Efficacy of Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia in a Randomized Trial

Long-term impact of artificial intelligence on colorectal adenoma detection in high-risk colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Improved adenoma detection rate (ADR) has been demonstrated with artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy. However, data on the real-world application of AI and its effect on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening outcomes is limited.

AIM

To analyze the long-term impact of AI on a diverse at-risk patient population undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy for positive CRC screening tests or symptoms.

METHODS

AI software (GI Genius, Medtronic) was implemented into the standard procedure protocol in November 2022. Data was collected on patient demographics, procedure indication, polyp size, location, and pathology. CRC screening outcomes were evaluated before and at different intervals after AI introduction with one year of follow-up.

RESULTS

We evaluated 1008 colonoscopies (278 pre-AI, 255 early post-AI, 285 established post-AI, and 190 late post-AI). The ADR was 38.1% pre-AI, 42.0% early post-AI (P = 0.77), 40.0% established post-AI (P = 0.44), and 39.5% late post-AI (P = 0.77). There were no significant differences in polyp detection rate (PDR, baseline 59.7%), advanced ADR (baseline 16.2%), and non-neoplastic PDR (baseline 30.0%) before and after AI introduction.

CONCLUSION

In patients with an increased pre-test probability of having an abnormal colonoscopy, the current generation of AI did not yield enhanced CRC screening metrics over high-quality colonoscopy. Although the potential of AI in colonoscopy is undisputed, current AI technology may not universally elevate screening metrics across all situations and patient populations. Future studies that analyze different AI systems across various patient populations are needed to determine the most effective role of AI in optimizing CRC screening in clinical practice.

Clinical consequences of computer-aided colorectal polyp detection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Randomised trials show improved polyp detection with computer-aided detection (CADe), mostly of small lesions. However, operator and selection bias may affect CADe's true benefit. Clinical outcomes of increased detection have not yet been fully elucidated.

METHODS

In this multicentre trial, CADe combining convolutional and recurrent neural networks was used for polyp detection. Blinded endoscopists were monitored in real time by a second observer with CADe access. CADe detections prompted reinspection. Adenoma detection rates (ADR) and polyp detection rates were measured prestudy and poststudy. Histological assessments were done by independent histopathologists. The primary outcome compared polyp detection between endoscopists and CADe.

RESULTS

In 946 patients (51.9% male, mean age 64), a total of 2141 polyps were identified, including 989 adenomas. CADe was not superior to human polyp detection (sensitivity 94.6% vs 96.0%) but outperformed them when restricted to adenomas. Unblinding led to an additional yield of 86 true positive polyp detections (1.1% ADR increase per patient; 73.8% were <5 mm). CADe also increased non-neoplastic polyp detection by an absolute value of 4.9% of the cases (1.8% increase of entire polyp load). Procedure time increased with 6.6±6.5 min (+42.6%). In 22/946 patients, the additional detection of adenomas changed surveillance intervals (2.3%), mostly by increasing the number of small adenomas beyond the cut-off.

CONCLUSION

Even if CADe appears to be slightly more sensitive than human endoscopists, the additional gain in ADR was minimal and follow-up intervals rarely changed. Additional inspection of non-neoplastic lesions was increased, adding to the inspection and/or polypectomy workload.

Advancements in biliopancreatic endoscopy: a comprehensive review of artificial intelligence in EUS and ERCP

The development and implementation of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly deep learning (DL) models, has generated significant interest across various fields of gastroenterology. While research in luminal endoscopy has seen rapid translation to clinical practice with approved AI devices, its potential extends far beyond, offering promising benefits for biliopancreatic endoscopy like optical characterization of strictures during cholangioscopy or detection and classification of pancreatic lesions during diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). This narrative review provides an up-to-date of the latest literature and available studies in this field. Serving as a comprehensive guide to the current landscape of AI in biliopancreatic endoscopy, emphasizing technological advancements, main applications, ethical considerations, and future directions for research and clinical implementation.

Surgeon assessment of significant rectal polyps using white light endoscopy alone and in comparison to fluorescence-augmented AI lesion classification

PURPOSE

Perioperative decision making for large (> 2 cm) rectal polyps with ambiguous features is complex. The most common intraprocedural assessment is clinician judgement alone while radiological and endoscopic biopsy can provide periprocedural detail. Fluorescence-augmented machine learning (FA-ML) methods may optimise local treatment strategy.

METHODS

Surgeons of varying grades, all performing colonoscopies independently, were asked to visually judge endoscopic videos of large benign and early-stage malignant (potentially suitable for local excision) rectal lesions on an interactive video platform (Mindstamp) with results compared with and between final pathology, radiology and a novel FA-ML classifier. Statistical analyses of data used Fleiss Multi-rater Kappa scoring, Spearman Coefficient and Frequency tables.

RESULTS

Thirty-two surgeons judged 14 ambiguous polyp videos (7 benign, 7 malignant). In all cancers, initial endoscopic biopsy had yielded false-negative results. Five of each lesion type had had a pre-excision MRI with a 60% false-positive malignancy prediction in benign lesions and a 60% over-staging and 40% equivocal rate in cancers. Average clinical visual cancer judgement accuracy was 49% (with only 'fair' inter-rater agreement), many reporting uncertainty and higher reported decision confidence did not correspond to higher accuracy. This compared to 86% ML accuracy. Size was misjudged visually by a mean of 20% with polyp size underestimated in 4/6 and overestimated in 2/6. Subjective narratives regarding decision-making requested for 7/14 lesions revealed wide rationale variation between participants.

CONCLUSION

Current available clinical means of ambiguous rectal lesion assessment is suboptimal with wide inter-observer variation. Fluorescence based AI augmentation may advance this field via objective, explainable ML methods.

REAL-Colon: A dataset for developing real-world AI applications in colonoscopy

Detection and diagnosis of colon polyps are key to preventing colorectal cancer. Recent evidence suggests that AI-based computer-aided detection (CADe) and computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) systems can enhance endoscopists' performance and boost colonoscopy effectiveness. However, most available public datasets primarily consist of still images or video clips, often at a down-sampled resolution, and do not accurately represent real-world colonoscopy procedures. We introduce the REAL-Colon (Real-world multi-center Endoscopy Annotated video Library) dataset: a compilation of 2.7 M native video frames from sixty full-resolution, real-world colonoscopy recordings across multiple centers. The dataset contains 350k bounding-box annotations, each created under the supervision of expert gastroenterologists. Comprehensive patient clinical data, colonoscopy acquisition information, and polyp histopathological information are also included in each video. With its unprecedented size, quality, and heterogeneity, the REAL-Colon dataset is a unique resource for researchers and developers aiming to advance AI research in colonoscopy. Its openness and transparency facilitate rigorous and reproducible research, fostering the development and benchmarking of more accurate and reliable colonoscopy-related algorithms and models.

