Colonic PolypsVICOCANCT02081742
Comparative Study of Colon Capsule and Virtual Colonoscopy (VICOCA)
An observational study of Colonic Polyps and Adenoma, run by Begoña González Suárez at 1 site in Spain.
Trial summary
Summary Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents the second leading cause of cancer deaths in Spain (11,000 deaths per year). Screening of the population over 50 years of age with no significant history (intermediate risk) is recommended, but which screening method is best for promoting adherence in this type of patient has… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 50 to 69 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Colonic Polyps, Adenoma
- How many people
- 349 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSpain
- Study dates
- 12 Mar 2014to Jun 2016
- How long will I take part?
- 1 Day
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 50 to 69 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: The population we are concerned with in this study is the healthy population-men and women 50-69 years of age with no significant history. Therefore, the screening method we offer must be the least invasive and the most comfortable method possible so that good compliance is achieved. This means techniques that are painless and essentially harmless in comparison with conventional colonoscopy. If we were to observe higher concordance between these techniques and conventional colonoscopy in terms of detecting lesions, we would use the latter strictly for therapeutic reasons in this population, thereby significantly reducing the complications associated with it
Who may be able to join
- The main objective in this study is compare two non-invasive techniques in the study of colorectal cancer. When we calculate the sample size we observed that we need more than 1000 patients per group. In this moment this study is very expensive and it is not feasible. Our proposal is include population with a higher prevalence of lesions: individuals with positive FIT (fecal immunochemical test) in which the prevalence of lesions is 60%. In this case, sample size is reduced considerably.
- The eligible population will be men and women, 50-69 years old, with no known risk factors and positive FIT.
Who cannot join
- Individuals who have symptoms suggestive of colorectal disease (rectorrhagia, change in bowel movement frequency, constitutional syndrome, anaemia).
- History of inflammatory bowel disease, colorectal polyposis, colorectal adenoma or CRC, and total or partial colectomy.
- History of familial adenomatous polyposis or other hereditary polyposis syndromes; hereditary colorectal cancer not associated with polyposis (diagnosed by the presence of germinal mutation in the DNA repair genes and/or by fulfilment of the Amsterdam II criteria);
- Severe co-morbidity that carries a poor short-term prognosis (disease with an average life expectancy of less than 5 years) or a chronic illness that involves significant limitation of physical activity.
- Contraindication to undergoing colon capsule or virtual colonoscopy.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE EFFICACY OF TWO NON-INVASIVE IMAGING TECHNIQUES IN POPULATION SCREENING FOR COLORECTAL CANCER (CRC): COLON CAPSULE AND VIRTUAL COLONOSCOPY
Summary Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents the second leading cause of cancer deaths in Spain (11,000 deaths per year). Screening of the population over 50 years of age with no significant history (intermediate risk) is recommended, but which screening method is best for promoting adherence in this type of patient has not been well established. There are currently two screening methods that are less invasive than conventional colonoscopy and seem to have higher sensitivity than the test for faecal occult blood (FOBT). These two methods are the colon capsule, which consists in ingesting a capsule that takes photographs of the colon, and virtual colonoscopy, which is a radiological technique.
Objectives: 1. To demonstrate that virtual colonoscopy and colon capsule are effective CRC screening techniques in the intermediate risk population, with diagnostic rates comparable to conventional colonoscopy (concordance). 2. To compare the diagnostic rates of the colon capsule and virtual colonoscopy with respect to the size and characteristics of the lesions visualised. 3. To compare the participation rates for each screening strategy and identify the factors that influence participation (individual, family, and socioeconomic factors as well as those relating to the doctor).
Read the detailed description
Based on the fact that CRC is an important healthcare issue and that there is enough evidence to show that this disease, if diagnosed early, is curable and at a reasonable cost, the European Community Council, in 2003, issued directives that member states would make population screening for CRC a priority in their healthcare planning. Thus, Spain's Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs included population screening for CRC in its National Healthcare Plan as a priority action within the Comprehensive Plan against Cancer (PICA), which was required to be implemented by the year 2007.
The screening tools we currently have are not ideal either because, like the test for faecal occult blood (FOBT), which is the most evaluated to date, they are not sensitive enough or, like conventional colonoscopy, they are not risk-free. All of this means that population adherence is limited.
