challenge to even the experienced endoscopist (37–39). CTC is typically considered first line investigation after an incomplete colonoscopy, with numerous studies reporting CTC sensitivity to be comparable to colonoscopy (40–42). Repeat colonoscopy with extended bowel preparation, or referral to a more experienced endoscopist are alternative approaches (43). ESGE and ASG guidance now endorse the use of CCE in this situation (12, 43).

Four prospective studies have looked specifically at this group, with large numbers of polyps identified by CCE in areas not reached by initial colonoscopy (44–47). The study by Nogales et al. comprised 96 patients who had an incomplete colonoscopy and went on to have a CCE for completion (45). CCE revealed new lesions in 58 patients (60.4%) at locations not previously reached by colonoscopy. Balte’s prospective multicenter study included 74 patients who underwent CCE after colonoscopy, either the following day following extended prep or at a later date (44). CCE visualized mucosa missed by colonoscopy in 90% of those who underwent CCE the following day, and in 97% of those who underwent delayed CCE (44). In the third, a per-patient analysis for polyps > 6mm, CCE detected polyps in 24 patients (24.5%) and CTC in 12 patients (12.2%) (46). Hussey et al. looked at same day CCE after incomplete colonoscopy in fifty patients. CCE had a significant diagnostic yield of 74%, with an incremental yield of 38% (47).

CCE performs well compared to CTC with regards to polyp detection (48–50). A meta-analysis by Deding et al. comparing CCCE and CTC in those with incomplete colonoscopy found the completion rate was lower in CCE than CTC, but CCE had a higher diagnostic yield, almost fourfold, for polyps of any size (48). A prospective, single-center, randomized trial, the VICOCA study compared CCE and CTC in 290 individuals, using colonoscopy as the gold standard (49). It reported sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of CCE for the detection of patients with any neoplastic lesion of 98.1%, 76.6%, 93.7% and 92.0%, respectively. CTC had sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of 64.9%, 95.7%, 96.8% and 57.7%, respectively. In terms of detection of polyps > 6mm, the sensitivity of CCE and CTC was 96.1% and 79.3%. CCE was shown have superior sensitivity for detecting serrated lesions (73.6% versus 32.9%; p < 0.001) (49). Similarly the TOPAZ trial concluded that CCE should be considered comparable, if not superior, to CTC as a screening test (50).

A good bowel preparation protocol will achieve adequate colonic cleanliness, reduce effects of colonic bubbles and aid timely capsule excretion (51). The quality of the preparation protocol is dependent on many factors, including, laxative used, timing and volume of laxative, types of boosters used, timing of boosters, use of prokinetics and patient tolerability. Great variability exists between studies with regard to bowel cleanliness and excretion rates (20, 51). A recent meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of CCE versus traditional colonoscopy for polyp detection found capsule excretion rates ranging from 57%- 100% and adequate bowel prep ranging from 40%-100% concluding that improvements in both adequate cleanliness rates and excretion rates are required before widespread implementation of CCE into CRC surveillance programmes (19). A systematic review by Bjoersum-Meyer found completion rates, meaning achievement of adequate colonic cleanliness with excretion of capsule prior to battery dying, to be suboptimal in almost all studies included (51).

Early protocols combined high volume (4 liter) polyethylene glycol (PEG) cleansing solutions and sodium phosphate (NaP) boosters (5–8, 33, 52, 53). NaP boosters achieve high excretion rates but concerns regarding nephrotoxicity, even in those without a history of renal insufficiency, have been documented (7, 8, 23, 54–58). Though the ESGE still advocates for NaP-based boosters for CCE in most recent guidance, the trend is towards avoidance of these boosters, with a 2021 meta-analysis reporting only 24% studies using NaP in the four years preceding review, versus >60% in the years prior to this (51). More recently, a combination of lower volume PEG preparations, NaP free boosters and prokinetics are being utilized with good success, reducing the volume of fluid patients have to ingest without compromising polyp detection (26, 58). Prucalopride, a serotonin receptor antagonist that accelerates colonic transit time, and castor oil, a vegetable oil from the castor bean, have recently been shown to significantly improve CCE completion and polyp detection rates (59–63). There is widespread variation in preparation protocols used in clinical practice and a need for large, prospective studies comparing these protocols (51).

