Colon Capsule Versus Virtual Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening (COCAGI)

September 23, 2015 updated by: Hospices Civils de Lyon

Evaluation of a Complementary Action of Recruitment of Patients With a Positive Screening Test and Not Realizing Optical Colonoscopy as Part of Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening

France is among the countries with a high incidence of colorectal cancer. The prognosis associated with colorectal cancer is related to the development stage of the disease at diagnosis. Thus, when the cancer is detected and treated at an early stage, the survival rate at 5 years was 90%. It is therefore a major issue of screening is widespread in France since the end of 2008.

This screening is based on a two step strategy: 1) the occult blood in the stool (FOBT) and if positive 2) the realization of an optical colonoscopy examination currently regarded as the evaluation procedure colon reference. But as part of this organized screening, 13% of those with a positive FOBT ultimately refuse to have an optical colonoscopy. Under the refusal, virtual colonoscopy may be proposed as an alternative according to the recommendations of the National Health Authority in 2010. But it has never been assessed as part of organized screening. Similarly another alternative is recently developed colic capsule that benefits of development in recent years of the capsule for the small intestine which has become the gold standard for diagnosis of most diseases of the small intestine (bleeding occult, diagnosis of unknown colitis...).

Therefore the study proposes virtual colonoscopy or colon capsule for people with a positive FOBT as part of organized screening and did not realize optical colonoscopy after the usual procedure and complete recovery. This study aims to answer the question of the place of colic capsule as part of organized screening. An economic component is integrated to assess, in terms of health insurance, the cost associated with these two exams, and compare them to the cost of optical colonoscopy.

The proposed study is an observational study of impact of an alternative screening strategy for colorectal cancer whose primary objective is to compare the rate of acceptance of virtual colonoscopy and colon capsule in patients refusing optical colonoscopy.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Actual)

664

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • Lyon, France
        • Hopsices Civils de Lyon

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

46 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Sampling Method

Probability Sample

Study Population

Patients with a positive FOBT at screening organized colorectal cancer, patients who have not achieved optical colonoscopy and who received the usual procedure and complete recovery.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with a positive FOBT at screening organized colorectal cancer, patients who have not achieved optical colonoscopy and who received the usual procedure and complete recovery

Exclusion Criteria:

  • None

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Observational Models: Case-Control
  • Time Perspectives: Prospective

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort
Intervention / Treatment
Virtual colonoscopy
With virtual colonoscopy, the patient does not need to be hospitalized for examination, which is usually done without hospitalization. A bowel preparation is necessary. It may vary from site to site, but it generally comprises polyethylene glycol or sodium phosphate. The residual stools are "marked" by ingestion of a radiopaque product to differentiate colic lesions. But no contrast agent is injected intravenously. The patient should be supine and a rectal probe is set up to inject either air or CO2. The vesting period does not exceed thirty seconds apnea, and overall completion time of the examination (patient table) is about 10 minutes.
Colon capsule
The colon capsule comprises two cameras located at both ends. Image acquisition is set between four to thirty-five images per second. It begins immediately after ingestion of the capsule which allows recording of esophageal and gastric images. She paused for 2 hours (to save batteries) while crossing the small intestine. It is reactivated in the terminal ileum. The films analysis time is approximately 1 hour, and the capsule remains on average 3 hours in the colon.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Acceptance rate of colonic capsule versus virtual colonoscopy.
Time Frame: A period of three months after sending the letter of invitation to an alternative to optical colonoscopy is left to the person.
Acceptance is defined by the fact that a person having made an appointment for one of the two exams and he went to the review
A period of three months after sending the letter of invitation to an alternative to optical colonoscopy is left to the person.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Success rate of virtual colonoscopy and colon capsule: full review rate of colonic mucosa.
Time Frame: 6 months
6 months
Failure rate of examinations by cause
Time Frame: 6 months
Percentage of bad colic preparations, percentage against-indications, complication rate, percentage capsules have not been to the end of the colon, percentage of other causes (eg. technical ...)
6 months
Diagnostic performance of virtual colonoscopy and colon capsule
Time Frame: 6 months
Percentage of patients with suspected colorectal neoplastic lesions
6 months
Achievement rate of optical colonoscopy if a lesion is found, either by virtual colonoscopy, or by colonic capsule
Time Frame: 6 months
Percentage of patients who achieve an optical colonoscopy after suspected neoplastic colorectal lesion
6 months
Sensitivity of virtual colonoscopy and colonic capsule for the diagnosis of cancer, significant additional colorectal polyps, or other polyps
Time Frame: 6 months
Significant additional colorectal polyps is at least a polyp 6 mm minimum diameter or more than three polyps of any diameter
6 months
Specificity of virtual colonoscopy and colonic capsule for the diagnosis of cancer, significant additional colorectal polyps, or other polyps
Time Frame: 6 months
Significant additional colorectal polyps is at least a polyp 6 mm minimum diameter or more than three polyps of any diameter
6 months
Positive and negative predictive values of virtual colonoscopy and colonic capsule for the diagnosis of cancer, significant additional colorectal polyps, or other polyps
Time Frame: 6 months
Significant additional colorectal polyps is at least a polyp 6 mm minimum diameter or more than three polyps of any diameter
6 months
Percentage of cancers diagnosed through virtual colonoscopy or colonic capsule
Time Frame: 6 months
6 months
Additional costs generated by the implementation of a complementary action of screening for patients with a positive FOBT and did not realize optical colonoscopy
Time Frame: 6 months
The costs taken into account will be the direct medical costs of two exams, as well as non-medical direct costs: 1) Letters of invitation to perform any of the tests, 2) Examination conducted (colon capsule or virtual colonoscopy), 3) Letters of Transmittal results
6 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Thierry PONCHON, Professor, Hospices Civils de Lyon

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

June 1, 2014

Primary Completion (Actual)

February 1, 2015

Study Completion (Actual)

March 1, 2015

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

September 18, 2015

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 23, 2015

First Posted (Estimate)

September 24, 2015

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

September 24, 2015

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 23, 2015

Last Verified

September 1, 2015

More Information

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.

Subscribe