Assessment of the role of false-positive alerts in computer-aided polyp detection for assistance capabilities

BACKGROUND AND AIM

False positives (FPs) pose a significant challenge in the application of artificial intelligence (AI) for polyp detection during colonoscopy. The study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the impact of computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) systems' FPs on endoscopists.

METHODS

The model's FPs were categorized into four gradients: 0-5, 5-10, 10-15, and 15-20 FPs per minute (FPPM). Fifty-six colonoscopy videos were collected for a crossover study involving 10 endoscopists. Polyp missed rate (PMR) was set as primary outcome. Subsequently, to further verify the impact of FPPM on the assistance capability of AI in clinical environments, a secondary analysis was conducted on a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University in China from July 1 to October 15, 2020, with the adenoma detection rate (ADR) as primary outcome.

RESULTS

Compared with routine group, CADe reduced PMR when FPPM was less than 5. However, with the continuous increase of FPPM, the beneficial effect of CADe gradually weakens. For secondary analysis of RCT, a total of 956 patients were enrolled. In AI-assisted group, ADR is higher when FPPM ≤ 5 compared with FPPM > 5 (CADe group: 27.78% vs 11.90%; P = 0.014; odds ratio [OR], 0.351; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.152-0.812; COMBO group: 38.40% vs 23.46%, P = 0.029; OR, 0.427; 95% CI, 0.199-0.916). After AI intervention, ADR increased when FPPM ≤ 5 (27.78% vs 14.76%; P = 0.001; OR, 0.399; 95% CI, 0.231-0.690), but no statistically significant difference was found when FPPM > 5 (11.90% vs 14.76%, P = 0.788; OR, 1.111; 95% CI, 0.514-2.403).

CONCLUSION

The level of FPs of CADe does affect its effectiveness as an aid to endoscopists, with its best effect when FPPM is less than 5.

Artificial intelligence for dysplasia detection during surveillance colonoscopy in patients with ulcerative colitis: A cross-sectional, non-inferiority, diagnostic test comparison study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

High-definition virtual chromoendoscopy, along with targeted biopsies, is recommended for dysplasia surveillance in ulcerative colitis patients at risk for colorectal cancer. Computer-aided detection (CADe) systems aim to improve colonic adenoma detection, however their efficacy in detecting polyps and adenomas in this context remains unclear. This study evaluates the CADe Discovery™ system's effectiveness in detecting colonic dysplasia in ulcerative colitis patients at risk for colorectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective cross-sectional, non-inferiority, diagnostic test comparison study was conducted on ulcerative colitis patients undergoing colorectal cancer surveillance colonoscopy between January 2021 and April 2021. Patients underwent virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE) with iSCAN 1 and 3 with optical enhancement. One endoscopist, blinded to CADe Discovery™ system results, examined colon sections, while a second endoscopist concurrently reviewed CADe images. Suspicious areas detected by both techniques underwent resection. Proportions of dysplastic lesions and patients with dysplasia detected by VCE or CADe were calculated.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were included, and 48 lesions analyzed. VCE and CADe each detected 9 cases of dysplasia (21.4% and 20.0%, respectively; p=0.629) in 8 patients and 7 patients (15.4% vs. 13.5%, respectively; p=0.713). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and diagnostic accuracy for dysplasia detection using VCE or CADe were 90% and 90%, 13% and 5%, 21% and 2%, 83% and 67%, and 29.2% and 22.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The CADe Discovery™ system shows similar diagnostic performance to VCE with iSCAN in detecting colonic dysplasia in ulcerative colitis patients at risk for colorectal cancer.

Classification and prediction of chemoradiotherapy response and survival from esophageal carcinoma histopathology images

Whole slide imaging (WSI) of Hematoxylin and Eosin-stained biopsy specimens has been used to predict chemoradiotherapy (CRT) response and overall survival (OS) of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients. This retrospective study collected 279 specimens in 89 non-surgical ESCC patients through endoscopic biopsy between January 2010 and January 2019. These patients were divided into a CRT response group (CR + PR group) and a CRT non-response group (SD + PD group). The WSIs have segmented approximately 1,206,000 non-overlapping patches. Two experienced pathologists manually delineated the eight types of tissues on 32 WSIs, including esophagus tumor cell (TUM), cancer-associated stroma (CAS), normal epithelium layer (NEL), smooth muscle (MUS), lymphocytes (LYM), Red cells (RED), debris (DEB), uneven areas (UNE). The chemoradiotherapy response prediction models were built using maximum relevance-minimum redundancy (MRMR) feature selection and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression. However, pathological features with p < 0.1 were selected and integrated to be further screened using a LASSO Cox regression model to build a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model for predicting the OS. The testing accuracy of the tissue classification model was 91.3 %. The pathological model created using two CAS in-depth features and eight TUM in-depth features performed best for the prediction of treatment response and achieved an AUC of 0.744. For the prediction of OS, the testing AUC of this model at one year and three years were 0.675 and 0.870, respectively. The TUM model showed the highest AUC at one year (0.712). With its high accuracy rate, the deep learning model has the potential to transform from bench to bedside in clinical practice, improve patient's quality of life, and prolong the OS rate.

GI genius endoscopy module: a clinical profile

INTRODUCTION

The identification of early-stage colorectal cancers (CRC) and the resection of pre-cancerous neoplastic lesions through colonoscopy allows to decrease both CRC incidence and mortality. However, colonoscopy miss rates up to 26% for adenomas and 9% for advanced adenomas have been reported. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) systems have been emerging as easy-to-use tools, potentially lowering the risk of missing lesions.

AREAS COVERED

This review paper focuses on GI Genius device (Medtronic Co. Minneapolis, MN, U.S.A.) a computer-assisted tool designed to assist endoscopists during standard white-light colonoscopies in detecting mucosal lesions.