A validated scoring system for reporting of bowel cleanliness is not routinely used to date and great inter-observer variability exists (64). CC-Clear is a novel system that has shown superior inter- and intra-observer agreement to the Leighton-Rex scale, an early scoring system from 2011 (65–67). Standardization of reporting will support more accurate studies comparing bowel preparations to be undertaken.

A screening test is considered effective not just when it has good sensitivity and specificity, but also when it is well accepted by the targeted population. The performance of colonoscopy as a screening tool for CRC is often hampered by low participation rates (68–70). Rates as low as 9% have been reported in certain subgroups within the Irish screening programme, Bowel Screen (69). Data from a recent pan-European screening report gave an overall 49.5% (range 22.8%-71.3%) uptake using FIT-based screening, falling significantly short of the recommended > 65% (70). The reason for such poor uptake has been investigated in numerous settings (71–73).

CCE does appear to be more acceptable than colonoscopy (21, 22, 27, 74–78). A recent interim analysis asked over 14,000 participants in a CRC screening programme (prior to their FIT result) whether they would prefer CCE or colonoscopy, with 50% choosing CCE versus 9% choosing colonoscopy (22). Of note, one recent systematic review with meta-analysis reported no statistical difference in patient preference, with 52% preferring CCE and 45% preferring colonoscopy (79). Tolerability was significantly higher for CCE and it was not clear to the authors why this did not translate into a preference for this modality. Disadvantages of CCE reported include longer wait time for results, unfamiliarity with the technology and the need for further procedures if pathology is detected (74, 79).

CCE is a safe procedure with the main considerations being capsule retention, and less frequently, capsule aspiration (44, 80–82). Adverse events reported, if any, are generally due to the preparation and include nausea, vomiting or bloating (21, 26, 33, 34, 67, 83, 84). These can occur in up to 25% (84). A 2017 meta-analysis of retention associated with capsule endoscopy found a retention rate of 2% in those referred for small bowel bleeding, and of 4-8% in those with suspected or known Crohn’s disease (81). In studies that performed a patency test prior to the capsule, retention rates were reduced by over 50% (85–87). Capsule aspiration is a rare but documented risk (82, 88, 89). A comprehensive review in 2017 estimated an overall aspiration rate of 0.1% (82).

An up-to-date review of the cost-effectiveness of CCE is needed. A 2010 cost-effective analysis of various CRC screening modalities concluded that PillCam COLON 2 was not a cost-effective alternative to FIT or colonoscopy, but advised their data was limited to the one study on the second generation capsule’s efficacy available at that time (90). A more recent study looked at the use of CCE in a population referred for CTC and found the cost-effectiveness of CCE to be favorable in this group (91). Recent ESGE guidance advised that CCE may be cost effective if it improves engagement in surveillance programmes (12). Hassan et al. similarly concluded if CCE improved initial compliance by 30% more than colonoscopy it would be a more effective and cost-effective approach (92).

CCE has been demonstrated to be comparable to traditional colonoscopy and better than CTC for detection of colonic pathology (19). It is safe and acceptable to patients. It is not without drawbacks, however, and certain areas, including bowel preparation and battery excretion rates as previously described, require particular attention.

Re-investigation rates remain high. Preliminary data from the Scottish Capsule Programme, (ScotCap) reported re-investigation rates of 63% in symptomatic patients and 70% in surveillance patients (76). The need for re-investigation is either the result of an incomplete examination or the need for polypectomy or biopsy by traditional sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. Further studies are needed to identify independent risk factors for incomplete CCE and to optimize patient pre-selection with a focus on low-risk groups (93).

Training in reading of capsules has not been formally incorporated into trainee programmes to date. Training standards are lacking and vary across different centers. One study showed the importance of skilled readers and how this influences outcomes, as expected (6). This lack of formal training has been previously noted, and more recently the ESGE published a position statement for small bowel capsule curriculum (94, 95).

The reading of colon capsules is, then, time consuming and currently a rate limiting step in the expansion of capsule services in hospitals. Vuik et al. reported a median time of 55 minutes for colon capsule reading (96). Although artificial intelligence software for colon capsules is currently in its infancy, it is anticipated that it’s use will allow faster reading of capsules, as well as improved PDRs (97). A recent systematic review of AI use in colon capsules recently included 9 studies (97). Though few, these studies show promising results for future integration of AI enhanced colon capsules into routine clinical practice (97–99).

