Abstract
AIM
To evaluate the role of small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) on the reclassification of colonic inflammatory bowel disease type unclassified (IBDU).
METHODS
We performed a multicenter, retrospective study including patients with IBDU undergoing SBCE, between 2002 and 2014. SBCE studies were reviewed and the inflammatory activity was evaluated by determining the Lewis score (LS). Inflammatory activity was considered significant and consistent with Crohn’s disease (CD) when the LS ≥ 135. The definitive diagnosis during follow-up (minimum 12 mo following SBCE) was based on the combination of clinical, analytical, imaging, endoscopic and histological elements.
RESULTS
Thirty-six patients were included, 21 females (58%) with mean age at diagnosis of 33 ± 13 (15-64) years. The mean follow-up time after the SBCE was 52 ± 41 (12-156) mo. The SBCE revealed findings consistent with significant inflammatory activity in the small bowel (LS ≥ 135) in 9 patients (25%); in all of them the diagnosis of CD was confirmed during follow-up. In 27 patients (75%), the SBCE revealed no significant inflammatory activity (LS < 135); among these patients, the diagnosis of Ulcerative Colitis (UC) was established in 16 cases (59.3%), CD in 1 case (3.7%) and 10 patients (37%) maintained a diagnosis of IBDU during follow-up. A LS ≥ 135 at SBCE had a sensitivity = 90%, specificity = 100%, positive predictive value = 100% and negative predictive value = 94% for the diagnosis of CD.
CONCLUSION
SBCE proved to be fundamental in the reclassification of patients with IBDU. Absence of significant inflammatory activity in the small intestine allowed exclusion of CD in 94% of cases.
Keywords: Inflammatory bowel disease, Inflammatory bowel disease type unclassified, Capsule endoscopy, Crohn’s disease, Lewis score, Reclassification
Core tip: This is a retrospective study to evaluate the role of small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) on the reclassification of colonic inflammatory bowel disease type unclassified (IBDU). The SBCE revealed findings consistent with significant inflammatory activity in the small bowel, Lewis score (LS) ≥ 135, in 9 patients (25%); in all of them the diagnosis of Crohn’s disease (CD) was confirmed during follow-up. In 27 patients (75%) without significant inflammatory activity (LS < 135), the diagnosis of ulcerative colitis was established in 16 cases (59.3%), CD in 1 case (3.7%) and 10 patients (37%) maintained a diagnosis of IBDU during follow-up.
INTRODUCTION
The differential diagnosis of Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) relies on a combination of clinical, analytical, imaging, endoscopic and histologic data[1,2]. In 5% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease limited to the colon is not possible to establish a definitive diagnosis into CD or UC[3]. In 1978, Price introduced the concept of indeterminate colitis to describe cases in which colonic resections had been undertaken for chronic inflammatory bowel disease but a definitive diagnosis of either of UC and CD was not possible[4]. In 2005, the Montreal Working Party proposed that the term “indeterminate colitis” should be reserved for patients in whom surgical specimen is available and the term “colonic IBD type unclassified” (IBDU) for patients with no surgical specimen available and for whom the endoscopy is inconclusive and histology reveals chronic inflammation with absence of definite diagnostic features of either CD or UC[5]. Actually, for most patients, IBDU represents a temporary diagnosis, as it has been estimated that 80% of them will be reclassified to either CD or UC within 8 years[6].
The correct diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease is extremely important to define prognosis, therapeutic orientation and surgical intervention[7,8]. Since Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy (SBCE) enables a direct endoscopic visualization of throughout the small intestine with higher diagnostic yield compared to conventional endoscopy or imaging studies[9,10], it may be expected to contribute for the reclassification of IBDU. We report a multicenter study that aimed to evaluate the role of SBCE to reclassify patients with IBDU.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed a multicenter study including consecutive patients undergoing SBCE between 2002 and 2014 for IBDU, ASCA negative/pANCA negative.
All patients had undergone an ileocolonoscopy prior to SBCE. Inclusion criteria were as follows: Patients with clinical features of chronic IBD, without previously known small bowel involvement, in whom endoscopic type and/or distribution of lesions did not allow a definite diagnosis of CD or UC, microscopy indicating active and patchy transmucosal chronic inflammation with minimal or moderate architectural distortion and absence of unequivocal diagnostic features for either CD or UC, after exclusion of infectious colitis[5]. Subjects were excluded from entering the study if they had nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs intake within 4 wk prior to capsule endoscopy[11], clinical or imaging evidence of bowel stenosis or occlusion, or a follow-up of less than 12 mo.
