Time-saving polyp detection in colon capsule endoscopy: evaluation of a novel software algorithm.
Adenoma
Capsule endoscopy
Colon capsule endoscopy
Colonoscopy
Endoscopy
Polyp
Journal
International journal of colorectal disease
ISSN: 1432-1262
Titre abrégé: Int J Colorectal Dis
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8607899
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2019
Nov 2019
Historique:
accepted:
04
09
2019
pubmed:
15
9
2019
medline:
28
3
2020
entrez:
15
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a reliable method to detect colonic polyps in the well-prepared colon. As CCE evaluation can be time consuming, a new software algorithm might aid in reducing evaluation time. The aim of the study was to evaluate whether it is feasible to reliably detect colon polyps in CCE videos with a new software algorithm the "collage mode" (Rapid 8 Software, Covidien/Medtronic®). Twenty-nine CCE videos were randomly presented to three experienced and to three inexperienced investigators. Videos were evaluated by applying the collage mode. Investigation time was documented and the results (≥one polyp vs. no polyp) were compared with the findings of two highly experienced central readers who read the CCE videos in the standard mode beforehand. It took a median time of 9.8, 3.5, and 7.5 vs. 4.3, 4.6 and 12.5 min for experienced vs. inexperienced investigators to review the CCE videos. For detecting ≥one polyp vs. no polyp, sensitivity of 93.3%, 73.3%, and 93.3% was observed for the experienced and sensitivity of 46.7%, 33.3%, and 93.3% for the inexperienced CCE readers. Collage mode might allow for a quick review of CCE videos with a high polyp detection rate for experienced CCE readers. Future prospective studies should include CCE collage mode for rapid polyp detection to further prove the feasibility of practical colon polyp detection by CCE and possibly support the role of CCE as a screening tool in CRC prevention.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a reliable method to detect colonic polyps in the well-prepared colon. As CCE evaluation can be time consuming, a new software algorithm might aid in reducing evaluation time.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to evaluate whether it is feasible to reliably detect colon polyps in CCE videos with a new software algorithm the "collage mode" (Rapid 8 Software, Covidien/Medtronic®).
METHODS
METHODS
Twenty-nine CCE videos were randomly presented to three experienced and to three inexperienced investigators. Videos were evaluated by applying the collage mode. Investigation time was documented and the results (≥one polyp vs. no polyp) were compared with the findings of two highly experienced central readers who read the CCE videos in the standard mode beforehand.
RESULTS
RESULTS
It took a median time of 9.8, 3.5, and 7.5 vs. 4.3, 4.6 and 12.5 min for experienced vs. inexperienced investigators to review the CCE videos. For detecting ≥one polyp vs. no polyp, sensitivity of 93.3%, 73.3%, and 93.3% was observed for the experienced and sensitivity of 46.7%, 33.3%, and 93.3% for the inexperienced CCE readers.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Collage mode might allow for a quick review of CCE videos with a high polyp detection rate for experienced CCE readers. Future prospective studies should include CCE collage mode for rapid polyp detection to further prove the feasibility of practical colon polyp detection by CCE and possibly support the role of CCE as a screening tool in CRC prevention.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31520200
doi: 10.1007/s00384-019-03393-0
pii: 10.1007/s00384-019-03393-0
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cathartics
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1857-1863Références
Endoscopy. 2012 May;44(5):527-36
pubmed: 22389230
Int J Cancer. 2015 Mar 1;136(5):E359-86
pubmed: 25220842
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2017;2017:1507914
pubmed: 28265285
Colorectal Dis. 2018 Jun;20(6):479-485
pubmed: 29166546
Cancer. 2004 Jul 1;101(1):3-27
pubmed: 15221985
United European Gastroenterol J. 2018 Dec;6(10):1563-1568
pubmed: 30574327
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Feb;14(2):259-67
pubmed: 26305071
Z Gastroenterol. 2016 Feb;54(2):146-51
pubmed: 26854834
Gastroenterology. 2015 May;148(5):948-957.e2
pubmed: 25620668
Endoscopy. 2017 Jan;49(1):35-43
pubmed: 27997965
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 May;11(5):534-40.e1
pubmed: 23078891
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Nov 28;20(44):16596-602
pubmed: 25469027
Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Feb;79(2):307-16
pubmed: 24060522
Endoscopy. 2015 Nov;47(11):1018-27
pubmed: 26182387
Endoscopy. 2018 Aug;50(8):761-769
pubmed: 29486502
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Sep;74(3):581-589.e1
pubmed: 21601200
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012 Nov-Dec;46(10):e92-5
pubmed: 22495816
Endoscopy. 2011 Feb;43(2):123-7
pubmed: 21038293
Endoscopy. 2009 Dec;41(12):1026-31
pubmed: 19967618
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2014 Mar;49(3):339-46
pubmed: 24325660
World J Gastroenterol. 2018 Aug 21;24(31):3556-3566
pubmed: 30131662
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 Mar;23(2):402-6
pubmed: 26254481
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Nov;82(5):861-9
pubmed: 25936450
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Aug;12(8):1303-10
pubmed: 24398064
Digestion. 2020;101(3):262-269
pubmed: 30917377
Gut. 2015 Feb;64(2):272-81
pubmed: 24964317
Dig Dis Sci. 2015 Oct;60(10):2930-6
pubmed: 25902746
Dig Dis Sci. 2018 Mar;63(3):610-618
pubmed: 29332165