In this study, we wish to compare two new diagnostic techniques for CRC (colon capsule and virtual colonoscopy) that, although recently introduced into the healthcare system, have sufficient scientific evidence to confirm that they are effective and possibly cost-effective techniques.
The population we are concerned with in this study is the healthy population-men and women 50-69 years of age with no significant history. Therefore, the screening method we offer must be the least invasive and the most comfortable method possible so that good compliance is achieved. This means techniques that are painless and essentially harmless in comparison with conventional colonoscopy. If we were to observe higher concordance between these techniques and conventional colonoscopy in terms of detecting lesions, we would use the latter strictly for therapeutic reasons in this population, thereby significantly reducing the complications associated with it.
Objectives
Main objectives:
- To demonstrate that virtual colonoscopy and colon capsule are effective CRC screening techniques in the intermediate risk population, with adenoma diagnostic rates comparable to conventional colonoscopy.
- To compare the diagnostic capabilities of the colon capsule and virtual colonoscopy with those of conventional colonoscopy with respect to the size and characteristics of the lesions (especially lesions that are flat or smaller than 6 mm).
- To analyse the population's participation rate for each screening strategy and identify the factors that influence participation (individual, family, and socioeconomic factors as well as those relating to the doctor or the diagnostic procedure).
Secondary objectives:
- To evaluate the rate of minor and major complications for each screening strategy.
- To analyse the rate of false positives and false negatives for the colon capsule and virtual colonoscopy in comparison with conventional colonoscopy.
Methodology Type of study Randomised, and controlled study.
Study subjects
Inclusion Criteria:
The main objective in this study is compare two non-invasive techniques in the study of colorectal cancer. When we calculate the sample size we observed that we need more than 1000 patients per group. In this moment this study is very expensive and it is not feasible. Our proposal is include population with a higher prevalence of lesions: individuals with positive FIT (fecal immunochemical test) in which the prevalence of lesions is 60%. In this case, sample size is reduced considerably.
The eligible population will be men and women, 50-69 years old, with no known risk factors and positive FIT.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Individuals who have symptoms suggestive of colorectal disease (rectorrhagia, change in bowel movement frequency, constitutional syndrome, anaemia).
- History of inflammatory bowel disease, colorectal polyposis, colorectal adenoma or CRC, and total or partial colectomy.
- History of familial adenomatous polyposis or other hereditary polyposis syndromes; hereditary colorectal cancer not associated with polyposis (diagnosed by the presence of germinal mutation in the DNA repair genes and/or by fulfilment of the Amsterdam II criteria);
- Severe co-morbidity that carries a poor short-term prognosis (disease with an average life expectancy of less than 5 years) or a chronic illness that involves significant limitation of physical activity.
- Contraindication to undergoing colon capsule or virtual colonoscopy.
Study groups and randomisation:
All patients recruited who meet the inclusion criteria will be randomised into the two study groups:
Group I: Screening via virtual colonoscopy and subsequent conventional colonoscopy (within 1 week). In this group of patients, performance of the conventional colonoscopy will be delayed to ensure that bowel preparation is comparable in the two study groups.
Group II: Screening with colon capsule and subsequent conventional colonoscopy (within hours, since these patients will have already completed bowel preparation for the first screening test).
When the conventional colonoscopy is done, pertinent therapeutic procedures will be performed, if necessary.
Subsequently, the two groups of patients will be followed through visits to the hospital in which they will be instructed about the approach to follow from that time.
Sample size When we calculate the sample size we observed that we need more than 1000 patients per group. In this moment this study is very expensive and it is not feasible. Our proposal is include population with a higher prevalence of lesions: individuals with positive FIT (fecal immunochemical test) in which the prevalence of lesions is 60%. In this case, sample size is reduced considerably.
Adenomas detection rate (ADR) in these patients with positive FIT in colonoscopy (gold standard) is 60% (NEJM 2012). We assume that colon capsule will detect the same number of lesions than gold standard, and a difference of 15% with virtual colonoscopy will be clinically significant. We will need 187 patients per group, with a significance level of 5% and a statistical power of 80%.
The calculation was performed using the Study Size Granmo program.