EXPERT OPINION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that GI Genius is a safe and effective tool for improving adenoma detection, especially in CRC screening and surveillance colonoscopies. However, its impact seems to be less significant among experienced endoscopists and in real-world clinical scenarios compared to the controlled conditions of RCTs. Furthermore, it appears that GI Genius mainly enhances the detection of non-advanced, small polyps, but does not significantly impact the identification of advanced and difficult-to-detect adenoma. When using GI Genius, no complications were documented. Only a small number of studies reported an increased in withdrawal time or the removal of non-neoplastic lesions.

Efficacy of artificial intelligence in reducing miss rates of GI adenomas, polyps, and sessile serrated lesions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine if utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) in the course of endoscopic procedures can significantly diminish both the adenoma miss rate (AMR) and the polyp miss rate (PMR) compared with standard endoscopy.

METHODS

We performed an extensive search of various databases, encompassing PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus, until June 2023. The search terms used were artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, transfer machine learning, computer-assisted diagnosis, convolutional neural networks, gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, endoscopic image analysis, polyp, adenoma, and neoplasms. The main study aim was to explore the impact of AI on the AMR, PMR, and sessile serrated lesion miss rate.

RESULTS

A total of 7 randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled AMR was markedly lower in the AI group versus the non-AI group (pooled relative risk [RR], .46; 95% confidence interval [CI], .36-.59; P < .001). PMR was also reduced in the AI group in contrast with the non-AI control (pooled RR, .43; 95% CI, .27-.69; P < .001). The results showed that AI decreased the miss rate of sessile serrated lesions (pooled RR, .43; 95% CI, .20 to .92; P < .05) and diminutive adenomas (pooled RR, .49; 95% CI, .26-.93) during endoscopy, but no significant effect was observed for advanced adenomas (pooled RR, .48; 95% CI, .17-1.37; P = .17). The average number of polyps (Hedges' g = -.486; 95% CI, -.697 to -.274; P = .000) and adenomas (Hedges' g = -.312; 95% CI, -.551 to -.074; P = .01) detected during the second procedure also favored AI. However, AI implementation did not lead to a prolonged withdrawal time (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that AI technology leads to significant reduction of miss rates for GI adenomas, polyps, and sessile serrated lesions during endoscopic surveillance. These results underscore the potential of AI to improve the accuracy and efficiency of GI endoscopic procedures.

Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: Current Landscape, Challenges, and Future Directions

Artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology is advancing beyond algorithm development to integration into clinical practice. This review describes the current state of the field, with a specific focus on clinical integration. AI applications are structured according to cancer type and clinical domain, focusing on the four most common cancers and tasks of detection, diagnosis, and treatment. These applications encompass various data modalities, including imaging, genomics, and medical records. We conclude with a summary of existing challenges, evolving solutions, and potential future directions for the field.

SIGNIFICANCE

AI is increasingly being applied to all aspects of oncology, where several applications are maturing beyond research and development to direct clinical integration. This review summarizes the current state of the field through the lens of clinical translation along the clinical care continuum. Emerging areas are also highlighted, along with common challenges, evolving solutions, and potential future directions for the field.

Evaluating false-positive detection in a computer-aided detection system for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Computer-aided detection (CADe) systems can efficiently detect polyps during colonoscopy. However, false-positive (FP) activation is a major limitation of CADe. We aimed to compare the rate and causes of FP using CADe before and after an update designed to reduce FP.

METHODS

We analyzed CADe-assisted colonoscopy videos recorded between July 2022 and October 2022. The number and causes of FPs and excessive time spent by the endoscopist on FP (ET) were compared pre- and post-update using 1:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

During the study period, 191 colonoscopy videos (94 and 97 in the pre- and post-update groups, respectively) were recorded. Propensity score matching resulted in 146 videos (73 in each group). The mean number of FPs and median ET per colonoscopy were significantly lower in the post-update group than those in the pre-update group (4.2 ± 3.7 vs 18.1 ± 11.1; P < 0.001 and 0 vs 16 s; P < 0.001, respectively). Mucosal tags, bubbles, and folds had the strongest association with decreased FP post-update (pre-update vs post-update: 4.3 ± 3.6 vs 0.4 ± 0.8, 0.32 ± 0.70 vs 0.04 ± 0.20, and 8.6 ± 6.7 vs 1.6 ± 1.7, respectively). There was no significant decrease in the true positive rate (post-update vs pre-update: 95.0% vs 99.2%; P = 0.09) or the adenoma detection rate (post-update vs pre-update: 52.1% vs 49.3%; P = 0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

The updated CADe can reduce FP without impairing polyp detection. A reduction in FP may help relieve the burden on endoscopists.

Impact of study design on adenoma detection in the evaluation of artificial intelligence-aided colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported that artificial intelligence (AI) improves endoscopic polyp detection. Different methodologies-namely, parallel and tandem designs-have been used to evaluate the efficacy of AI-assisted colonoscopy in RCTs. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported a pooled effect that includes both study designs. However, it is unclear whether there are inconsistencies in the reported results of these 2 designs. Here, we aimed to determine whether study characteristics moderate between-trial differences in outcomes when evaluating the effectiveness of AI-assisted polyp detection.

METHODS

A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore was performed through March 1, 2023, for RCTs comparing AI-assisted colonoscopy with routine high-definition colonoscopy in polyp detection. The primary outcome of interest was the impact of study type on the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes included the impact of the study type on adenomas per colonoscopy and withdrawal time, as well as the impact of geographic location, AI system, and endoscopist experience on ADR. Pooled event analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-four RCTs involving 17,413 colonoscopies (AI assisted: 8680; non-AI assisted: 8733) were included. AI-assisted colonoscopy improved overall ADR (risk ratio [RR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-1.31; I2 = 53%; P < .001). Tandem studies collectively demonstrated improved ADR in AI-aided colonoscopies (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.08-1.30; I2 = 0%; P < .001), as did parallel studies (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.17-1.35; I2 = 62%; P < .001), with no statistical subgroup difference between study design. Both tandem and parallel study designs revealed improvement in adenomas per colonoscopy in AI-aided colonoscopies, but this improvement was more marked among tandem studies (P < .001). AI assistance significantly increased withdrawal times for parallel (P = .002), but not tandem, studies. ADR improvement was more marked among studies conducted in Asia compared to Europe and North America in a subgroup analysis (P = .007). Type of AI system used or endoscopist experience did not affect overall improvement in ADR.