Now the accuracy of CCE has been established, investment in training and artificial intelligence, along with continued robust data regarding efficacy are necessary to ensure CCE finds its place in routine clinical practice. Large scale initiatives, like the role out of colon capsule in the National Health Service (NHS) UK urgent cancer pathway and ScotCap, will provide a wealth of further information in the coming months and years (76). Outside of polyp detection and screening, there is also a growing body of evidence for the use of CCE in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) which is to be further explored. ESGE recent 2020 guidance advises there is currently insufficient data to support use of CCE in diagnosis or surveillance of those with suspected or known IBD, however noted current preliminary data suggests it may be of use in monitoring of disease activity in UC (12).

Despite drawbacks, CCE is a viable diagnostic alternative to colonoscopy at an important time in service delivery. The increasing demand on colonoscopy waiting lists raises valid concerns regarding the ability of health services to deliver endoscopy in a timely fashion. It is clear that alternative diagnostic and surveillance modalities are necessary and that CCE has a central role to play (100).

EG: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. OK: Writing – review & editing. BH: Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1. Pennazio M, Rondonotti E, Despott EJ, Dray X, Keuchel M, Moreels T, et al. Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022. Endoscopy (2022). doi: 10.1055/a-1973-3796

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Uchida G, Nakamura M, Yamamura T, Furukawa K, Kawashima H, Honda T, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic and therapeutic yield of small bowel endoscopy in patients with overt small bowel bleeding. Dig Endosc (2021) 33(1):66–82. doi: 10.1111/den.13669

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Estevinho MM, Pinho R, Fernandes C, Rodrigues A, Ponte A, Gomes AC, et al. Diagnostic and therapeutic yields of early capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy in the setting of overt GI bleeding: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc (2022) 95(4):610–25.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.12.009

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Pilz JB, Portmann S, Peter S, Beglinger C, Degen L. Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under routine screening conditions. BMC Gastroenterol (2010) 10:66. doi: 10.1186/1471-230X-10-66

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Van Gossum A, Munoz-Navas M, Fernandez-Urien I, Carretero C, Gay G, Delvaux M, et al. Capsule endoscopy versus colonoscopy for the detection of polyps and cancer. N Engl J Med (2009) 361(3):264–70. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0806347

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Eliakim R, Fireman Z, Gralnek IM, Yassin K, Waterman M, Kopelman Y, 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):963–70. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-944832

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Sieg A, Friedrich K, Sieg U. Is PillCam COLON capsule endoscopy ready for colorectal cancer screening? A prospective feasibility study in a community gastroenterology practice. Am J Gastroenterol (2009) 104(4):848–54. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2008.163

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Schoofs N, Devière J, Van Gossum A. PillCam colon capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy for colorectal tumor diagnosis: a prospective pilot study. Endoscopy (2006) 38(10):971–7. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-944835

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Gay G, Delvaux M, Frederic M, Fassler I. Could the colonic capsule PillCam Colon be clinically useful for selecting patients who deserve a complete colonoscopy?: results of clinical comparison with colonoscopy in the perspective of colorectal cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol (2010) 105(5):1076–86. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2009.624

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Spada C, Hassan C, Marmo R, Petruzziello L, Riccioni ME, Zullo A, et al. Meta-analysis shows colon capsule endoscopy is effective in detecting colorectal polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol (2010) 8(6):516–22. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2010.02.018

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Spada C, Pasha SF, Gross SA, Leighton JA, Schnoll-Sussman F, Correale L, et al. Accuracy of first- and second-generation colon capsules in endoscopic detection of colorectal polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol (2016) 14(11):1533–43.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.04.038

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Spada C, Hassan C, Bellini D, Burling D, Cappello G, Carretero C, et al. Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020. Eur Radiol (2021) 31(5):2967–82. doi: 10.1055/a-1258-4819

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

13. von Karsa L, Patnick J, Segnan N. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition–Executive summary. Endoscopy (2012) 44 Suppl 3:Se1–8. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1309822

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Baidoun F, Elshiwy K, Elkeraie Y, Merjaneh Z, Khoudari G, Sarmini MT, et al. Colorectal cancer epidemiology: recent trends and impact on outcomes. Curr Drug Targets (2021) 22(9):998–1009. doi: 10.2174/1389450121999201117115717

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Ireland NCR. Cancer factsheet colorectal (2018). Available at: https://www.ncri.ie/sites/ncri/files/factsheets/Factsheet%20colorectal.pdf.

