Colon capsule endoscopy in clinical practice: lessons from a national 5-year observational prospective cohort.

Background and study aims Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has been proposed as an alternative to colonoscopy for screening patients at average risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). A prospective national cohort was developed to assess relevance of CCE in real-life practice and its short- and long-term impacts on clinical management. Patients and methods All patients who underwent a CCE in France were prospectively enrolled from January 2011 to May 2016 and reached annually by phone until May 2017. All CCE and colonoscopy reports were systematically collected. Results During the study period, 689 CCEs were analyzed from 14 medical centers. Median follow-up time was 35 months [IQR: 12-50]. Indication for CCE was mainly for elderly patients (median age: 70 years, IQR: [61-79]) due to anesthetic or colonoscopy contraindication (n = 307; 44.6 %). Only 337 CCEs (48.9 %) were both complete and with adequate bowel preparation. Advanced neoplasia (adenoma with high-grade dysplasia or CRC) was diagnosed following 32 CCEs (4.6 %). Among patients who underwent colonoscopy or therapeutic surgery following CCE, 18.8 % of all advanced neoplasias (6/32) had not been diagnosed by CCE mainly due to technical issues. Performing a colonoscopy in the case of significant polyps or insufficient bowel cleansing or after an incomplete CCE allowed the diagnosis of 96.9 % of all identified advanced neoplasias (31/32). Conclusions Outside the scope of academic trials, improvement is needed to increase the reliability of CCE as less than half were considered optimal i. e. complete with adequate bowel cleansing. Most of missed colonic advanced neoplasia were due to incomplete CCE with distal neoplasia location.

Prophylactic colectomy and rectal preservation in FAP: systematic endoscopic follow-up and adenoma destruction changes natural history of polyposis.

Background and study aims Prophylactic surgery of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) includes total colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) to proctocolectomy with ileoanal anastomosis (IAA). Surgical guidelines rely on studies without systematic endoscopic follow-up and treatment. Our aim was to report our experience based on a different approach: therapeutic follow-up, comparing in this setting IRA and IAA in terms of oncological safety and quality of life. Patients and methods Between January 1965 and November 2015, all patients who underwent prophylactic surgery for FAP with therapeutic endoscopic follow-up in Lyon University hospital: systematic endoscopic treatment of adenomas, were retrospectively and prospectively (since 2011) included. Results A total of 296 patients were analyzed: 92 had proctocolectomy with IAA (31.1 %), 197 total colectomy with IRA (66.5 %), and seven abdominoperineal resections (2.4 %). Median follow-up was 17.1 years (range, 0-38.1). Incidence of secondary cancer (IR vs. IAA) was 6.1 % vs. 1.1 % ( P  = 0.06; 95 %CI 0.001-0.36). The 15-year cancer-free and overall survival (IR vs. IAA) were 99.5 % vs 100 % ( P  = 0.09) and 98.9 % vs. 98.8 % ( P  = 0.82), respectively. Postoperative morbidity occurred in 44 patients: 29 (14.7 %) in the IRA and 15 (16.3 %) in the IAA group ( P  = 0.72). The mean number of stools per day in the respective groups were 4.4 (2.5) vs. 5.5 (2.6) ( P  = 0.001). Fecal incontinence occurred in 14 patients (7.1 %) in the IRA vs. 16 (17.4 %) in the IAA group ( P  = 0.03). Conclusions A combination of therapeutic endoscopic treatment and extended rectal preservation appears to be a safe alternative to ileoanal J-pouch anastomosis.