CONCLUSIONS

Either parallel or tandem study design can capture the improvement in ADR resulting from the use of AI-assisted polyp detection systems. Tandem studies powered to detect differences in endoscopic performance through paired comparison may be a resource-efficient method of evaluating new AI-assisted technologies.

Detailed Superiority of the CAD EYE Artificial Intelligence System over Endoscopists for Lesion Detection and Characterization Using Unique Movie Sets

Objectives

Detailed superiority of CAD EYE (Fujifilm, Tokyo, Japan), an artificial intelligence for polyp detection/diagnosis, compared to endoscopists is not well examined. We examined endoscopist's ability using movie sets of colorectal lesions which were detected and diagnosed by CAD EYE accurately.

Methods

Consecutive lesions of ≤10 mm were examined live by CAD EYE from March-June 2022 in our institution. Short unique movie sets of each lesion with and without CAD EYE were recorded simultaneously using two recorders for detection under white light imaging (WLI) and linked color imaging (LCI) and diagnosis under blue laser/light imaging (BLI). Excluding inappropriate movies, 100 lesions detected and diagnosed with CAD EYE accurately were evaluated. Movies without CAD EYE were evaluated first by three trainees and three experts. Subsequently, movies with CAD EYE were examined. The rates of accurate detection and diagnosis were evaluated for both movie sets.

Results

Among 100 lesions (mean size: 4.7±2.6 mm; 67 neoplastic/33 hyperplastic), mean accurate detection rates of movies without or with CAD EYE were 78.7%/96.7% under WLI (p<0.01) and 91.3%/97.3% under LCI (p<0.01) for trainees and 85.3%/99.0% under WLI (p<0.01) and 92.6%/99.3% under LCI (p<0.01) for experts. Mean accurate diagnosis rates of movies without or with CAD EYE for BLI were 85.3%/100% for trainees (p<0.01) and 92.3%/100% for experts (p<0.01), respectively. The significant risk factors of not-detected lesions for trainees were right-sided, hyperplastic, not-reddish, in the corner, halation, and inadequate bowel preparation.

Conclusions

Unique movie sets with and without CAD EYE could suggest it's efficacy for lesion detection/diagnosis.

Deep Learning Models Capture Histological Disease Activity in Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis with High Fidelity

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Histological disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] is associated with clinical outcomes and is an important endpoint in drug development. We developed deep learning models for automating histological assessments in IBD.

METHODS

Histology images of intestinal mucosa from phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials in Crohn's disease [CD] and ulcerative colitis [UC] were used to train artificial intelligence [AI] models to predict the Global Histology Activity Score [GHAS] for CD and Geboes histopathology score for UC. Three AI methods were compared. AI models were evaluated on held-back testing sets, and model predictions were compared against an expert central reader and five independent pathologists.

RESULTS

The model based on multiple instance learning and the attention mechanism [SA-AbMILP] demonstrated the best performance among competing models. AI-modelled GHAS and Geboes subgrades matched central readings with moderate to substantial agreement, with accuracies ranging from 65% to 89%. Furthermore, the model was able to distinguish the presence and absence of pathology across four selected histological features, with accuracies for colon in both CD and UC ranging from 87% to 94% and for CD ileum ranging from 76% to 83%. For both CD and UC and across anatomical compartments [ileum and colon] in CD, comparable accuracies against central readings were found between the model-assigned scores and scores by an independent set of pathologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Deep learning models based upon GHAS and Geboes scoring systems were effective at distinguishing between the presence and absence of IBD microscopic disease activity.

Consensus statements on the current landscape of artificial intelligence applications in endoscopy, addressing roadblocks, and advancing artificial intelligence in gastroenterology

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) AI Task Force along with experts in endoscopy, technology space, regulatory authorities, and other medical subspecialties initiated a consensus process that analyzed the current literature, highlighted potential areas, and outlined the necessary research in artificial intelligence (AI) to allow a clearer understanding of AI as it pertains to endoscopy currently.

METHODS

A modified Delphi process was used to develop these consensus statements.

RESULTS

Statement 1: Current advances in AI allow for the development of AI-based algorithms that can be applied to endoscopy to augment endoscopist performance in detection and characterization of endoscopic lesions. Statement 2: Computer vision-based algorithms provide opportunities to redefine quality metrics in endoscopy using AI, which can be standardized and can reduce subjectivity in reporting quality metrics. Natural language processing-based algorithms can help with the data abstraction needed for reporting current quality metrics in GI endoscopy effortlessly. Statement 3: AI technologies can support smart endoscopy suites, which may help optimize workflows in the endoscopy suite, including automated documentation. Statement 4: Using AI and machine learning helps in predictive modeling, diagnosis, and prognostication. High-quality data with multidimensionality are needed for risk prediction, prognostication of specific clinical conditions, and their outcomes when using machine learning methods. Statement 5: Big data and cloud-based tools can help advance clinical research in gastroenterology. Multimodal data are key to understanding the maximal extent of the disease state and unlocking treatment options. Statement 6: Understanding how to evaluate AI algorithms in the gastroenterology literature and clinical trials is important for gastroenterologists, trainees, and researchers, and hence education efforts by GI societies are needed. Statement 7: Several challenges regarding integrating AI solutions into the clinical practice of endoscopy exist, including understanding the role of human-AI interaction. Transparency, interpretability, and explainability of AI algorithms play a key role in their clinical adoption in GI endoscopy. Developing appropriate AI governance, data procurement, and tools needed for the AI lifecycle are critical for the successful implementation of AI into clinical practice. Statement 8: For payment of AI in endoscopy, a thorough evaluation of the potential value proposition for AI systems may help guide purchasing decisions in endoscopy. Reliable cost-effectiveness studies to guide reimbursement are needed. Statement 9: Relevant clinical outcomes and performance metrics for AI in gastroenterology are currently not well defined. To improve the quality and interpretability of research in the field, steps need to be taken to define these evidence standards. Statement 10: A balanced view of AI technologies and active collaboration between the medical technology industry, computer scientists, gastroenterologists, and researchers are critical for the meaningful advancement of AI in gastroenterology.

CONCLUSIONS

The consensus process led by the ASGE AI Task Force and experts from various disciplines has shed light on the potential of AI in endoscopy and gastroenterology. AI-based algorithms have shown promise in augmenting endoscopist performance, redefining quality metrics, optimizing workflows, and aiding in predictive modeling and diagnosis. However, challenges remain in evaluating AI algorithms, ensuring transparency and interpretability, addressing governance and data procurement, determining payment models, defining relevant clinical outcomes, and fostering collaboration between stakeholders. Addressing these challenges while maintaining a balanced perspective is crucial for the meaningful advancement of AI in gastroenterology.