Google Scholar

16. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer (2015) 136(5):E359–86. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29210

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Ho KMA, Banerjee A, Lawler M, Rutter MD, Lovat LB. Predicting endoscopic activity recovery in England after COVID-19: a national analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol (2021) 6(5):381–90. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00058-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Komanduri S, Dominitz JA, Rabeneck L, Kahi C, Ladabaum U, Imperiale TF, et al. AGA white paper: challenges and gaps in innovation for the performance of colonoscopy for screening and surveillance of colorectal cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol (2022) 20(10):2198–209.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.03.051

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Kjølhede T, Ølholm AM, Kaalby L, Kidholm K, Qvist N, Baatrup G. Diagnostic accuracy of capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy for polyp detection: systematic review and meta-analyses. Endoscopy (2021) 53(7):713–21. doi: 10.1055/a-1249-3938

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Vuik FER, Nieuwenburg SAV, Moen S, Spada C, Senore C, Hassan C, et al. Colon capsule endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review. Endoscopy (2021) 53(8):815–24. doi: 10.1055/a-1308-1297

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Parodi A, Vanbiervliet G, Hassan C, Hebuterne X, De Ceglie A, Filiberti RA, et al. Colon capsule endoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in those with family histories of colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc (2018) 87(3):695–704. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.05.023

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Deding U, Bjørsum-Meyer T, Kaalby L, Kobaek-Larsen M, Thygesen MK, Madsen JB, et al. Colon capsule endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: Interim analyses of randomized controlled trial CareForColon2015. Endosc Int Open (2021) 9(11):E1712–e9. doi: 10.1055/a-1546-8727

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Holleran G, Leen R, O'Morain C, McNamara D. Colon capsule endoscopy as possible filter test for colonoscopy selection in a screening population with positive fecal immunology. Endoscopy (2014) 46(6):473–8. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1365402

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Kobaek-Larsen M, Kroijer R, Dyrvig AK, Buijs MM, Steele RJC, Qvist N, et al. Back-to-back colon capsule endoscopy and optical colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening individuals. Colorectal Dis (2018) 20(6):479–85. doi: 10.1111/codi.13965

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Spada C, Hassan C, Munoz-Navas M, Neuhaus H, Deviere J, Fockens P, et al. Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc (2011) 74(3):581–9.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.03.1125

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Hagel AF, Gäbele E, Raithel M, Hagel WH, Albrecht H, de Rossi TM, et al. Colon capsule endoscopy: detection of colonic polyps compared with conventional colonoscopy and visualization of extracolonic pathologies. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol (2014) 28(2):77–82. doi: 10.1155/2014/691785

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Rondonotti E, Borghi C, Mandelli G, Radaelli F, Paggi S, Amato A, et al. Accuracy of capsule colonoscopy and computed tomographic colonography in individuals with positive results from the fecal occult blood test. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol (2014) 12(8):1303–10. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.12.027

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Zhao S, Wang S, Pan P, Xia T, Chang X, Yang X, et al. Magnitude, risk factors, and factors associated with adenoma miss rate of tandem colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology (2019) 156(6):1661–74.e11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.260

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Utano K, Katsuki S, Matsuda T, Mitsuzaki K, Fujita T, Nemoto D, et al. Colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in patients with large non-polypoid tumours: A multicentre prospective comparative study (4CN study). Digestion (2020) 101(5):615–23. doi: 10.1159/000501609

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Igawa A, Oka S, Tanaka S, Otani I, Kunihara S, Chayama K. Evaluation for the clinical efficacy of colon capsule endoscopy in the detection of laterally spreading tumors. Digestion (2017) 95(1):43–8. doi: 10.1159/000452367

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Participants in the Paris Workshop. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc (2003) 58(6 Suppl):S3–43. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02159-x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Fan C, Younis A, Bookhout CE, Crockett SD. Management of serrated polyps of the colon. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol (2018) 16(1):182–202. doi: 10.1007/s11938-018-0176-0

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Eliakim R, Yassin K, Niv Y, Metzger Y, Lachter J, Gal E, et al. Prospective multicenter performance evaluation of the second-generation colon capsule compared with colonoscopy. Endoscopy (2009) 41(12):1026–31. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1215360

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Voska M, Zavoral M, Grega T, Majek O, Martinek J, Tacheci I, et al. Accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy for colorectal neoplasia detection in individuals referred for a screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterol Res Pract (2019) 2019:5975438. doi: 10.1155/2019/5975438

