EP.TU.701Colon Capsule Endoscopy versus Computed Tomographic Colonography for identifying Colorectal Cancer and Polyps: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Aim Early diagnosis and treatment of Colorectal Cancer can improve outcomes. Polypectomy with colonoscopy has failure and incompletion rates with risk of aerosol-generation. Computed Tomographic Colonography, second investigation, is limited by radiation exposure and aerosol generation. Colon Capsule endoscopy is a novel technique without gas insufflation, therefore avoiding the discomfort and aerosol-generation. Our aim is to compare the yield of the CCE with CTC in CRC and polyps in patients with positive stool tests or diagnosed colorectal lesions. Methods Review followed PRISMA standards. Electronic database (EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL) searched for RCTs and Observational studies. MedCalc Statistical Software used for the synthesis of results. Primary (Per-Lesion and Per-Patient sensitivity analysis) and secondary (Other lesion and completion rate sensitivity analysis) outcomes measured using a random-effect model. Results We found one RCT and three observational studies. Per-Lesion Sensitivity Analysis of CCE versus CTC showed overall effect of 1.903 (0.990- 1.937), p-value-0.057. Per-Patient Sensitivity Analysis of showed overall effect of 1.928 (0.995-1.892), p-value-0.054. Other lesions Sensitivity Analysis showed overall effect of 0.810 (0.121-161.995), p-value-0.418. Completion Rate Sensitivity Analysis showed overall effect of -0.419 (0.526-1.516), p-value-0.676. Conclusion CCE had a better detection rate for colorectal cancer and polyp than the CTC, but this was not statistically significant. Therefore, this study failed to prove CCE's superiority over CTC. A careful decision can be made in current COVID-19 pandemic since its advantage of zero aerosolisation. Researchers should focus on innovation in techniques and simultaneous high-quality studies to evaluate them.

Comparing the Cost-Effectiveness of Innovative Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy and the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is underused. Innovative tests could increase screening acceptance. This study determined which of the available alternatives is most promising from a cost-effectiveness perspective. Methods The previously validated Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening with capsule endoscopy every 5 or 10 years, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, the multi-target stool DNA test every 1 or 3 years, and the methylated SEPT9 DNA plasma assay (mSEPT9) every 1 or 2 years. We also compared these strategies with annual FIT screening and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. Quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYG), number of colonoscopies, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were projected. We assumed a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALYG. Results Among the alternative tests, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, annual mSEPT9, and annual multi-target stool DNA screening had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $1092, $63 253, and $214 974 per QALYG, respectively. Other screening strategies were more costly and less effective than (a combination of) these 3. Under the assumption of perfect adherence, annual mSEPT9 screening resulted in more QALYG, CRC cases averted, and CRC deaths averted than annual FIT screening but led to a high rate of colonoscopy referral (51% after 3 years, 69% after 5 years). The alternative tests were not cost-effective compared with FIT and colonoscopy. Conclusions This study suggests that for individuals not willing to participate in FIT or colonoscopy screening, mSEPT9 is the test of choice if the high colonoscopy referral rate is acceptable to them.

A Prospective Study Comparing Three-Dimensional Rectal Water Contrast Transvaginal Ultrasonography and Computed Tomographic Colonography in the Diagnosis of Rectosigmoid Endometriosis

(1) Objectives: In patients with symptoms suggestive of rectosigmoid endometriosis, imaging techniques are required to confirm the presence and establish the extent of the disease. The objective of the current study was to compare the performance of three-dimensional rectal water contrast transvaginal ultrasonography (3D-RWC-TVS) and computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in predicting the presence and characteristics of rectosigmoid endometriosis. (2) Methods: This prospective study included patients with suspicion of rectosigmoid endometriosis who underwent both 3D-RWC-TVS and CTC and subsequently were surgically treated. The findings of imaging techniques were compared with surgical and histological results. (3) Results: Out of 68 women included in the study, 37 (48.9; 95% C.I. 38.2–59.7%) had rectosigmoid nodules and underwent bowel surgery. There was no significant difference in the accuracy of 3D-RWC-TVS and CTC in diagnosing the presence of rectosigmoid endometriotic nodules (p = 0.118), although CTC was more precise in diagnosing endometriosis located in the sigmoid (p = 0.016). 3D-RWC-TVS and CTC had similar precision in estimating the largest diameter of the main endometriotic nodule (p = 0.099) and, in patients undergoing segmental resection, the degree of the stenosis of the bowel lumen (p = 0.293). CTC was more accurate in estimating the distance between the lower margin of the intestinal nodule and the anal verge (p = 0.030) but was less tolerated than 3D-RWC-TVS (p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: This was the first study comparing the performance of 3D-RWC-TVS and CTC in the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis. Both techniques allowed for the evaluation of the profile of the bowel lumen in a pseudoendoscopic fashion and had a similar performance for the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis, although CTC was more accurate in diagnosing and characterizing sigmoid nodules.