Skip to content

PillCam Colon Capsule 2® (PCC2) in the Setting of Colorectal Cancer Screening Program

PillCam Colon Capsule 2® (PCC2) in the Setting of Colorectal Cancer Screening (CRC) Program: Comparison With a New Integrated Reference Standard

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01744509
Enrollment
35
Registered
2012-12-06
Start date
2011-03-31
Completion date
2013-04-30
Last updated
2012-12-06

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Colon Cancer

Brief summary

In this study the investigators evaluate the sensitivity of PCC2 (PillCam Colon Capsule 2 (R)) in identifying significant polyps in a CRC (Colo Recatal Cancer) screening program (primary outcome measure). Each enrolled patient underwent three procedures: colon capsule endoscopy, CT-colonography and optical colonoscopy. In this study the reference standard is represented by the segmental unblinded colonoscopy (the unblinding is based on results of both capsule endoscopy and Ct colonography) The investigators also evaluated the tolerability of PCC2 as compared to optical colonoscopy (OC) and CT-colonography (CTC).

Detailed description

Asymptomatic average risk subjects with positive iFOBT (immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Test), participating the regional screening program, were offered to undergo PCC2 (PillCam Colon Capsule 2 (R)) followed, 21 days later, by CTC and OC performed on the same day. The number, size and location of significant polyps (\>6mm) identified by each procedure were compared with the reference standard (RS), which was represented by the segmental unblinded colonoscopy. The unblinding was based on the integration of CTC and PCC2 results. For the PPC2 the quality of the bowel preparation (adequate/inadequate) and the completeness of the examination (capsule excreted still working or visualization of the anal verge) were also reported. In order to evaluate the tolerability, each subject was asked to identify, among the 3 procedures performed, which was the less tolerated one and which one he would be willing to repeat.

Interventions

DEVICECapsule colonoscopy;

All the enrolled patients underwent all the three study procedures; the colon capsule is the intervention under evaluation; the other 2 procedures (Ct colonography and optcal colonoscopy contribute to build the composite reference standard)

Sponsors

Valduce Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
50 Years to 85 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* asymptomatic average risk subjects, participating the regional colon cancer screening program, with positive iFOBT referred for colonoscopy

Exclusion criteria

* presence of obstructive symptoms * swallowing disorders * presence of cardiac pacemaker

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Sensitivity of PillCam Colon Capsule 2 (R) in identifying significant colonic polypsparticipants are followed for about 1 monthThe number, size and location of significant polyps (\>6mm) identified by each procedure were compared with the reference standard (RS), which was represented by the segmental unblinded colonoscopy.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
to evaluate the tolerability of PCC2 as compared to optical colonoscopy (OC) and CT-colonography (CTC).participants are followed for about 1 monthIn order to evaluate the tolerability, each subject was asked to identify, among the 3 procedures performed, which was the less tolerated one and which one he would be willing to repeat.

Countries

Italy

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 21, 2026