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

35. MacLeod C, Oliphant R, Docherty JG, Watson AJM. A colorectal cancer missed by colon capsule endoscopy: a case report. BMC Gastroenterol (2022) 22(1):258. doi: 10.1186/s12876-022-02332-8

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Villa NA, Pannala R, Pasha SF, Leighton JA. Alternatives to incomplete colonoscopy. Curr Gastroenterol Rep (2015) 17(11):43. doi: 10.1007/s11894-015-0468-7

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Britton EJ, Sidhu S, Geraghty J, Psarelli E, Sarkar S. The 5-year outcome of patients having incomplete colonoscopy. Colorectal Dis (2015) 17(4):298–303. doi: 10.1111/codi.12901

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Shah HA, Paszat LF, Saskin R, Stukel TA, Rabeneck L. Factors associated with incomplete colonoscopy: a population-based study. Gastroenterology (2007) 132(7):2297–303. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.03.032

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Hsu CM, Lin WP, Su MY, Chiu CT, Ho YP, Chen PC. Factors that influence cecal intubation rate during colonoscopy in deeply sedated patients. J Gastroenterol Hepatol (2012) 27(1):76–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2011.06795.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, Butler JA, Puckett ML, Hildebrandt HA, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med (2003) 349(23):2191–200. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa031618

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Stoop EM, de Haan MC, de Wijkerslooth TR, Bossuyt PM, van Ballegooijen M, Nio CY, et al. Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol (2012) 13(1):55–64. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70283-2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Regge D, Laudi C, Galatola G, Della Monica P, Bonelli L, Angelelli G, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for the detection of advanced neoplasia in individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer. Jama (2009) 301(23):2453–61. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.832

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Enns RA, Hookey L, Armstrong D, Bernstein CN, Heitman SJ, Teshima C, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the use of video capsule endoscopy. Gastroenterology (2017) 152(3):497–514. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.12.032

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Baltes P, Bota M, Albert J, Philipper M, Hörster HG, Hagenmüller F, et al. PillCamColon2 after incomplete colonoscopy - A prospective multicenter study. World J Gastroenterol (2018) 24(31):3556–66. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i31.3556

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

45. Nogales Ó, García-Lledó J, Luján M, Nicolás D, Juanmartiñena JF, González-Suárez B, et al. Therapeutic impact of colon capsule endoscopy with PillCam™ COLON 2 after incomplete standard colonoscopy: a Spanish multicenter study. Rev Esp Enferm Dig (2017) 109(5):322–7. doi: 10.17235/reed.2017.4369/2016

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Spada C, Hassan C, Barbaro B, Iafrate F, Cesaro P, Petruzziello L, et al. Colon capsule versus CT colonography in patients with incomplete colonoscopy: a prospective, comparative trial. Gut (2015) 64(2):272–81. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306550

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Hussey M, Holleran G, Stack R, Moran N, Tersaruolo C, McNamara D. Same-day colon capsule endoscopy is a viable means to assess unexplored colonic segments after incomplete colonoscopy in selected patients. United Eur Gastroenterol J (2018) 6(10):1556–62. doi: 10.1177/2050640618800629

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Deding U, Kaalby L, Bøggild H, Plantener E, Wollesen MK, Kobaek-Larsen M, et al. Colon capsule endoscopy vs. CT colonography following incomplete colonoscopy: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel) (2020) 12(11). doi: 10.3390/cancers12113367

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

49. González-Suárez B, Pagés M, Araujo IK, Romero C, Rodríguez de Miguel C, Ayuso JR, et al. Colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in FIT-positive colorectal cancer screening subjects: a prospective randomised trial-the VICOCA study. BMC Med (2020) 18(1):255. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01717-4

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Cash BD, Fleisher MR, Fern S, Rajan E, Haithcock R, Kastenberg DM, et al. Multicentre, prospective, randomised study comparing the diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in a screening population (the TOPAZ study). Gut (2021) 70(11):2115–22. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322578

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

51. Bjoersum-Meyer T, Skonieczna-Zydecka K, Cortegoso Valdivia P, Stenfors I, Lyutakov I, Rondonotti E, et al. Efficacy of bowel preparation regimens for colon capsule endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open (2021) 9(11):E1658–e73. doi: 10.1055/a-1529-5814