Patients underwent SBCE with PillCam® SB1/SB2/SB3 (Given® Imaging, Yoqneam, Israel), Endocapsule®
(Olympus Medical Systems Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) or Mirocam® (Intromedic Co., Ltd., Seoul, South Korea) receiving a clear liquid diet the day before capsule ingestion and an overnight 12 h fast. No bowel purge was administered prior to capsule ingestion.
SBCE videos were reviewed by two experienced gastroenterologists in each center. In case of disagreement, the findings were reviewed by investigators until a consensus was reached. Inflammatory activity was objectively assessed by determining the Lewis score (LS)[12]. Inflammatory activity was considered significant and consistent with CD when the LS ≥ 135[13].
The mean, SD, and range were calculated for continuous data. Categorical data analysis was conducted using the Fisher exact test. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 20.0 (IBM, Armonk, New York, United States). Test characteristics were determined using a 2 × 2 table and calculating the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value.
Statistical significance was considered when the P value was less than 0.05.
RESULTS
A total of 36 consecutive patients with IBDU underwent SBCE procedures between October 2002 and August 2014, with a mean follow-up before the exam of 30 mo (1-108 mo).
The mean age of patients at the time of diagnosis of IBDU and at time of SBCE was 33 years and 36 years, respectively, with 58% being of female gender.
Table 1 summarizes the demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population. The capsule was ingested without difficulty by all of the 36 subjects. There were no cases of capsule retention or reported adverse events in any of the subjects included in this study.
Table 1.
Demographics and clinical characteristics of the inflammatory bowel disease type unclassified patients
| No. of patients, n (%) | 36 (100) |
| Gender | |
| Female | 21 (58.3) |
| Male | 15 (41.7) |
| Age (yr) (mean ± SD) at diagnosis | 33.2 ± 13.1 (15-64) |
| Age (yr) (mean ± SD) at SBCE | 35.9 ± 13.3 (18-64) |
| Device (no. patients), n (%) | |
| PillCam® SB1 | 13 (36.1) |
| PillCam® SB2 | 16 (44.4) |
| PillCam® SB3 | 1 (2.8) |
| Mirocam® | 5 (13.9) |
| Endocapsule® | 1 (2.8) |
| Gastric transit time (min) | 38.6 ± 44.7 (2–257) |
| Small bowel transit time (min) | 290.4 ± 101.5 (52-480) |
| Incomplete SBCE | 1 (2.8) |
| Capsule retention | 0 |
| Follow-up (mo) before SBCE | 30.2 ± 29.9 (1-108) |
| Follow-up (mo) after SBCE | 51.9 ± 40.5 (12-156) |
IBDU: Inflammatory bowel disease type unclassified; SB: Small bowel; SBCE: Small bowel capsule endoscopy.
A complete small-bowel examination was achieved in 97.2% of studies. The mean follow-up after SBCE was 52 mo (12-156 mo).
At the moment of SBCE thirty four patients had clinically active disease and received anti-inflammatory treatment, as summarized in Tables 2 and 3. SBCE revealed small bowel lesions in 13 of patients (36.1%) and 23 (63.9%) patients had no lesions detected on SBCE. The distribution of the lesions in the small intestine were as follows: Two patients had multiple ulcerations (n ≥ 8) throughout the entire small bowel, 1 patients had ulcerations in first and second tertiles, 1 patient had ulcerations only in the second tertile, 5 patients had multiples ulcerations in the third tertile. In 4 patients the capsule revealed subtle findings of focal edema in a single short segment of the small bowel (Table 2).
Table 2.
