Ian Io Lei, Pablo Cortegoso Valdivia, Wojciech Marlicz, Karolina Skonieczna-Żydecka, Ramesh Arasaradnam, Rami Eliakim, Anastasios Koulaouzidis
{"title":"系统荟萃分析:结肠胶囊内镜对结肠肿瘤的诊断准确性。","authors":"Ian Io Lei, Pablo Cortegoso Valdivia, Wojciech Marlicz, Karolina Skonieczna-Żydecka, Ramesh Arasaradnam, Rami Eliakim, Anastasios Koulaouzidis","doi":"10.1177/26317745251370845","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence is rising globally, intensifying pressure on endoscopy services. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) offers a non-invasive alternative. Despite several systematic reviews showing reasonable polyp detection rates, clinical scepticism remains.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This meta-review and umbrella meta-analysis aim to synthesise evidence on CCE's diagnostic accuracy in polyp and CRC detection, using CT colonography or colonoscopy as the reference standard.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic search of EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed for systematic reviews evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of CCE in detecting polyps and CRC. A qualitative thematic review and synthesis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A bivariate generalised linear mixed model with random effects was used for pooled diagnostic accuracy estimates, and meta-regression was performed using restricted maximum likelihood estimation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine systematic reviews encompassing 28 unique studies (3472 participants) were included. For polyps of any size, the pooled per-patient sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.69-0.86), specificity was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.71-0.82), and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.81. For polyps ⩾6 mm, sensitivity and specificity were 0.80 and 0.87 (AUC 0.81), and for polyps ⩾10 mm, 0.88 and 0.95 (AUC 0.95), respectively. Second-generation CCE (CCE2) improved diagnostic accuracy across all polyp sizes. For polyps of any size, CCE2 achieved a sensitivity of 0.90, specificity of 0.81 and AUC of 0.82. For polyps ⩾ 6 mm and ⩾10 mm, AUCs were 0.92 and 0.94, respectively. CCE2 showed high sensitivity for detecting any polyp size and polyps ⩾6 mm, with low heterogeneity (<i>p</i> > 0.05, <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> < 25%). CRC detection sensitivity was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.73-1.00) after excluding cases where the capsule failed to reach the rectum due to battery exhaustion.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CCE2 has high diagnostic accuracy for polyps and colorectal cancer detection. While technical challenges persist, CCE2 shows promise as a complementary diagnostic tool to help address the increasing demands for endoscopy services.</p>","PeriodicalId":40947,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","volume":"18 ","pages":"26317745251370845"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12398663/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic meta-review: diagnostic accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy for colonic neoplasia with umbrella meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ian Io Lei, Pablo Cortegoso Valdivia, Wojciech Marlicz, Karolina Skonieczna-Żydecka, Ramesh Arasaradnam, Rami Eliakim, Anastasios Koulaouzidis\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/26317745251370845\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence is rising globally, intensifying pressure on endoscopy services. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) offers a non-invasive alternative. Despite several systematic reviews showing reasonable polyp detection rates, clinical scepticism remains.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This meta-review and umbrella meta-analysis aim to synthesise evidence on CCE's diagnostic accuracy in polyp and CRC detection, using CT colonography or colonoscopy as the reference standard.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic search of EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed for systematic reviews evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of CCE in detecting polyps and CRC. A qualitative thematic review and synthesis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A bivariate generalised linear mixed model with random effects was used for pooled diagnostic accuracy estimates, and meta-regression was performed using restricted maximum likelihood estimation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine systematic reviews encompassing 28 unique studies (3472 participants) were included. For polyps of any size, the pooled per-patient sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.69-0.86), specificity was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.71-0.82), and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.81. For polyps ⩾6 mm, sensitivity and specificity were 0.80 and 0.87 (AUC 0.81), and for polyps ⩾10 mm, 0.88 and 0.95 (AUC 0.95), respectively. Second-generation CCE (CCE2) improved diagnostic accuracy across all polyp sizes. For polyps of any size, CCE2 achieved a sensitivity of 0.90, specificity of 0.81 and AUC of 0.82. For polyps ⩾ 6 mm and ⩾10 mm, AUCs were 0.92 and 0.94, respectively. CCE2 showed high sensitivity for detecting any polyp size and polyps ⩾6 mm, with low heterogeneity (<i>p</i> > 0.05, <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> < 25%). CRC detection sensitivity was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.73-1.00) after excluding cases where the capsule failed to reach the rectum due to battery exhaustion.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CCE2 has high diagnostic accuracy for polyps and colorectal cancer detection. While technical challenges persist, CCE2 shows promise as a complementary diagnostic tool to help address the increasing demands for endoscopy services.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":40947,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"26317745251370845\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12398663/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317745251370845\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317745251370845","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Systematic meta-review: diagnostic accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy for colonic neoplasia with umbrella meta-analysis.
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence is rising globally, intensifying pressure on endoscopy services. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) offers a non-invasive alternative. Despite several systematic reviews showing reasonable polyp detection rates, clinical scepticism remains.
Objectives: This meta-review and umbrella meta-analysis aim to synthesise evidence on CCE's diagnostic accuracy in polyp and CRC detection, using CT colonography or colonoscopy as the reference standard.
Methods: We conducted a systematic search of EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed for systematic reviews evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of CCE in detecting polyps and CRC. A qualitative thematic review and synthesis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A bivariate generalised linear mixed model with random effects was used for pooled diagnostic accuracy estimates, and meta-regression was performed using restricted maximum likelihood estimation.
Results: Nine systematic reviews encompassing 28 unique studies (3472 participants) were included. For polyps of any size, the pooled per-patient sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.69-0.86), specificity was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.71-0.82), and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.81. For polyps ⩾6 mm, sensitivity and specificity were 0.80 and 0.87 (AUC 0.81), and for polyps ⩾10 mm, 0.88 and 0.95 (AUC 0.95), respectively. Second-generation CCE (CCE2) improved diagnostic accuracy across all polyp sizes. For polyps of any size, CCE2 achieved a sensitivity of 0.90, specificity of 0.81 and AUC of 0.82. For polyps ⩾ 6 mm and ⩾10 mm, AUCs were 0.92 and 0.94, respectively. CCE2 showed high sensitivity for detecting any polyp size and polyps ⩾6 mm, with low heterogeneity (p > 0.05, I2 < 25%). CRC detection sensitivity was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.73-1.00) after excluding cases where the capsule failed to reach the rectum due to battery exhaustion.
Conclusion: CCE2 has high diagnostic accuracy for polyps and colorectal cancer detection. While technical challenges persist, CCE2 shows promise as a complementary diagnostic tool to help address the increasing demands for endoscopy services.