Single Versus Second Observer vs Artificial Intelligence to Increase the ADENOMA Detection Rate of Colonoscopy-A Network Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Screening colonoscopy has significantly contributed to the reduction of the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and its associated mortality, with adenoma detection rate (ADR) as the quality marker. To increase the ADR, various solutions have been proposed including the utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and employing second observers during colonoscopies. In the interest of AI improving ADR independently, without a second observer, and the operational similarity between AI and second observer, this network meta-analysis aims at evaluating the effectiveness of AI, second observer, and a single observer in improving ADR.

METHODS

We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science Core Collection, Korean Citation Index, SciELO, Global Index Medicus, and Cochrane. A direct head-to-head comparator analysis and network meta-analysis were performed using the random-effects model. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

We analyzed 26 studies, involving 22,560 subjects. In the direct comparative analysis, AI demonstrated higher ADR (OR: 0.668, 95% CI 0.595-0.749, p < 0.001) than single observer. Dual observer demonstrated a higher ADR (OR: 0.771, 95% CI 0.688-0.865, p < 0.001) than single operator. In network meta-analysis, results were consistent on the network meta-analysis, maintaining consistency. No statistical difference was noted when comparing AI to second observer. (RR 1.1 (0.9-1.2, p = 0.3). Results were consistent when evaluating only RCTs. Net ranking provided higher score to AI followed by second observer followed by single observer.

CONCLUSION

Artificial Intelligence and second-observer colonoscopy showed superior success in Adenoma Detection Rate when compared to single-observer colonoscopy. Although not statistically significant, net ranking model favors the superiority of AI to the second observer.

Improvement of adenoma detection rate by two computer-aided colonic polyp detection systems in high adenoma detectors: a randomized multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of a self-developed computer-aided polyp detection system (SD-CADe) and a commercial system (CM-CADe) for high adenoma detectors compared with white-light endoscopy (WLE) as a control.

METHODS

Average-risk 50-75-year-old individuals who underwent screening colonoscopy at five referral centers were randomized to SD-CADe, CM-CADe, or WLE groups (1:1:1 ratio). Trainees and staff with an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of ≥35% were recruited. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were the proximal adenoma detection rate (pADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and the number of adenomas, proximal adenomas, and advanced adenomas per colonoscopy (APC, pAPC, and AAPC, respectively).

RESULTS

The study enrolled 1200 participants. The ADR in the control, CM-CADe, and SD-CADe groups was 38.3%, 50.0%, and 54.8%, respectively. The pADR was 23.0%, 32.3%, and 38.8%, respectively. AADR was 6.0%, 10.3%, and 9.5%, respectively. After adjustment, the ADR and pADR in both intervention groups were significantly higher than in controls (all P<0.05). The APC in the control, CM-CADe, and SD-CADe groups was 0.66, 1.04, and 1.16, respectively. The pAPC was 0.33, 0.53, and 0.64, respectively, and the AAPC was 0.07, 0.12, and 0.10, respectively. Both CADe systems showed significantly higher APC and pAPC than WLE. AADR and AAPC were improved in both CADe groups versus control, although the differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Even in high adenoma detectors, CADe significantly improved ADR and APC. The AADR tended to be higher with both systems, and this may enhance colorectal cancer prevention.

Development of a novel endoscopic hemostasis-assisted navigation AI system in the standardization of post-ESD coagulation

Background and study aims While gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a treatment with fewer complications, delayed bleeding remains a challenge. Post-ESD coagulation (PEC) is performed to prevent delayed bleeding. Therefore, we developed an artificial intelligence (AI) to detect vessels that require PEC in real time. Materials and methods Training data were extracted from 153 gastric ESD videos with sufficient images taken with a second-look endoscopy (SLE) and annotated as follows: (1) vessels that showed bleeding during SLE without PEC; (2) vessels that did not bleed during SLE with PEC; and (3) vessels that did not bleed even without PEC. The training model was created using Google Cloud Vertex AI and a program was created to display the vessels requiring PEC in real time using a bounding box. The evaluation of this AI was verified with 12 unlearned test videos, including four cases that required additional coagulation during SLE. Results The results of the test video validation indicated that 109 vessels on the ulcer required cauterization. Of these, 80 vessels (73.4%) were correctly determined as not requiring additional treatment. However, 25 vessels (22.9%), which did not require PEC, were overestimated. In the four videos that required additional coagulation in SLE, AI was able to detect all bleeding vessels. Conclusions The effectiveness and safety of this endoscopic treatment-assisted AI system that identifies visible vessels requiring PEC should be confirmed in future studies.

Deep Learning in High-Resolution Anoscopy: Assessing the Impact of Staining and Therapeutic Manipulation on Automated Detection of Anal Cancer Precursors

INTRODUCTION

High-resolution anoscopy (HRA) is the gold standard for detecting anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) precursors. Preliminary studies on the application of artificial intelligence (AI) models to this modality have revealed promising results. However, the impact of staining techniques and anal manipulation on the effectiveness of these algorithms has not been evaluated. We aimed to develop a deep learning system for automatic differentiation of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion vs low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion in HRA images in different subsets of patients (nonstained, acetic acid, lugol, and after manipulation).

METHODS

A convolutional neural network was developed to detect and differentiate high-grade and low-grade anal squamous intraepithelial lesions based on 27,770 images from 103 HRA examinations performed in 88 patients. Subanalyses were performed to evaluate the algorithm's performance in subsets of images without staining, acetic acid, lugol, and after manipulation of the anal canal. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the curve were calculated.

RESULTS

The convolutional neural network achieved an overall accuracy of 98.3%. The algorithm had a sensitivity and specificity of 97.4% and 99.2%, respectively. The accuracy of the algorithm for differentiating high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion vs low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion varied between 91.5% (postmanipulation) and 100% (lugol) for the categories at subanalysis. The area under the curve ranged between 0.95 and 1.00.

DISCUSSION

The introduction of AI to HRA may provide an accurate detection and differentiation of ASCC precursors. Our algorithm showed excellent performance at different staining settings. This is extremely important because real-time AI models during HRA examinations can help guide local treatment or detect relapsing disease.

