Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume 64, Issue 4 , Pages 530-537, October 2006

Video capsule endoscopy compared with standard endoscopy for the evaluation of small-bowel polyps in persons with familial adenomatous polyposis (with video)

Current affiliations: Departments of Internal Medicine—Division of Gastroenterology (Drs Wong, Tuteja, DiSario), Internal Medicine (Dr Haslem), Oncological Sciences (Dr Szabo), University of Utah School of Medicine; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah (Drs Wong, Szabo, and DiSario, Ms Pappas, and Ms Ogara); and Department of Internal Medicine, George E. Wahlen Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Dr Tuteja), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

Received 30 September 2005; accepted 6 December 2005.

Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

Background

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) may be useful for surveillance of small-bowel polyps in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP).

Objective

To compare VCE to standard endoscopy for diagnosing small-bowel polyps in a defined segment of small bowel (proximal to a tattoo) and the entire examined small bowel.

Design

Prospective.

Setting

Single tertiary referral center.

Patients

Participants with FAP (n = 32). The majority were selected for their high number of proximal small-bowel polyps and prior endoscopic tattoo placement in the proximal small bowel.

Interventions

VCE (interpreted by 2 readers), push enteroscopy (PE), and lower endoscopy (LE) to count and measure small-bowel polyps.

Results

In the defined segment, VCE detected a median of 10.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 5.0-19.0) and 9.0 (IQR, 6.0-16.0) polyps for each reader compared with a median of 41.0 (IQR, 19.0-64.0) polyps on PE (P = .002). Agreement between the 2 methods was fair (κ = 0.34, 0.36). Agreement between VCE and PE was poor to fair (κ = 0.10, 0.22) for estimating the size of the largest polyp and poor (κ = −0.20, −0.27) for detecting large polyps (≥1 cm). In the entire examined small bowel, VCE diagnosed a median of 38.0 (IQR, 10.5-71.5) and 54.0 (IQR, 13.0-100.0) polyps for each reader compared with a median of 123.0 (IQR, 38.5-183.0) for combination endoscopy (PE and LE) (P < .001). Agreement between the 2 methods was fair to moderate (κ = 0.21, 0.56).

Limitations

Participants selected for high polyp burden, and results may not be applicable to all patients with FAP.

Conclusions

VCE underestimates the number of small-bowel polyps in persons with FAP and does not reliably detect large polyps.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 This work was presented at the 2005 American College of Gastroenterology National Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, October 28-November 2, 2005.Grant support was provided by the 2004 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Wireless Video Capsule Endoscopy Clinical Research Award; National Cancer Institute R01 CA80852-05, National Institutes of Health; and National Center for Research Resources M01RR00064.

PII: S0016-5107(05)03420-6

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2005.12.014

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume 64, Issue 4 , Pages 530-537, October 2006