Clinical characteristics and outcome of the patients with positive small bowel capsule
| Case | Sex | Age | SBCE Findings | LS | Treatment pre-SBCE | Treatment post-SBCE | Diagnostic at follow-up |
| 1 | F | 38 | Multiple jejuno-ileal ulcerations | 1404 | 5ASA | 5 ASA + AZT | CD |
| 2 | F | 18 | Ulcer (n = 1) and edema of 3° tertile | 143 | AZT | Anti-TNF | CD |
| 3 | M | 23 | Ulcer (n = 1) and edema of 3° tertile | 143 | 5ASA | 5ASA | CD |
| 4 | F | 20 | Ulcerations (n = 2) and edema of 3° tertile | 233 | 5ASA | 5ASA | CD |
| 5 | F | 33 | Ulcer (n = 3) of 2° tertile | 225 | 5ASA | 5ASA | CD |
| 6 | F | 19 | Multiple ulcerations and edema of 3° tertile | 908 | 5ASA | AZT | CD |
| 7 | M | 60 | Focal edema of 1° tertile | 8 | No treatment | 5ASA | UC |
| 8 | M | 22 | Multiple jejuno-ileal ulcerations | 2080 | 5ASA | 5ASA + AZT | CD |
| 9 | F | 32 | Multiple ulcerations and edema of 3° tertile | 908 | 5ASA | AZT | CD |
| 10 | F | 27 | Focal edema of 3° tertile | 8 | Prednisolone | anti-TNF | UC |
| 11 | F | 47 | Focal edema of 2° tertile | 8 | 5ASA | 5ASA | UC |
| 12 | F | 31 | Ulceration and edema of 1° (n = 5) and 2° tertile (n = 6) | 879 | 5ASA+Prednisolone | AZT | CD |
| 13 | M | 44 | Focal edema of 3º tertile | 8 | 5ASA | 5ASA | UC |
5ASA: Mesalamine; anti-TNF: Anti-tumor necrosis factor drug; AZT: Azathioprine; CD: Crohn’s disease; SBCE: Small bowel capsule endoscopy; LS: Lewis score; UC: Ulcerative colitis.
Table 3.
Clinical characteristics and outcome of the patients with negative small bowel capsule
| Case | Sex | Age | Treatment pre-SBCE | Treatment post-SBCE | Diagnostic at follow-up |
| 1 | M | 45 | 5ASA | 5ASA | IBDU |
| 2 | F | 15 | Prednisolone, 5ASA | 5ASA | UC |
| 3 | F | 27 | AZT, 5ASA | AZT | UC |
| 4 | F | 26 | 5ASA | 5ASA | UC |
| 5 | M | 31 | 5ASA | 5ASA | IBDU |
| 6 | F | 34 | 5ASA | 5ASA | IBDU |
| 7 | M | 21 | 5ASA | 5ASA | IBDU |
| 8 | F | 22 | 5ASA | 5ASA, AZT | IBDU |
| 9 | F | 56 | 5ASA | 5ASA | UC |
| 10 | F | 27 | AZT, anti-TNF | AZT, anti-TNF | UC |
| 11 | F | 30 | 5ASA | 5ASA | UC |
| 12 | M | 24 | 5ASA | 5ASA | CD |
| 13 | M | 49 | 5ASA | 5ASA | UC |
| 14 | M | 43 | 5ASA | 5ASA | UC |
| 15 | F | 30 | 5ASA + AZT | Anti-TNF | IBDU |
| 16 | M | 24 | 5ASA | 5ASA | UC |
| 17 | F | 20 | 5ASA | 5ASA | UC |
| 18 | M | 55 | 5ASA | 5ASA | IBDU |
| 19 | F | 31 | 5ASA | 5ASA, AZT, Anti-TNF | UC |
| 20 | F | 48 | 5ASA | 5ASA, AZT | IBDU |
| 21 | M | 64 | 5ASA | 5ASA | UC |
| 22 | M | 44 | No treatment | 5ASA | IBDU |
| 23 | M | 53 | 5ASA | 5ASA | IBDU |
5ASA: Mesalamine; anti-TNF: Anti-tumor necrosis factor drug; AZT: Azathioprine; CD: Crohn’s disease; IBDU: Colonic inflammatory bowel disease type unclassified; SBCE: Small bowel capsule endoscopy; UC: Ulcerative colitis.
Nine patients (25%) had inflammatory lesions considered significant (LS ≥ 135) and consistent with a diagnosis of CD (Table 2). In 4 of those patients (44.4%) a subsequent ileocolonoscopy showed, by this occasion, lesions compatible with CD in the terminal ileum and histology of colonic lesions was unspecific. In the remaining 5 patients (55.6%), the histology of colonic lesions was unspecific and ileoscopy detected no lesions.
In 27 patients (75%), the SBCE revealed no significant inflammatory activity (LS < 135). Among these patients, no lesion was detected in 23 patients and subtle lesions were found in 4 cases (Tables 2 and 3).