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

52. Milluzzo SM, Bizzotto A, Cesaro P, Spada C. Colon capsule endoscopy and its effectiveness in the diagnosis and management of colorectal neoplastic lesions. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther (2019) 19(1):71–80. doi: 10.1080/14737140.2019.1538798

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Singhal S, Nigar S, Paleti V, Lane D, Duddempudi S. Bowel preparation regimens for colon capsule endoscopy: a review. Therap Adv Gastroenterol (2014) 7(3):115–22. doi: 10.1177/1756283X13504730

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

54. Ell C, Fischbach W, Bronisch HJ, Dertinger S, Layer P, Rünzi M, et al. Randomized trial of low-volume PEG solution versus standard PEG + electrolytes for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol (2008) 103(4):883–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01708.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

55. Lieberman DA, Ghormley J, Flora K. Effect of oral sodium phosphate colon preparation on serum electrolytes in patients with normal serum creatinine. Gastrointest Endosc (1996) 43(5):467–9. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(96)70287-0

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

56. Spada C, Riccioni ME, Hassan C, Petruzziello L, Cesaro P, Costamagna G. PillCam colon capsule endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial comparing two regimens of preparation. J Clin Gastroenterol (2011) 45(2):119–24. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3181dac04b

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

57. Gutiérrez-Santiago M, García-Unzueta M, Amado JA, González-Macías J, Riancho JA. [Electrolyte disorders following colonic cleansing for imaging studies]. Med Clin (Barc) (2006) 126(5):161–4. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01717-4

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

58. Hartmann D, Keuchel M, Philipper M, Gralnek IM, Jakobs R, Hagenmüller F, et al. A pilot study evaluating a new low-volume colon cleansing procedure for capsule colonoscopy. Endoscopy (2012) 44(5):482–6. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1291611

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

59. Semenov S, Ismail MS, O'Hara F, Sihag S, Ryan B, O'Connor A, et al. Addition of castor oil as a booster in colon capsule regimens significantly improves completion rates and polyp detection. World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther (2021) 12(6):103–12. doi: 10.4292/wjgpt.v12.i6.103

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

60. Ohmiya N, Hotta N, Mitsufuji S, Nakamura M, Omori T, Maeda K, et al. Multicenter feasibility study of bowel preparation with castor oil for colon capsule endoscopy. Dig Endosc (2019) 31(2):164–72. doi: 10.1111/den.13259

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

61. Deding U, Kaalby L, Baatrup G, Kobaek-Larsen M, Thygesen MK, Epstein O, et al. The effect of prucalopride on the completion rate and polyp detection rate of colon capsule endoscopies. Clin Epidemiol (2022) 14:437–44. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S353527

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

62. Deding U, Jensen SS, Schelde-Olesen B, Kaalby L, Bjørsum-Meyer T, Koulaouzidis A. Castor oil in bowel preparation regimens for colon capsule endoscopy: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Diagnostics (Basel) (2022) 12(11). doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12112795

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

63. Watson WC, Gordon RS Jr. Studies on the digestion, absorption and metabolism of castor oil. Biochem Pharmacol (1962) 11:229–36. doi: 10.1016/0006-2952(62)90078-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

64. Buijs MM, Kroijer R, Kobaek-Larsen M, Spada C, Fernandez-Urien I, Steele RJ, et al. Intra and inter-observer agreement on polyp detection in colon capsule endoscopy evaluations. United Eur Gastroenterol J (2018) 6(10):1563–8. doi: 10.1177/2050640618798182

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

65. de Sousa Magalhães R, Arieira C, Boal Carvalho P, Rosa B, Moreira MJ, Cotter J. Colon Capsule CLEansing Assessment and Report (CC-CLEAR): a new approach for evaluation of the quality of bowel preparation in capsule colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc (2021) 93(1):212–23. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.05.062

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

66. de Sousa Magalhães R, Chálim Rebelo C, Sousa-Pinto B, Pereira J, Boal Carvalho P, Rosa B, et al. CC-CLEAR (Colon Capsule Cleansing Assessment and Report): the novel scale to evaluate the clinical impact of bowel preparation in capsule colonoscopy - a multicentric validation study. Scand J Gastroenterol (2022) 57(5):625–32. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2022.2026463

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

67. Leighton JA, Rex DK. A grading scale to evaluate colon cleansing for the PillCam COLON capsule: a reliability study. Endoscopy (2011) 43(2):123–7. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1255916

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

68. Bujanda L, Sarasqueta C, Zubiaurre L, Cosme A, Muñoz C, Sánchez A, et al. Low adherence to colonoscopy in the screening of first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer. Gut (2007) 56(12):1714–8. doi: 10.1136/gut.2007.120709

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

69. Service NS. BowelScreen Programme Report 2018-2019 Round Three bowelscreen.ie: National Screening Service. Ireland: National Screening Service (2019).