- Conditions
- Colonic Polyps, Adenoma
- Keywords
- Colonoscopy, CT colonography, Colon capsule
- Medical subject headings
- Colonic Polyps, Adenoma
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Percentage of patients with colorectal neoplastic lesions detected by colon capsule adn CTC
The primary endpoint was to compare the performance characteristics of CCE and CTC in detecting patients with colorectal neoplastic lesions, using colonoscopy as gold standard.
Measured: 3 years
Secondary outcomes (4)
number of advanced polypoid lesions and colorectal cancer (CRC) detected by CCE and CTC
(1) To compare the diagnostic rate of CCE and CTC in the detection of advanced colorectal neoplasms (i.e. advanced adenomas and CRC) using a threshold of >6 mm in size of lesions detected by any of these examinations to indicate the work-up colonoscopy.
Measured: 3 years
Number of complications associated with each of the screening strategies
(2) To determine the incidence of adverse events (AE) associated with each screening strategy
Measured: 3 years
Rate of false positives and false negatives obtained with CTC and colon capsule
(3) To determine the false-positive and false-negative rates of CCE and CTC in detecting significant colorectal neoplastic lesions as compared to colonoscopy.
Measured: 3 years
Number of false negative lesions detected by CTC or colon capsule
(4) To determine significant independent predictive factors for false negative results in CTC or CCE
Measured: 3 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 Mar 2014 (estimated)
- Study start12 Mar 2014
- Primary completionJun 2016
- Study completionJun 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Colonic PolypsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 349 participants (actual)
- Target duration
- 1 Day
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Begoña González Suárez
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Norgine, Medtronic - MITG
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Begoña González Suárez, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona
- Investigators
- Begoña Gonzalez Suarez, PhMD, Principal investigator, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02081742
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CCV-003
- Acronym
- VICOCA
- Status last verified
- Dec 2018
- First submitted
- 16 Sep 2013
- Last updated
- 13 Dec 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Gonzalez-Suarez B, Pages M, Araujo IK, Romero C, Rodriguez de Miguel C, Ayuso JR, Pozo A, Vila-Casadesus M, Serradesanferm A, Gines A, Fernandez-Esparrach G, Pellise M, Lopez-Ceron M, Flores D, Cordova H, Sendino O, Grau J, Llach J, Serra-Burriel M, Cardenas A, Balaguer F, Castells A. Colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in FIT-positive colorectal cancer screening subjects: a prospective randomised trial-the VICOCA study. BMC Med. 2020 Sep 18;18(1):255. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01717-4.
PubMed 32943059
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 Dec 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE EFFICACY OF TWO NON-INVASIVE IMAGING TECHNIQUES IN POPULATION SCREENING FOR COLORECTAL CANCER (CRC): COLON CAPSULE AND VIRTUAL COLONOSCOPY
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02081742
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- VICOCA / CCV-003
- Conditions
- Colonic Polyps, Adenoma
- Keywords
- Colonoscopy, CT colonography, Colon capsule
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 349 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Begoña González SuárezUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Norgine, Medtronic - MITG
- Study start
- 12 Mar 2014 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Jun 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jun 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 7 Mar 2014 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Summary Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents the second leading cause of cancer deaths in Spain (11,000 deaths per year). Screening of the population over 50 years of age with no significant history (intermediate risk) is recommended, but which screening method is best for promoting adherence in this type of patient has not been well established. There are currently two screening methods that are less invasive than conventional colonoscopy and seem to have higher sensitivity than the test for faecal occult blood (FOBT). These two methods are the colon capsule, which consists in ingesting a capsule that takes photographs of the colon, and virtual colonoscopy, which is a radiological technique.
Objectives: 1. To demonstrate that virtual colonoscopy and colon capsule are effective CRC screening techniques in the intermediate risk population, with diagnostic rates comparable to conventional colonoscopy (concordance). 2. To compare the diagnostic rates of the colon capsule and virtual colonoscopy with respect to the size and characteristics of the lesions visualised. 3. To compare the participation rates for each screening strategy and identify the factors that influence participation (individual, family, and socioeconomic factors as well as those relating to the doctor).
Detailed description
Based on the fact that CRC is an important healthcare issue and that there is enough evidence to show that this disease, if diagnosed early, is curable and at a reasonable cost, the European Community Council, in 2003, issued directives that member states would make population screening for CRC a priority in their healthcare planning. Thus, Spain's Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs included population screening for CRC in its National Healthcare Plan as a priority action within the Comprehensive Plan against Cancer (PICA), which was required to be implemented by the year 2007.