Preliminary Evidence of the Use of Generative AI in Health Care Clinical Services: Systematic Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Generative artificial intelligence tools and applications (GenAI) are being increasingly used in health care. Physicians, specialists, and other providers have started primarily using GenAI as an aid or tool to gather knowledge, provide information, train, or generate suggestive dialogue between physicians and patients or between physicians and patients' families or friends. However, unless the use of GenAI is oriented to be helpful in clinical service encounters that can improve the accuracy of diagnosis, treatment, and patient outcomes, the expected potential will not be achieved. As adoption continues, it is essential to validate the effectiveness of the infusion of GenAI as an intelligent technology in service encounters to understand the gap in actual clinical service use of GenAI.

OBJECTIVE

This study synthesizes preliminary evidence on how GenAI assists, guides, and automates clinical service rendering and encounters in health care The review scope was limited to articles published in peer-reviewed medical journals.

METHODS

We screened and selected 0.38% (161/42,459) of articles published between January 1, 2020, and May 31, 2023, identified from PubMed. We followed the protocols outlined in the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to select highly relevant studies with at least 1 element on clinical use, evaluation, and validation to provide evidence of GenAI use in clinical services. The articles were classified based on their relevance to clinical service functions or activities using the descriptive and analytical information presented in the articles.

RESULTS

Of 161 articles, 141 (87.6%) reported using GenAI to assist services through knowledge access, collation, and filtering. GenAI was used for disease detection (19/161, 11.8%), diagnosis (14/161, 8.7%), and screening processes (12/161, 7.5%) in the areas of radiology (17/161, 10.6%), cardiology (12/161, 7.5%), gastrointestinal medicine (4/161, 2.5%), and diabetes (6/161, 3.7%). The literature synthesis in this study suggests that GenAI is mainly used for diagnostic processes, improvement of diagnosis accuracy, and screening and diagnostic purposes using knowledge access. Although this solves the problem of knowledge access and may improve diagnostic accuracy, it is oriented toward higher value creation in health care.

CONCLUSIONS

GenAI informs rather than assisting or automating clinical service functions in health care. There is potential in clinical service, but it has yet to be actualized for GenAI. More clinical service-level evidence that GenAI is used to streamline some functions or provides more automated help than only information retrieval is needed. To transform health care as purported, more studies related to GenAI applications must automate and guide human-performed services and keep up with the optimism that forward-thinking health care organizations will take advantage of GenAI.

Endocuff With or Without Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy in Detection of Colorectal Adenoma: A Randomized Colonoscopy Trial

INTRODUCTION

Both artificial intelligence (AI) and distal attachment devices have been shown to improve adenoma detection rate and reduce miss rate during colonoscopy. We studied the combined effect of Endocuff and AI on enhancing detection rates of various colonic lesions.

METHODS

This was a 3-arm prospective randomized colonoscopy study involving patients aged 40 years or older. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to undergo Endocuff with AI, AI alone, or standard high-definition (HD) colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) between the Endocuff-AI and AI groups while secondary outcomes included detection rates of polyp (PDR), sessile serrated lesion (sessile detection rate [SDR]), and advanced adenoma (advanced adenoma detection rate) between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 682 patients were included (mean age 65.4 years, 52.3% male), with 53.7% undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. The ADR for the Endocuff-AI, AI, and HD groups was 58.7%, 53.8%, and 46.3%, respectively, while the corresponding PDR was 77.0%, 74.0%, and 61.2%. A significant increase in ADR, PDR, and SDR was observed between the Endocuff-AI and AI groups (ADR difference: 4.9%, 95% CI: 1.4%-8.2%, P = 0.03; PDR difference: 3.0%, 95% CI: 0.4%-5.8%, P = 0.04; SDR difference: 6.4%, 95% CI: 3.4%-9.7%, P < 0.01). Both Endocuff-AI and AI groups had a higher ADR, PDR, SDR, and advanced adenoma detection rate than the HD group (all P < 0.01).

DISCUSSION

Endocuff in combination with AI further improves various colonic lesion detection rates when compared with AI alone.

Human-artificial intelligence interaction in gastrointestinal endoscopy

The number and variety of applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is growing rapidly. New technologies based on machine learning (ML) and convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are at various stages of development and deployment to assist patients and endoscopists in preparing for endoscopic procedures, in detection, diagnosis and classification of pathology during endoscopy and in confirmation of key performance indicators. Platforms based on ML and CNNs require regulatory approval as medical devices. Interactions between humans and the technologies we use are complex and are influenced by design, behavioural and psychological elements. Due to the substantial differences between AI and prior technologies, important differences may be expected in how we interact with advice from AI technologies. Human–AI interaction (HAII) may be optimised by developing AI algorithms to minimise false positives and designing platform interfaces to maximise usability. Human factors influencing HAII may include automation bias, alarm fatigue, algorithm aversion, learning effect and deskilling. Each of these areas merits further study in the specific setting of AI applications in GI endoscopy and professional societies should engage to ensure that sufficient emphasis is placed on human-centred design in development of new AI technologies.

Artificial Intelligence-assisted colonoscopy and colorectal cancer screening: Where are we going?

Colorectal cancer is a significant global health concern, necessitating effective screening strategies to reduce its incidence and mortality rates. Colonoscopy plays a crucial role in the detection and removal of colorectal neoplastic precursors. However, there are limitations and variations in the performance of endoscopists, leading to missed lesions and suboptimal outcomes. The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in endoscopy offers promising opportunities to improve the quality and efficacy of screening colonoscopies. In particular, AI applications, including computer-aided detection (CADe) and computer-aided characterization (CADx), have demonstrated the potential to enhance adenoma detection and optical diagnosis accuracy. Additionally, AI-assisted quality control systems aim to standardize the endoscopic examination process. This narrative review provides an overview of AI principles and discusses the current knowledge on AI-assisted endoscopy in the context of screening colonoscopies. It highlights the significant role of AI in improving lesion detection, characterization, and quality assurance during colonoscopy. However, further well-designed studies are needed to validate the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of AI-assisted colonoscopy before its widespread implementation.

The Efficacy of Real-time Computer-aided Detection of Colonic Neoplasia in Community Practice: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The use of computer-aided detection (CADe) has increased the adenoma detection rates (ADRs) during colorectal cancer (CRC) screening/surveillance in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but has not shown benefit in real-world implementation studies. We performed a single-center pragmatic RCT to evaluate the impact of real-time CADe on ADRs in colonoscopy performed by community gastroenterologists.

