Camera Capsule Endoscopy in the Routine Diagnostic Pathway for Colorectal Diseases (DanCap)
The Department of Surgery at Odense University Hospital (OUH) carries out approximately 10,000 colonoscopies each year, and this number is continuously increasing. Since 2014, the screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) has resulted in a significant increase in the colonoscopy workload. Conventional colonoscopy (CC) is a hospital-based procedure that can require sedation or analgesics and is often considered uncomfortable, intimidating, or even painful. The diagnostic yield of CC can be as low as 3-5% in some patient groups, which means that an endoscopist may need to perform 20 to 30 colonoscopies to identify one case requiring treatment. Physical or cultural barriers can also deter patients from attending appointments, leading to missed cancers or precancerous lesions. To address these challenges, an alternative pathway is needed to reduce the colonoscopy burden on the healthcare system while ensuring fewer findings are missed.
One solution is to use Colon Capsule Endoscopy (CCE) as a triage tool. This procedure can be performed in outpatient healthcare centers and requires less equipment than an CC. However, CCE offers no therapeutic capability, and individuals with clinically significant findings will still require an CC. A low reinvestigation rate (<25%-30%) is desirable for patient preference and the economy.
Therefore, DanCap will introduce a new pathway that relies on CCE for routine colorectal examinations of symptomatic patients who are expected to have a low rate of positive findings and, consequently, a low reinvestigation rate, and asses the cost of this new pathway.
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
As the sensitivity of CC and CCE is constantly increasing and progressively smaller-size pathologies are detected, the association between detected lesions and patients short- and long-term outcomes is becoming more uncertain. In some cases, such as with the resection of diminutive polyps, the number needed to treat to save one person (approx. 8.000) is very close to the number needed to cause one procedure-related death (10.000). Therefore, there is an increasing need to filter CC candidates and define a realistic threshold for treating or ignoring lesions.
The DanCap study fulfils this need by introducing a renewed approach to the diagnostic pathways using CCE. This approach offers out-of-hospital, accurate bowel diagnostics that allow for the decongestion of endoscopic services, as seen in the UK. It has an upscaling potential for national and international redesign of bowel diagnostics. Several clinical trials have demonstrated the strengths and weaknesses of CCE as compared to CC. The Scottish and English Services have shown the feasibility of routine use of CCE and the CCE-based services confirmed already known data with real-world equivalents regarding CCE's safety and high diagnostic quality. However, there are remaining concerns, primarily due to the high (45-60%) re-investigation rate, which makes the patient experience and cost-efficiency of CCE-based services inferior to that of the conventional CC counterpart. Based on these recent findings, setting up a routine diagnostic pathway for further evaluation of CCE in the clinical routine of patients with a low frequency of positive findings, including cost-efficiency assessment, is highly relevant. Here, introducing methods to predict a patient's findings may be extra relevant in the future. Currently, studies suggest that the use of faecal haemoglobin concentration or the microbiome composition may be useful biomarkers for colorectal cancer or precursor lesions. The predictive potential of these biomarkers in a diagnostic pathway has yet to be sufficiently tested, and more evidence is needed before clinical application is possible.
Our study aims to investigate the DanCap pathway as a viable solution for CCE-based diagnostics in symptomatic patients, considered to have a high need for endoscopic evaluation due to the symptoms compatible with neoplastic disease, as referred from general practice (GP). This approach is expected to be cost-effective and maintain high clinical quality while relieving the burden on endoscopy wards in a Danish setting.
The study will provide data for pathway cost analysis of the CCE-based pathway compared to the traditional colonoscopy pathway based on a realistic medicine outcomes assessment.
The secondary aims are to:
- Compare the polyp detection rate (PDR) and CRC detection rates in both groups
- Investigate the role of FIT-testing and microbiome analyses in CCE-based diagnostics for predictive purposes
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Estimated)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
Study Contact
- Name: Anastasios Koulaouzidis, Professor
- Phone Number: +45 23 41 49 95
- Email: Anastasios.Koulaouzidis@rsyd.dk
Study Contact Backup
- Name: Alexandra D Agache, Postdoc
- Phone Number: +45 20 35 57 17
- Email: Alexandra.Agache@rsyd.dk
Study Locations
-
-
-
Odense C, Denmark, 5000
- Recruiting
- Odense University Hospital
-
Contact:
- Michael B Mortensen, MD, PhD
- Phone Number: 45 6541 1857
- Email: michael.bau.mortensen@rsyd.dk
-
Contact:
- Anastasios Koulaouzidis, MD DM PhD
- Phone Number: +45 23 41 49 95
- Email: Anastasios.Koulaouzidis@rsyd.dk
-
Principal Investigator:
- Anastasios Koulaouzidis, MD DMPhD
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Adult
- Older Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Older than 18 years
- Symptomatic patient referred for colonoscopy assessment
- Able to provide oral and written informed consent
Exclusion criteria
- Require hospital admission for inpatient colonoscopy
- Previous OC with poor bowel preparation within the last 5 years
- Patient is unable to provide oral and written informed consent
- History of stenosis of the digestive tract
- Previous major surgery of the digestive tract with consequence of an internal derivation or a stoma*
- Patient has a pacemaker/defibrillator
- Patient is pregnant or breastfeeding
- Known allergies to the bowel preparation regimen
- Have severe kidney disease
- Known chronic constipation
- Imaging examination suggestive for a colorectal tumour
- Anamnestic suspicion of microscopic colitis, where biopsy is needed *including Whipple
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Active Comparator: CCE arm
Symptomatic patients referred by their GP for a 2 week diagnostic lower gastrointestinal procedure will be randomized in clusters determined by the GP clinic provider number.