The screening tools we currently have are not ideal either because, like the test for faecal occult blood (FOBT), which is the most evaluated to date, they are not sensitive enough or, like conventional colonoscopy, they are not risk-free. All of this means that population adherence is limited.
In this study, we wish to compare two new diagnostic techniques for CRC (colon capsule and virtual colonoscopy) that, although recently introduced into the healthcare system, have sufficient scientific evidence to confirm that they are effective and possibly cost-effective techniques.
The population we are concerned with in this study is the healthy population-men and women 50-69 years of age with no significant history. Therefore, the screening method we offer must be the least invasive and the most comfortable method possible so that good compliance is achieved. This means techniques that are painless and essentially harmless in comparison with conventional colonoscopy. If we were to observe higher concordance between these techniques and conventional colonoscopy in terms of detecting lesions, we would use the latter strictly for therapeutic reasons in this population, thereby significantly reducing the complications associated with it.
Objectives
Main objectives:
- To demonstrate that virtual colonoscopy and colon capsule are effective CRC screening techniques in the intermediate risk population, with adenoma diagnostic rates comparable to conventional colonoscopy.
- To compare the diagnostic capabilities of the colon capsule and virtual colonoscopy with those of conventional colonoscopy with respect to the size and characteristics of the lesions (especially lesions that are flat or smaller than 6 mm).
- To analyse the population's participation rate for each screening strategy and identify the factors that influence participation (individual, family, and socioeconomic factors as well as those relating to the doctor or the diagnostic procedure).
Secondary objectives:
- To evaluate the rate of minor and major complications for each screening strategy.
- To analyse the rate of false positives and false negatives for the colon capsule and virtual colonoscopy in comparison with conventional colonoscopy.
Methodology Type of study Randomised, and controlled study.
Study subjects
Inclusion Criteria:
The main objective in this study is compare two non-invasive techniques in the study of colorectal cancer. When we calculate the sample size we observed that we need more than 1000 patients per group. In this moment this study is very expensive and it is not feasible. Our proposal is include population with a higher prevalence of lesions: individuals with positive FIT (fecal immunochemical test) in which the prevalence of lesions is 60%. In this case, sample size is reduced considerably.
The eligible population will be men and women, 50-69 years old, with no known risk factors and positive FIT.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Individuals who have symptoms suggestive of colorectal disease (rectorrhagia, change in bowel movement frequency, constitutional syndrome, anaemia).
- History of inflammatory bowel disease, colorectal polyposis, colorectal adenoma or CRC, and total or partial colectomy.
- History of familial adenomatous polyposis or other hereditary polyposis syndromes; hereditary colorectal cancer not associated with polyposis (diagnosed by the presence of germinal mutation in the DNA repair genes and/or by fulfilment of the Amsterdam II criteria);
- Severe co-morbidity that carries a poor short-term prognosis (disease with an average life expectancy of less than 5 years) or a chronic illness that involves significant limitation of physical activity.
- Contraindication to undergoing colon capsule or virtual colonoscopy.
Study groups and randomisation:
All patients recruited who meet the inclusion criteria will be randomised into the two study groups:
Group I: Screening via virtual colonoscopy and subsequent conventional colonoscopy (within 1 week). In this group of patients, performance of the conventional colonoscopy will be delayed to ensure that bowel preparation is comparable in the two study groups.
Group II: Screening with colon capsule and subsequent conventional colonoscopy (within hours, since these patients will have already completed bowel preparation for the first screening test).
When the conventional colonoscopy is done, pertinent therapeutic procedures will be performed, if necessary.
Subsequently, the two groups of patients will be followed through visits to the hospital in which they will be instructed about the approach to follow from that time.
Sample size When we calculate the sample size we observed that we need more than 1000 patients per group. In this moment this study is very expensive and it is not feasible. Our proposal is include population with a higher prevalence of lesions: individuals with positive FIT (fecal immunochemical test) in which the prevalence of lesions is 60%. In this case, sample size is reduced considerably.
Adenomas detection rate (ADR) in these patients with positive FIT in colonoscopy (gold standard) is 60% (NEJM 2012). We assume that colon capsule will detect the same number of lesions than gold standard, and a difference of 15% with virtual colonoscopy will be clinically significant. We will need 187 patients per group, with a significance level of 5% and a statistical power of 80%.