METHODS

We enrolled 1100 patients undergoing colonoscopy for CRC screening, surveillance, positive fecal-immunohistochemical tests, and diagnostic indications at one community-based center from September 2022 to March 2023. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to traditional colonoscopy or real-time CADe. Blinded pathologists analyzed histopathologic findings. The primary outcome was ADR (the percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy (APC), sessile-serrated lesion detection rate, and non-neoplastic resection rate.

RESULTS

The median age was 55.5 years (interquartile range, 50-62 years), 61% were female, 72.7% were of Hispanic ethnicity, and 9.1% had inadequate bowel preparation. The ADR for the CADe group was significantly higher than the traditional colonoscopy group (42.5% vs 34.4%; P = .005). The mean APC was significantly higher in the CADe group compared with the traditional colonoscopy group (0.89 ± 1.46 vs 0.60 ± 1.12; P < .001). The improvement in adenoma detection was driven by increased detection of <5 mm adenomas. CADe had a higher sessile-serrated lesion detection rate than traditional colonoscopy (4.7% vs 2.0%; P = .01). The improvement in ADR with CADe was significantly higher in the first half of the study (47.2% vs 33.7%; P = .002) compared with the second half (38.7% vs 34.9%; P = .33).

CONCLUSIONS

In a single-center pragmatic RCT, real-time CADe modestly improved ADR and APC in average-detector community endoscopists. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05963724).

Artificial intelligence image-based prediction models in IBD exhibit high risk of bias: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There has been an increase in the development of both machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) prediction models in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. We aim in this systematic review to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of ML and DL IBD image-based prediction studies.

METHODS

We searched three databases, PubMed, Scopus and Embase, to identify ML and DL diagnostic or prognostic predictive models using imaging data in IBD, to Dec 31, 2022. We restricted our search to include studies that primarily used conventional imaging data, were undertaken in human participants, and published in English. Two reviewers independently reviewed the abstracts. The methodological quality of the studies was determined, and risk of bias evaluated using the prediction risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST).

RESULTS

Forty studies were included, thirty-nine developed diagnostic models. Seven studies utilized ML approaches, six were retrospective and none used multicenter data for model development. Thirty-three studies utilized DL approaches, ten were prospective, and twelve multicenter studies. Overall, all studies demonstrated high risk of bias. ML studies were evaluated in 4 domains all rated as high risk of bias: participants (6/7), predictors (1/7), outcome (3/7), and analysis (7/7), and DL studies evaluated in 3 domains: participants (24/33), outcome (10/33), and analysis (18/33). The majority of image-based studies used colonoscopy images.

CONCLUSION

The risk of bias was high in AI IBD image-based prediction models, owing to insufficient sample size, unreported missingness and lack of an external validation cohort. Models with a high risk of bias are unlikely to be generalizable and suitable for clinical implementation.

Effect of Real-Time Computer-Aided Polyp Detection System (ENDO-AID) on Adenoma Detection in Endoscopists-in-Training: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

The effect of computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) on adenoma detection rate (ADR) among endoscopists-in-training remains unknown.

METHODS

We performed a single-blind, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial in Hong Kong between April 2021 and July 2022 (NCT04838951). Eligible subjects undergoing screening/surveillance/diagnostic colonoscopies were randomized 1:1 to receive colonoscopies with CADe (ENDO-AID[OIP-1]) or not (control) during withdrawal. Procedures were performed by endoscopists-in-training with <500 procedures and <3 years' experience. Randomization was stratified by patient age, sex, and endoscopist experience (beginner vs intermediate level, <200 vs 200-500 procedures). Image enhancement and distal attachment devices were disallowed. Subjects with incomplete colonoscopies or inadequate bowel preparation were excluded. Treatment allocation was blinded to outcome assessors. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were ADR for different adenoma sizes and locations, mean number of adenomas, and non-neoplastic resection rate.

RESULTS

A total of 386 and 380 subjects were randomized to CADe and control groups, respectively. The overall ADR was significantly higher in the CADe group than in the control group (57.5% vs 44.5%; adjusted relative risk, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.17-1.72; P < .001). The ADRs for <5 mm (40.4% vs 25.0%) and 5- to 10-mm adenomas (36.8% vs 29.2%) were higher in the CADe group. The ADRs were higher in the CADe group in both the right colon (42.0% vs 30.8%) and left colon (34.5% vs 27.6%), but there was no significant difference in advanced ADR. The ADRs were higher in the CADe group among beginner (60.0% vs 41.9%) and intermediate-level (56.5% vs 45.5%) endoscopists. Mean number of adenomas (1.48 vs 0.86) and non-neoplastic resection rate (52.1% vs 35.0%) were higher in the CADe group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among endoscopists-in-training, the use of CADe during colonoscopies was associated with increased overall ADR. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT04838951).

Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy in Real-World Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Artificial intelligence (AI) could minimize the operator-dependent variation in colonoscopy quality. Computer-aided detection (CADe) has improved adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) in randomized controlled trials. There is a need to assess the impact of CADe in real-world settings.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science for nonrandomized real-world studies of CADe in colonoscopy. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to examine the effect of CADe on ADR and APC. The study is registered under PROSPERO (CRD42023424037). There was no funding for this study.

RESULTS

Twelve of 1,314 studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, ADR was statistically significantly higher with vs without CADe (36.3% vs 35.8%, risk ratio [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.28). This difference remained significant in subgroup analyses evaluating 6 prospective (37.3% vs 35.2%, RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01-1.32) but not 6 retrospective (35.7% vs 36.2%, RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92-1.36) studies. Among 6 studies with APC data, APC rate ratio with vs without CADe was 1.12 (95% CI 0.95-1.33). In 4 studies with GI Genius (Medtronic), there was no difference in ADR with vs without CADe (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85-1.07).

DISCUSSION

ADR, but not APC, was slightly higher with vs without CADe among all available real-world studies. This difference was attributed to the results of prospective but not retrospective studies. The discrepancies between these findings and those of randomized controlled trials call for future research on the true impact of current AI technology on colonoscopy quality and the subtleties of human-AI interactions.

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.

Performance comparison between two computer-aided detection colonoscopy models by trainees using different false positive thresholds: a cross-sectional study in Thailand

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study aims to compare polyp detection performance of "Deep-GI," a newly developed artificial intelligence (AI) model, to a previously validated AI model computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) using various false positive (FP) thresholds and determining the best threshold for each model.