Google Scholar

70. Senore C, Basu P, Anttila A, Ponti A, Tomatis M, Vale DB, et al. Performance of colorectal cancer screening in the European Union Member States: data from the second European screening report. Gut (2019) 68(7):1232–44. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317293

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

71. Palmer CK, Thomas MC, von Wagner C, Raine R. Reasons for non-uptake and subsequent participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: a qualitative study. Br J Cancer (2014) 110(7):1705–11. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.125

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

72. Shafer LA, Walker JR, Waldman C, Yang C, Michaud V, Bernstein CN, et al. Factors associated with anxiety about colonoscopy: the preparation, the procedure, and the anticipated findings. Dig Dis Sci (2018) 63(3):610–8. doi: 10.1007/s10620-018-4912-z

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

73. Kerrison RS, Sheik-Mohamud D, McBride E, Whitaker KL, Rees C, Duffy S, et al. Patient barriers and facilitators of colonoscopy use: A rapid systematic review and thematic synthesis of the qualitative literature. Prev Med (2021) 145:106413. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106413

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

74. Ismail MS, Murphy G, Semenov S, McNamara D. Comparing Colon Capsule Endoscopy to colonoscopy; a symptomatic patient's perspective. BMC Gastroenterol (2022) 22(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s12876-021-02081-0

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

75. Groth S, Krause H, Behrendt R, Hill H, Börner M, Bastürk M, et al. Capsule colonoscopy increases uptake of colorectal cancer screening. BMC Gastroenterol (2012) 12:80. doi: 10.1186/1471-230X-12-80

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

76. MacLeod C, Hudson J, Brogan M, Cotton S, Treweek S, MacLennan G, et al. ScotCap - A large observational cohort study. Colorectal Dis (2022) 24(4):411–21. doi: 10.1111/codi.16029

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

77. Thygesen MK, Baatrup G, Petersen C, Qvist N, Kroijer R, Kobaek-Larsen M. Screening individuals' experiences of colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy; a mixed methods study. Acta Oncol (2019) 58(sup1):S71–s6. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2019.1581372

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

78. Ojidu H, Palmer H, Lewandowski J, Hampton J, Blakeborough T, Epstein O, et al. Patient tolerance and acceptance of different colonic imaging modalities: an observational cohort study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol (2018) 30(5):520–5. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000001090

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

79. Deding U, Cortegoso Valdivia P, Koulaouzidis A, Baatrup G, Toth E, Spada C, et al. Patient-reported outcomes and preferences for colon capsule endoscopy and colonoscopy: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Diagnostics (Basel) (2021) 11(9). doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11091730

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

80. Hausmann J, Tal A, Gomer A, Philipper M, Moog G, Hohn H, et al. Colon capsule endoscopy: indications, findings, and complications - data from a prospective german colon capsule registry trial (DEKOR). Clin Endosc (2021) 54(1):92–9. doi: 10.5946/ce.2020.049

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

81. Rezapour M, Amadi C, Gerson LB. Retention associated with video capsule endoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc (2017) 85(6):1157–68.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.12.024

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

82. Yung DE, Plevris JN, Koulaouzidis A. Short article: Aspiration of capsule endoscopes: a comprehensive review of the existing literature. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol (2017) 29(4):428–34. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000821

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

83. Ota Y, Yamada A, Kobayashi Y, Niikura R, Shimpoh T, Narita A, et al. Diagnostic capability of colon capsule endoscopy for advanced colorectal cancer: A pilot study. Dig Endosc (2017) 29(6):695–701. doi: 10.1111/den.12862

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

84. Pecere S, Senore C, Hassan C, Riggi E, Segnan N, Pennazio M, et al. Accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy for advanced neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc (2020) 91(2):406–14.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.041

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

85. Signorelli C, Rondonotti E, Villa F, Abbiati C, Beccari G, Avesani EC, et al. Use of the Given Patency System for the screening of patients at high risk for capsule retention. Dig Liver Dis (2006) 38(5):326–30. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2006.01.010