The calculation was performed using the Study Size Granmo program.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Target follow-up
- 1 Day
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 50 to 69 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- The population we are concerned with in this study is the healthy population-men and women 50-69 years of age with no significant history. Therefore, the screening method we offer must be the least invasive and the most comfortable method possible so that good compliance is achieved. This means techniques that are painless and essentially harmless in comparison with conventional colonoscopy. If we were to observe higher concordance between these techniques and conventional colonoscopy in terms of detecting lesions, we would use the latter strictly for therapeutic reasons in this population, thereby significantly reducing the complications associated with it
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- The main objective in this study is compare two non-invasive techniques in the study of colorectal cancer. When we calculate the sample size we observed that we need more than 1000 patients per group. In this moment this study is very expensive and it is not feasible. Our proposal is include population with a higher prevalence of lesions: individuals with positive FIT (fecal immunochemical test) in which the prevalence of lesions is 60%. In this case, sample size is reduced considerably.
- The eligible population will be men and women, 50-69 years old, with no known risk factors and positive FIT.
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Individuals who have symptoms suggestive of colorectal disease (rectorrhagia, change in bowel movement frequency, constitutional syndrome, anaemia).
- History of inflammatory bowel disease, colorectal polyposis, colorectal adenoma or CRC, and total or partial colectomy.
- History of familial adenomatous polyposis or other hereditary polyposis syndromes; hereditary colorectal cancer not associated with polyposis (diagnosed by the presence of germinal mutation in the DNA repair genes and/or by fulfilment of the Amsterdam II criteria);
- Severe co-morbidity that carries a poor short-term prognosis (disease with an average life expectancy of less than 5 years) or a chronic illness that involves significant limitation of physical activity.
- Contraindication to undergoing colon capsule or virtual colonoscopy.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Percentage of patients with colorectal neoplastic lesions detected by colon capsule adn CTC
Time frame: 3 years
The primary endpoint was to compare the performance characteristics of CCE and CTC in detecting patients with colorectal neoplastic lesions, using colonoscopy as gold standard.
4 secondary outcomes
number of advanced polypoid lesions and colorectal cancer (CRC) detected by CCE and CTC
Time frame: 3 years
Number of complications associated with each of the screening strategies
Time frame: 3 years
Rate of false positives and false negatives obtained with CTC and colon capsule
Time frame: 3 years
Number of false negative lesions detected by CTC or colon capsule
Time frame: 3 years
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 Dec 2018.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 32943059Gonzalez-Suarez B, Pages M, Araujo IK, Romero C, Rodriguez de Miguel C, Ayuso JR, Pozo A, Vila-Casadesus M, Serradesanferm A, Gines A, Fernandez-Esparrach G, Pellise M, Lopez-Ceron M, Flores D, Cordova H, Sendino O, Grau J, Llach J, Serra-Burriel M, Cardenas A, Balaguer F, Castells A. Colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in FIT-positive colorectal cancer screening subjects: a prospective randomised trial-the VICOCA study. BMC Med. 2020 Sep 18;18(1):255. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01717-4.
Related trials for Colonic Polyps
Recruiting
Five or Ten Year Colonoscopy for 1-2 Non-Advanced Adenomatous Polyps
Adenocarcinoma of the Colon, Adenocarcinoma of the Rectum
Recruiting
Artificial Intelligence to Implement Cost-saving Strategies for Colonoscopy Screening Based on in Vivo Prediction of Polyp Histology
Colonic Neoplasms
RecruitingObservational study
KLF4 Epigenetic Modulation
KLF4 Methylation, Epigenetic
RecruitingObservational study
Malignant Polyp Registry
Malignant Colorectal Polyp, Colorectal Cancer
Active, not recruiting
Virtual Incision Robotically Assisted Surgical Device Use in Minimally Invasive Colectomy
Colon Cancer, Colon Polyp
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Begoña Gonzalez Suarez, PhMD principal investigator
Hospital Clinic of Barcelona
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Colonic Polyps and Adenoma, run by Begoña González Suárez at 1 site in Spain.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 13 Dec 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Spain. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Percentage of patients with colorectal neoplastic lesions detected by colon capsule adn CTC (time frame: 3 years). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02081742, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 13 Dec 2018.