One patient (4.3%) with no lesions at SBCE had on follow-up a subsequent ileoscopy which revealed lesions compatible with CD (Table 3).
In 12 of 23 patients (52.2%) with no lesions at SBCE, a diagnosis of UC was established on follow-up, on average 38.3 mo after SBCE (Table 3). Four patients (25%) with a final diagnosis of UC had subtle lesions (focal edema) on SBCE (Table 2). In all of these patients the endoscopic and histological findings were consistent with the diagnosis of UC, which remained in clinical and analytical remission on follow-up.
Ten patients (27.8%) remained with a diagnosis of IBDU after a mean follow-up of 42 mo (Table 3). Considering the endoscopic criterion of significant inflammatory activity to predict a diagnosis of CD, using a cut-off for LS ≥ 135[13], it would result in no false positive and only one false negative examinations, corresponding to a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 90%, 100%, 100% and 94%, respectively.
In 6 of 9 patients (66.7%) with significant inflammatory activity detected in SBCE, the treatment during the follow-up was escalated to immunosuppressive drugs or biological therapy (Table 2). In 3 of 16 (18.8%) patients with a definitive diagnosis of UC and in 4 of 10 (40%) patients who remained with a diagnosis of IBDU on follow-up, a new IBD medication was introduced during the follow-up.
The start of treatment with thiopurines and/or biologics in patients who were previously naïve to those medications occurred in 6/9 (66.7%) vs 5/27 (18.5%) patients with or without significant inflammatory activity detected at the SBCE, respectively (P = 0.012).
DISCUSSION
Ileocolonoscopy remains the first line exam to achieve the diagnosis in patients with suspected IBD[14]. Nonetheless, ileocolonoscopy can miss CD and result in false negative results due to skip lesions throughout the terminal ileum[15].
Upper endoscopy, SBCE, computed tomography enterography (CTE) and magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) can provide important information and may be useful to establish a definitive diagnosis[14].
In patients with suspected CD and negative ileocolonoscopy findings, recent European guidelines recommends SBCE as the next diagnostic exam for small bowel investigation, in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known stenosis[11].
SBCE has proven its superiority in identifying inflammatory lesions consistent with the diagnosis of CD in the small intestine when compared to CTE[9,16] or MRE[10], thus it has assumed an important role on the evaluation of patients with suspected CD[13,17-19], having a high negative predictive value for the absence of significant inflammatory activity[13]. However, there is still limited evidence for the role of SBCE in patients with IBDU[11].
Most studies[20-22] used the non-validated diagnostic criteria for small-bowel CD proposed by Mow et al[23] (presence of more than three ulcerations).
Meanwhile, two scoring systems have been developed to standardize the quantification of inflammatory activity in the small bowel. The Capsule Endoscopy Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CECDAI) is based on evaluation of the following parameters: Inflammation, extent of disease and presence of a stricture, while the LS evaluates villous appearance, ulcers and strictures[12]. The LS has shown a better performance than the CECDAI at describing small-bowel inflammation[24].
Indeed, LS has been shown a strong interobserver agreement for the determination of the inflammatory activity, and it is validated for the reporting small-bowel inflammatory activity[25,26].
In our study, the findings revealed by SBCE were consistent with a diagnosis of CD, based upon LS ≥ 135, in 9 of 36 (25%) of the subjects with IBDU, which is in line with the 16%-50% range described in other previous series[20-22,27-29]. An even higher percentage has been reported in pediatric patients[14].
In the present study, 4 patients (25%) with final diagnosis of UC had subtle small bowel lesions, such as focal edema, without a significant inflammatory activity, LS < 135, and with clinical and analytical remission during follow-up. Indeed, previous studies already reported a significantly higher frequency of small-bowel lesions in UC patients as compared with that in the control healthy volunteers[30]. The significance of the presence of these lesions and the possible risk of misdiagnosis is still indeterminate[31].
Although a negative SBCE study did not allow to definitely exclude a future diagnosis of small bowel CD, as further investigation and biopsies on follow-up led to a diagnosis of CD in one patient, the absence of significant inflammatory activity (LS < 135) in the small intestine actually allowed exclusion of CD in 94% of cases.
