Pillcam COLON 2 for Investigation of the COLON Through Direct Visualization: A Systematic Review

Author(s)

Gamze Nalbant, PhD1, Sue Harnan, MSc1, Sarah Ren, PhD1, Mark Clowes, BA, MSc1, Abdullah Pandor, MSc1, Matthew Kurien, PGDipMedSci2, Kevin Monahan, PhD3, Janine Tappenden, PhD4, Paul Tappenden, BA, MSc, PhD1.
1ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom, 2Clinical Medicine, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom, 3St Mark’s Hospital and Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom, 4North Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust, Scunthorpe, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in England. Most cases arise from a prior adenomatous polyp. The gold standard for the diagnosis is Colonoscopy (COL) but waiting times may be long and the procedure is unpleasant. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) may offer a less-invasive alternative for detecting polyps or CRC. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and diagnostic test accuracy of CCE using PillCam COLON 2 for detecting colorectal polyps, adenomas and CRC.
METHODS: Six databases and eight conference proceedings were searched in August 2024. Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) or diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies of PillCam COLON 2 in symptomatic or polyp surveillance patients were sought. Narrative synthesis was conducted, and Bayesian meta-analysis was used to pool sensitivity and specificity where ≥2 studies reported test accuracy. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used.
RESULTS: The review included 6 DTA studies in relevant populations (1 study) or mixed populations (5 studies). Amongst the five DTA studies in mixed populations, for polyps of any size (2 studies), ≥6mm (4 studies) and ≥10mm (4 studies), pooled sensitivities were 0.78 (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.51, 0.90), 0.83 (95% CrI 0.70, 0.91) and 0.85 (95% CrI 0.70, 0.94), respectively. Specificities were 0.60 (95% CrI 0.27, 0.88), 0.69 (95% CrI 0.52, 0.81) and 0.90 (95% CrI 0.82, 0.95), respectively. Data on adenomas and CRC were limited. Inclusion criteria, target condition prevalence and 95% prediction intervals indicate moderate to high between-study clinical and statistical heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS: The generalisability of the DTA data to symptomatic and polyp surveillance patients was unclear. While CCE may miss some polyps, fewer COLs would be required. However, patients with positive findings would need both CCE and COL, which may increase costs.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland

Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2

Code

CO180

Topic

Clinical Outcomes, Medical Technologies

Topic Subcategory

Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy

Disease

Oncology

Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×