Impact of withdrawal time on adenoma detection rate: results from a prospective multicenter trial

A computer-aided polyp detection system in screening and surveillance colonoscopy: an international, multicentre, randomised, tandem trial

BACKGROUND

Studies on the effect of computer-aided detection (CAD) in a daily clinical screening and surveillance colonoscopy population practice are scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate a novel CAD system in a screening and surveillance colonoscopy population.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomised, controlled trial was done in ten hospitals in Europe, the USA, and Israel by 31 endoscopists. Patients referred for non-immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) screening or surveillance colonoscopy were included. Patients were randomomly assigned to CAD-assisted colonoscopy or conventional colonoscopy; a subset was further randomly assigned to undergo tandem colonoscopy: CAD followed by conventional colonoscopy or conventional colonoscopy followed by CAD. Primary objectives included adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) and adenoma per extraction (APE). Secondary objectives included adenoma miss rate (AMR) in the tandem colonoscopies. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640792.

FINDINGS

A total of 916 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis: 449 in the CAD group and 467 in the conventional colonoscopy group. APC was higher with CAD compared with conventional colonoscopy (0·70 vs 0·51, p=0·015; 314 adenomas per 449 colonoscopies vs 238 adenomas per 467 colonoscopies; poisson effect ratio 1·372 [95% CI 1·068-1·769]), while showing non-inferiority of APE compared with conventional colonoscopy (0·59 vs 0·66; p<0·001 for non-inferiority; 314 of 536 extractions vs 238 of 360 extractions). AMR in the 127 (61 with CAD first, 66 with conventional colonoscopy first) patients completing tandem colonoscopy was 19% (11 of 59 detected during the second pass) in the CAD first group and 36% (16 of 45 detected during the second pass) in the conventional colonoscopy first group (p=0·024).

INTERPRETATION

CAD increased adenoma detection in non-iFOBT screening and surveillance colonoscopies and reduced adenoma miss rates compared with conventional colonoscopy, without an increase in the resection of non-adenomatous lesions.

FUNDING

Magentiq Eye.

Artificial intelligence-assisted real-time monitoring of effective withdrawal time during colonoscopy: a novel quality marker of colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The importance of withdrawal time during colonoscopy cannot be overstated in mitigating the risk of missed lesions and postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. We evaluated a novel colonoscopy quality metric called the effective withdrawal time (EWT), which is an artificial intelligence (AI)-derived quantitative measure of quality withdrawal time, and its association with various colonic lesion detection rates as compared with standard withdrawal time (SWT).

METHODS

Three hundred fifty video recordings of colonoscopy withdrawal (from the cecum to the anus) were assessed by the new AI model. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) according to different quintiles of EWT. Multivariate logistic regression, adjusting for baseline covariates, was used to determine the adjusted odd ratios (ORs) for EWT on lesion detection rates, with the lowest quintile as reference. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of EWT was compared with SWT.

RESULTS

The crude ADR in different quintiles of EWT, from lowest to highest, was 10.0%, 31.4%, 33.3%, 53.5%, and 85.7%. The ORs of detecting adenomas and polyps were significantly higher in all top 4 quintiles when compared with the lowest quintile. Each minute increase in EWT was associated with a 49% increase in ADR (aOR, 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-1.65). The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of EWT was also significantly higher than SWT on adenoma detection (.80 [95% CI, .75-.84] vs .70 [95% CI, .64-.74], P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

AI-derived monitoring of EWT is a promising novel quality indicator for colonoscopy, which is more associated with ADR than SWT.

What are the priority quality indicators for colonoscopy in real-world clinical practice?

Colonoscopy is widely used as a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tool. The effectiveness of a screening colonoscopy is associated with a decreased risk of CRC. However, colonoscopy is an operator-dependent procedure, and endoscopists' quality performance varies widely. This article reviewed the priority metrics and practices that contribute to high-quality screening colonoscopy in real-world clinical practice. With growing evidence, quality indicators have been subject to intense research and associated with reducing postcolonoscopy CRC incidence and mortality. Some quality metrics can reflect an endoscopy unit-based practice (i.e. quality of bowel preparation and withdrawal time). Other quality indicators primarily reflect individuals' skill and knowledge (i.e. cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, and appropriately assigned follow-up colonoscopy interval). Measurement and improvement of priority quality indicators for colonoscopy should be made at both the endoscopist and unit levels. Substantial evidence supports the impact of high-quality colonoscopy in reducing the incidence of postcolonoscopy CRC.

Artificial intelligence fails to improve colonoscopy quality: A single centre retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Limited data currently exists on the clinical utility of Artificial Intelligence Assisted Colonoscopy (AIAC) outside of clinical trials.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of AIAC on key markers of colonoscopy quality compared to conventional colonoscopy (CC).

METHODS

This single-centre retrospective observational cohort study included all patients undergoing colonoscopy at a secondary centre in Brisbane, Australia. CC outcomes between October 2021 and October 2022 were compared with AIAC outcomes after the introduction of the Olympus Endo-AID module from October 2022 to January 2023. Endoscopists who conducted over 50 procedures before and after AIAC introduction were included. Procedures for surveillance of inflammatory bowel disease were excluded. Patient demographics, proceduralist specialisation, indication for colonoscopy, and colonoscopy quality metrics were collected. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR) were calculated for both AIAC and CC.

RESULTS

The study included 746 AIAC procedures and 2162 CC procedures performed by seven endoscopists. Baseline patient demographics were similar, with median age of 60 years with a slight female predominance (52.1%). Procedure indications, bowel preparation quality, and caecal intubation rates were comparable between groups. AIAC had a slightly longer withdrawal time compared to CC, but the difference was not statistically significant. The introduction of AIAC did not significantly change ADR (52.1% for AIAC vs 52.6% for CC, P = 0.91) or SSLDR (17.4% for AIAC vs 18.1% for CC, P = 0.44).

CONCLUSION

The implementation of AIAC failed to improve key markers of colonoscopy quality, including ADR, SSLDR and withdrawal time. Further research is required to assess the utility and cost-efficiency of AIAC for high performing endoscopists.