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

86. Herrerias JM, Leighton JA, Costamagna G, Infantolino A, Eliakim R, Fischer D, et al. Agile patency system eliminates risk of capsule retention in patients with known intestinal strictures who undergo capsule endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc (2008) 67(6):902–9. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2007.10.063

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

87. Nakamura M, Hirooka Y, Yamamura T, Miyahara R, Watanabe O, Ando T, et al. Clinical usefulness of novel tag-less Agile patency capsule prior to capsule endoscopy for patients with suspected small bowel stenosis. Dig Endosc (2015) 27(1):61–6. doi: 10.1111/den.12306

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

88. Takeda K, Tashimo H, Miyakawa K, Shimada M, Ohshima N, Tamura A, et al. Patency capsule aspiration. Intern Med (2020) 59(8):1071–3. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.4012-19

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

89. Ho KK, Joyce AM. Complications of capsule endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am (2007) 17(1):169–78, viii-ix. doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2006.11.001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

90. Hassan C, Benamouzig R, Spada C, Ponchon T, Zullo A, Saurin JC, et al. Cost effectiveness and projected national impact of colorectal cancer screening in France. Endoscopy (2011) 43(9):780–93. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1256409

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

91. Palimaka S, Blackhouse G, Goeree R. Colon capsule endoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps: an economic analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser (2015) 15(15):1–43.

Google Scholar

92. Hassan C, Zullo A, Winn S, Morini S. Cost-effectiveness of capsule endoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Endoscopy (2008) 40(5):414–21. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-995565

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

93. Bjørsum-Meyer T, Koulaouzidis A, Baatrup G. The optimal use of colon capsule endoscopes in clinical practice. Ther Adv Chronic Dis (2022) 13:20406223221137501. doi: 10.1177/20406223221137501

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

94. Sidhu R, Chetcuti Zammit S, Baltes P, Carretero C, Despott EJ, Murino A, et al. Curriculum for small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy (2020) 52(8):669–86. doi: 10.1055/a-1185-1289

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

95. Fernandez-Urien I, Panter S, Carretero C, Davison C, Dray X, Fedorov E, et al. International core curriculum for capsule endoscopy training courses. Endosc Int Open (2017) 5(6):E526–e38. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-106181

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

96. Vuik FER, Moen S, Nieuwenburg SAV, Schreuders EH, Kuipers EJ, Spaander MCW. Applicability of colon capsule endoscopy as pan-endoscopy: From bowel preparation, transit, and rating times to completion rate and patient acceptance. Endosc Int Open (2021) 9(12):E1852–e9. doi: 10.1055/a-1578-1800

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

97. Moen S, Vuik FER, Kuipers EJ, Spaander MCW. Artificial intelligence in colon capsule endoscopy-A systematic review. Diagnostics (Basel) (2022) 12(8). doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12081994

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

98. Blanes-Vidal V, Baatrup G, Nadimi ES. Addressing priority challenges in the detection and assessment of colorectal polyps from capsule endoscopy and colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening using machine learning. Acta Oncol (2019) 58(sup1):S29–s36. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2019.1584404

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

99. Mascarenhas Saraiva M, Ferreira JPS, Cardoso H, Afonso J, Ribeiro T, Andrade P, et al. Artificial intelligence and colon capsule endoscopy: automatic detection of blood in colon capsule endoscopy using a convolutional neural network. Endosc Int Open (2021) 9(8):E1264–e8. doi: 10.1055/a-1490-8960

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

100. MacLeod C, Monaghan E, Banerjee A, Jenkinson P, Falconer R, Ramsay G, et al. Colon capsule endoscopy. Surgeon (2020) 18(4):251–6. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2020.01.008

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Keywords: colon capsule endoscopy, colorectal cancer, colorectal cancer surveillance, noninvasive surveillance, bowel screen

Citation: Gibbons E, Kelly OB and Hall B (2023) Advances in colon capsule endoscopy: a review of current applications and challenges. Front. Gastroenterol. 2:1316334. doi: 10.3389/fgstr.2023.1316334

Received: 10 October 2023; Accepted: 31 October 2023;Published: 17 November 2023.

Edited by:

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2023 Gibbons, Kelly and Hall. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: E. Gibbons, [email protected]

†These authors share senior authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.