Based on our findings, SBCE may lead to reclassification of disease from suspected IBDU to definitive CD in 25% of cases. Furthermore, treatment with thiopurines and/or biologics was initiated more often in patients with significant inflammatory activity detected on SBCE (66.7% vs 18.5%, P = 0.012). This association suggests that capsule findings may be helpful in the clinical management of these patients, as already been proven in other series[28,32-34].
There are some limitations of this study, including its retrospective design, a limited number of subjects, and no direct comparison of SBCE with alternative small bowel diagnostic imaging, however, the last was not an aim of this study.
Nevertheless, to our knowledge this is one of the studies with larger number of patients included to evaluate this particular issue[20-22,27-29].
There are no definite diagnostic criteria for IBDU, as it must be considered a provisional diagnosis until more information (clinical, endoscopic, radiologic or pathologic ) or data on follow-up enable a definitive reclassification[35]. Mucosal biopsy samples before treatment can be useful to distinguish UC from CD, but this distinction is based primarily on the pattern, type and location (distribution) of the disease, rather than specific histological features, for which there is much overlap between the two diseases[36]. Therefore, SBCE has a valuable role in the reclassification of patients with IBDU, may also contribute to establish the strategy for clinical management, and should be performed in the undefined diagnosis, which IBDU represents, in order to contribute to a definite diagnosis.
COMMENTS
Background
Colonic inflammatory bowel disease type unclassified (IBDU) is defined as a chronic idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease limited to the colon, whose combination of clinical, analytical, imaging, endoscopic and histological elements does not allow a differential diagnosis between Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis.
Research frontiers
In patients with suspected CD and negative ileocolonoscopy findings, small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is the next diagnostic exam for small bowel investigation, in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known stenosis. Since SBCE enables a direct endoscopic visualization of throughout the small intestine, it may be expected to contribute for the reclassification of IBDU. However, the role of SBCE in IBDU has not been clearly established. In this study, the authors evaluate the role of SBCE on the reclassification of IBDU.
Innovations and breakthroughs
In this study, inflammatory activity on SBCE was objectively assessed by determining the Lewis score (LS). SBCE lead to reclassification of disease from IBDU to definitive CD in 25% of cases. Although a negative SBCE study did not allow to definitely exclude a future diagnosis of small bowel CD, as further investigation and biopsies on follow-up led to a diagnosis of CD in one patient, the absence of significant inflammatory activity (LS < 135) in the small intestine actually allowed exclusion of CD in 94% of cases.
Applications
This study suggests that SBCE is useful in the reclassification of patients with IBDU. Facing a patient with IBDU, a SBCE should be performed in order to diagnosis or exclude a CD.
Peer-review
This manuscript “Essential role of small bowel capsule endoscopy in reclassification of colonic inflammatory bowel disease type unclassified” is well written.
Footnotes
Institutional review board statement: This retrospective study was performed without direct contact with either patients or providers and no individual patient information was revealed. Therefore this study was not previously reviewed by the Local Ethics Committee.
Informed consent statement: Patients were not required to give informed consent to the study because the analysis used anonymous clinical data that were obtained after each patient agreed to procedure by written consent.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
Data sharing statement: Technical appendix, statistical code, and dataset available from the corresponding author at sara.s.o.monteiro@gmail.com. Consent was not obtained but the presented data are anonymized and risk of identification is low.