At the start of the project, odd provider numbers will be referred to CC, and even provider numbers will be referred to CCE.
After the inclusion of the first 200 consecutive CCE patients, the two arms will be swapped, i.e., patients from clinics with even provider numbers are referred for CC, and odd provider numbers are referred for CCE.
|
Twice a week, patients will attend the in-hospital clinic in groups of four persons.
They will bring their completed FIT sample, questionnaire, and the signed consent form.
A project nurse will administer the capsules in the morning, and the patients can leave after.
When the capsule investigation is completed, patients must return their belt and receiver to the Department of Surgery, OUH.
After a few days, the patient will receive an electronic letter with the results and information regarding upcoming steps.
Those with positive findings or an incomplete investigation will be given a new appointment according to the current clinical routine.
A second questionnaire will be sent to the patient 2 weeks after the completed procedure.
|
|
Placebo Comparator: CC arm
Symptomatic patients referred by their GP for a 2 week diagnostic lower gastrointestinal procedure will be randomized in clusters determined by the GP clinic provider number.
At the start of the project, odd provider numbers will be referred to CC, and even provider numbers will be referred to CCE.
After the inclusion of the first 200 consecutive CCE patients, the two arms will be swapped, i.e., patients from clinics with even provider numbers are referred for CC, and odd provider numbers are referred for CCE.
|
Patients will start bowel cleansing according to the instructions.
They will bring their completed questionnaire and the signed consent form to the scheduled colonoscopy.
They will continue to follow the routine clinical setup for outpatient colonoscopy and will only receive, by digital post, after 2 weeks from the procedure, an extra second questionnaire.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Cost consequence analysis
Time Frame: 1 year
|
The cost-consequence analysis will draw on data from a variety of sources, including the National Technology Council and their cost outline, administrative data from the Department of Surgery, daily observations by the research team, timeline inputs from the clinical software 'Bookplan', patient and societal resource use from questionnaires, and other relevant information extracted from patients' electronic health records. The average cost per patient for each study arm will be estimated by integrating cost data from The Treatment Council and Department of Surgery with recorded resource use, into a consolidated estimate. |
1 year
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Reinvestigation rate of CCE
Time Frame: 1 year
|
Due to unacceptable technical quality, incomplete examination or positive CCE findings.
|
1 year
|
|
Comparative analysis of detection rates for CCE and CC
Time Frame: 1 year
|
Polyp detection rate in both pathways, categorized as "<6 mm", "6-9 mm" and ">9 mm"
|
1 year
|
|
Predictive value of FIT
Time Frame: 1 year
|
Correlation between the detected concentration of haemoglobin in the FIT sample (μg Hb/g of faeces) and positive findings
|
1 year
|
|
Gut microbiome
Time Frame: 1 year
|
Corelation between the composition of the microbiome (certain types of bacterias from the stool sample-FIT) and positive findings at CCE or CC
|
1 year
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Collaborators
Collaborators
Investigators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Anastasios Koulaouzidis, Professor, OUH og Svendborg Sygehus
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Mollers T, Schwab M, Gildein L, Hoffmeister M, Albert J, Brenner H, Jager S. Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy for detection of colorectal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Endosc Int Open. 2021 Apr;9(4):E562-E571. doi: 10.1055/a-1353-4849. Epub 2021 Apr 12.
- Deane C, Walker C, Ryan B, O'Connor A, O'Donnell S, Breslin N, McNamara D. High diagnostic yield despite a lower completion rates for inpatient versus outpatient colon and pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy: a nested case-control study. BMC Gastroenterol. 2023 Mar 9;23(1):61. doi: 10.1186/s12876-022-02561-x.
- Bretthauer M, Loberg M, Wieszczy P, Kalager M, Emilsson L, Garborg K, Rupinski M, Dekker E, Spaander M, Bugajski M, Holme O, Zauber AG, Pilonis ND, Mroz A, Kuipers EJ, Shi J, Hernan MA, Adami HO, Regula J, Hoff G, Kaminski MF; NordICC Study Group. Effect of Colonoscopy Screening on Risks of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death. N Engl J Med. 2022 Oct 27;387(17):1547-1556. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2208375. Epub 2022 Oct 9.
- Huffstetler AN, Fraiman J, Brownlee S, Stoto MA, Lin KW. An Estimate of Severe Harms Due to Screening Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review. J Am Board Fam Med. 2023 May 8;36(3):493-500. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2022.220320R2. Epub 2023 May 11.
- MacLeod C, Hudson J, Brogan M, Cotton S, Treweek S, MacLennan G, Watson AJM. ScotCap - A large observational cohort study. Colorectal Dis. 2022 Apr;24(4):411-421. doi: 10.1111/codi.16029. Epub 2022 Jan 3.
- Jalayeri Nia G, Arasaradnam RP, Koulaouzidis A. Clinical utility of colon capsule endoscopy: a moving target? Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2023 Oct 9;16:17562848231195680. doi: 10.1177/17562848231195680. eCollection 2023.
- Deding U, Cortegoso Valdivia P, Koulaouzidis A, Baatrup G, Toth E, Spada C, Fernandez-Urien I, Pennazio M, Bjorsum-Meyer T. Patient-Reported Outcomes and Preferences for Colon Capsule Endoscopy and Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Sep 20;11(9):1730. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11091730.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Estimated)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Estimated)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- 322-2023-AK
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.