Manuscript source: Invited manuscript
Specialty type: Gastroenterology and hepatology
Country of origin: Portugal
Peer-review report classification
Grade A (Excellent): 0
Grade B (Very good): 0
Grade C (Good): C
Grade D (Fair): 0
Grade E (Poor): 0
Peer-review started: July 13, 2016
First decision: August 29, 2016
Article in press: November 3, 2016
P- Reviewer: Mentes O S- Editor: Qi Y L- Editor: A E- Editor: Lu YJ
References
- 1.Van Assche G, Dignass A, Panes J, Beaugerie L, Karagiannis J, Allez M, Ochsenkühn T, Orchard T, Rogler G, Louis E, et al. The second European evidence-based Consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn’s disease: Definitions and diagnosis. J Crohns Colitis. 2010;4:7–27. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2009.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Dignass A, Eliakim R, Magro F, Maaser C, Chowers Y, Geboes K, Mantzaris G, Reinisch W, Colombel JF, Vermeire S, et al. Second European evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of ulcerative colitis part 1: definitions and diagnosis. J Crohns Colitis. 2012;6:965–990. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2012.09.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Odze R. Diagnostic problems and advances in inflammatory bowel disease. Mod Pathol. 2003;16:347–358. doi: 10.1097/01.MP.0000064746.82024.D1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Price AB. Overlap in the spectrum of non-specific inflammatory bowel disease--’colitis indeterminate’. J Clin Pathol. 1978;31:567–577. doi: 10.1136/jcp.31.6.567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Silverberg MS, Satsangi J, Ahmad T, Arnott ID, Bernstein CN, Brant SR, Caprilli R, Colombel JF, Gasche C, Geboes K, et al. Toward an integrated clinical, molecular and serological classification of inflammatory bowel disease: report of a Working Party of the 2005 Montreal World Congress of Gastroenterology. Can J Gastroenterol. 2005;19 Suppl A:5A–36A. doi: 10.1155/2005/269076. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Meucci G, Bortoli A, Riccioli FA, Girelli CM, Radaelli F, Rivolta R, Tatarella M. Frequency and clinical evolution of indeterminate colitis: a retrospective multi-centre study in northern Italy. GSMII (Gruppo di Studio per le Malattie Infiammatorie Intestinali) Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1999;11:909–913. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Dignass A, Van Assche G, Lindsay JO, Lémann M, Söderholm J, Colombel JF, Danese S, D’Hoore A, Gassull M, Gomollón F, et al. The second European evidence-based Consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn’s disease: Current management. J Crohns Colitis. 2010;4:28–62. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2009.12.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Dignass A, Lindsay JO, Sturm A, Windsor A, Colombel JF, Allez M, D’Haens G, D’Hoore A, Mantzaris G, Novacek G, et al. Second European evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of ulcerative colitis part 2: current management. J Crohns Colitis. 2012;6:991–1030. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2012.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Dionisio PM, Gurudu SR, Leighton JA, Leontiadis GI, Fleischer DE, Hara AK, Heigh RI, Shiff AD, Sharma VK. Capsule endoscopy has a significantly higher diagnostic yield in patients with suspected and established small-bowel Crohn’s disease: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1240–1248; quiz 1249. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2009.713. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Jensen MD, Nathan T, Rafaelsen SR, Kjeldsen J. Diagnostic accuracy of capsule endoscopy for small bowel Crohn’s disease is superior to that of MR enterography or CT enterography. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:124–129. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2010.10.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Pennazio M, Spada C, Eliakim R, Keuchel M, May A, Mulder CJ, Rondonotti E, Adler SN, Albert J, Baltes P, et al. Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy. 2015;47:352–376. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1391855. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Gralnek IM, Defranchis R, Seidman E, Leighton JA, Legnani P, Lewis BS. Development of a capsule endoscopy scoring index for small bowel mucosal inflammatory change. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008;27:146–154. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03556.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Monteiro S, Boal Carvalho P, Dias de Castro F, Magalhães J, Machado F, Moreira MJ, Rosa B, Cotter J. Capsule Endoscopy: Diagnostic Accuracy of Lewis Score in Patients with Suspected Crohn’s Disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2015;21:2241–2246. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Annese V, Daperno M, Rutter MD, Amiot A, Bossuyt P, East J, Ferrante M, Götz M, Katsanos KH, Kießlich R, et al. European evidence based consensus for endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2013;7:982–1018. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2013.09.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Samuel S, Bruining DH, Loftus EV, Becker B, Fletcher JG, Mandrekar JN, Zinsmeister AR, Sandborn WJ. Endoscopic skipping of the distal terminal ileum in Crohn’s disease can lead to negative results from ileocolonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:1253–1259. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.03.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Triester SL, Leighton JA, Leontiadis GI, Gurudu SR, Fleischer DE, Hara AK, Heigh RI, Shiff AD, Sharma VK. A meta-analysis of the yield of capsule endoscopy compared to other diagnostic modalities in patients with non-stricturing small bowel Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:954–964. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00506.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Tukey M, Pleskow D, Legnani P, Cheifetz AS, Moss AC. The utility of capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:2734–2739. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2009.404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Herrerías JM, Caunedo A, Rodríguez-Téllez M, Pellicer F, Herrerías JM. Capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected Crohn’s disease and negative endoscopy. Endoscopy. 2003;35:564–568. doi: 10.1055/s-2003-40241. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Figueiredo P, Almeida N, Lopes S, Duque G, Freire P, Lérias C, Gouveia H, Sofia C. Small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected Crohn’s disease-diagnostic value and complications. Diagn Ther Endosc. 2010;2010:101284. doi: 10.1155/2010/101284. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Maunoury V, Savoye G, Bourreille A, Bouhnik Y, Jarry M, Sacher-Huvelin S, Ben Soussan E, Lerebours E, Galmiche JP, Colombel JF. Value of wireless capsule endoscopy in patients with indeterminate colitis (inflammatory bowel disease type unclassified) Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2007;13:152–155. doi: 10.1002/ibd.20060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Lopes S, Figueiredo P, Portela F, Freire P, Almeida N, Lérias C, Gouveia H, Leitão MC. Capsule endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease type unclassified and indeterminate colitis serologically negative. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2010;16:1663–1668. doi: 10.1002/ibd.21249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Mehdizadeh S, Chen G, Enayati PJ, Cheng DW, Han NJ, Shaye OA, Ippoliti A, Vasiliauskas EA, Lo SK, Papadakis KA. Diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy in ulcerative colitis and inflammatory bowel disease of unclassified type (IBDU) Endoscopy. 2008;40:30–35. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-995359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Mow WS, Lo SK, Targan SR, Dubinsky MC, Treyzon L, Abreu-Martin MT, Papadakis KA, Vasiliauskas EA. Initial experience with wireless capsule enteroscopy in the diagnosis and management of inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:31–40. doi: 10.1016/s1542-3565(03)00289-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Koulaouzidis A, Douglas S, Plevris JN. Lewis score correlates more closely with fecal calprotectin than Capsule Endoscopy Crohn’s Disease Activity Index. Dig Dis Sci. 2012;57:987–993. doi: 10.1007/s10620-011-1956-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Cotter J, Dias de Castro F, Magalhães J, Moreira MJ, Rosa B. Validation of the Lewis score for the evaluation of small-bowel Crohn’s disease activity. Endoscopy. 2015;47:330–335. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1390894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Rosa B, Moreira MJ, Rebelo A, Cotter J. Lewis Score: a useful clinical tool for patients with suspected Crohn’s Disease submitted to capsule endoscopy. J Crohns Colitis. 2012;6:692–697. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2011.12.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Viazis N, Karamanolis DG. Indeterminate colitis--the role of wireless capsule endoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;25:859; author reply 860. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03267.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Kalla R, McAlindon ME, Drew K, Sidhu R. Clinical utility of capsule endoscopy in patients with Crohn’s disease and inflammatory bowel disease unclassified. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;25:706–713. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e32835ddb85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Gralnek IM, Cohen SA, Ephrath H, Napier A, Gobin T, Sherrod O, Lewis J. Small bowel capsule endoscopy impacts diagnosis and management of pediatric inflammatory bowel disease: a prospective study. Dig Dis Sci. 2012;57:465–471. doi: 10.1007/s10620-011-1894-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Higurashi T, Endo H, Yoneda M, Hosono K, Sakai E, Takahashi H, Inamori M, Uchiyama S, Kojima T, Kawana K, et al. Capsule-endoscopic findings of ulcerative colitis patients. Digestion. 2011;84:306–314. doi: 10.1159/000333086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Kopylov U, Seidman EG. Role of capsule endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:1155–1164. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i5.1155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Lorenzo-Zúñiga V, de Vega VM, Domènech E, Cabré E, Mañosa M, Boix J. Impact of capsule endoscopy findings in the management of Crohn’s Disease. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;55:411–414. doi: 10.1007/s10620-009-0758-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Cotter J, Dias de Castro F, Moreira MJ, Rosa B. Tailoring Crohn’s disease treatment: the impact of small bowel capsule endoscopy. J Crohns Colitis. 2014;8:1610–1615. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2014.02.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Kopylov U, Nemeth A, Koulaouzidis A, Makins R, Wild G, Afif W, Bitton A, Johansson GW, Bessissow T, Eliakim R, et al. Small bowel capsule endoscopy in the management of established Crohn’s disease: clinical impact, safety, and correlation with inflammatory biomarkers. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2015;21:93–100. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Odze RD. A contemporary and critical appraisal of ‘indeterminate colitis’. Mod Pathol. 2015;28 Suppl 1:S30–S46. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2014.131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Odze RD. IBD: role of the pathologist in the diagnosis and management of IBD. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;10:625–626. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2013.198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]