METHODS

Colonoscopy videos were collected prospectively and reviewed by three expert endoscopists (gold standard), trainees, CADe (CAD EYE; Fujifilm Corp.), and Deep-GI. Polyp detection sensitivity (PDS), polyp miss rates (PMR), and false-positive alarm rates (FPR) were compared among the three groups using different FP thresholds for the duration of bounding boxes appearing on the screen.

RESULTS

In total, 170 colonoscopy videos were used in this study. Deep-GI showed the highest PDS (99.4% vs. 85.4% vs. 66.7%, p<0.01) and the lowest PMR (0.6% vs. 14.6% vs. 33.3%, p<0.01) when compared to CADe and trainees, respectively. Compared to CADe, Deep-GI demonstrated lower FPR at FP thresholds of ≥0.5 (12.1 vs. 22.4) and ≥1 second (4.4 vs. 6.8) (both p<0.05). However, when the threshold was raised to ≥1.5 seconds, the FPR became comparable (2 vs. 2.4, p=0.3), while the PMR increased from 2% to 10%.

CONCLUSION

Compared to CADe, Deep-GI demonstrated a higher PDS with significantly lower FPR at ≥0.5- and ≥1-second thresholds. At the ≥1.5-second threshold, both systems showed comparable FPR with increased PMR.

Lynch Syndrome: From Multidisciplinary Management to Precision Prevention

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lynch syndrome (LS) is currently one of the most prevalent hereditary cancer conditions, accounting for 3% of all colorectal cancers and for up to 15% of those with DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency, and it was one of the first historically identified. The understanding of the molecular carcinogenesis of LS tumors has progressed significantly in recent years. We aim to review the most recent advances in LS research and explore genotype-based approaches in surveillance, personalized cancer prevention, and treatment strategies.

METHODS

PubMed was searched to identify relevant studies, conducted up to December 2023, investigating molecular carcinogenesis in LS, surveillance strategies, cancer prevention, and treatment in LS tumors.

RESULTS

Multigene panel sequencing is becoming the benchmark in the diagnosis of LS, allowing for the detection of a pathogenic constitutional variant in one of the MMR genes. Emerging data from randomized controlled trials suggest possible preventive roles of resistant starch and/or aspirin in LS. Vaccination with immunogenic frameshift peptides appears to be a promising approach for both the treatment and prevention of LS-associated cancers, as evidenced by pre-clinical and preliminary phase 1/2a studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although robust diagnostic algorithms, including prompt testing of tumor tissue for MMR defects and referral for genetic counselling, currently exist for suspected LS in CRC patients, the indications for LS screening in cancer-free individuals still need to be refined and standardized. Investigation into additional genetic and non-genetic factors that may explain residual rates of interval cancers, even in properly screened populations, would allow for more tailored preventive strategies.

Performance evaluation of a computer-aided polyp detection system with artificial intelligence for colonoscopy

OBJECTIVES

A computer-aided detection (CAD) system was developed to support the detection of colorectal lesions by deep learning using video images of lesions and normal mucosa recorded during colonoscopy. The study's purpose was to evaluate the stand-alone performance of this device under blinded conditions.

METHODS

This multicenter prospective observational study was conducted at four Japanese institutions. We used 326 videos of colonoscopies recorded with patient consent at institutions in which the Ethics Committees approved the study. The sensitivity of successful detection of the CAD system was calculated using the target lesions, which were detected by adjudicators from two facilities for each lesion appearance frame; inconsistencies were settled by consensus. Successful detection was defined as display of the detection flag on the lesion for more than 0.5 s within 3 s of appearance.

RESULTS

Of the 556 target lesions from 185 cases, detection success sensitivity was 97.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95.8-98.5%). The "successful detection sensitivity per colonoscopy" was 93% (95% CI 88.3-95.8%). For the frame-based sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 86.6% (95% CI 84.8-88.4%), 84.7% (95% CI 83.8-85.6%), 34.9% (95% CI 32.3-37.4%), and 98.2% (95% CI 97.8-98.5%), respectively.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000044622).

Comparison of Artificial Intelligence With Other Interventions to Improve Adenoma Detection Rate for Colonoscopy: A Network Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analysis have demonstrated improved adenoma detection rate (ADR) for colonoscopy with artificial intelligence (AI) compared with high-definition (HD) colonoscopy without AI. We aimed to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of all RCTs to assess the impact of AI compared with other endoscopic interventions aimed at increasing ADR such as distal attachment devices, dye-based/virtual chromoendoscopy, water-based techniques, and balloon-assisted devices.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane was performed through May 6, 2022, to include RCTs comparing ADR for any endoscopic intervention mentioned above. Network meta-analysis was conducted using a frequentist approach and random effects model. Relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were calculated for proportional outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 94 RCTs with 61,172 patients (mean age 59.1±5.2 y, females 45.8%) and 20 discrete study interventions were included. Network meta-analysis demonstrated significantly improved ADR for AI compared with autofluorescence imaging (RR: 1.33, CI: 1.06 to 1.66), dye-based chromoendoscopy (RR: 1.22, CI: 1.06 to 1.40), endocap (RR: 1.32, CI: 1.17 to 1.50), endocuff (RR: 1.19, CI: 1.04 to 1.35), endocuff vision (RR: 1.26, CI: 1.13 to 1.41), endoring (RR: 1.30, CI: 1.10 to 1.52), flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (RR: 1.26, CI: 1.09 to 1.46), full-spectrum endoscopy (RR: 1.40, CI: 1.19 to 1.65), HD (RR: 1.41, CI: 1.28 to 1.54), linked color imaging (RR: 1.21, CI: 1.08 to 1.36), narrow band imaging (RR: 1.33, CI: 1.18 to 1.48), water exchange (RR: 1.22, CI: 1.06 to 1.42), and water immersion (RR: 1.47, CI: 1.19 to 1.82).

CONCLUSIONS

AI demonstrated significantly improved ADR when compared with most endoscopic interventions. Future RCTs directly assessing these associations are encouraged.

Impact of AI-aided colonoscopy in clinical practice: a prospective randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) has a significant role in cancer-related mortality. Colonoscopy, combined with adenoma removal, has proven effective in reducing CRC incidence. However, suboptimal colonoscopy quality often leads to missed polyps. The impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on adenoma and polyp detection rate (ADR, PDR) is yet to be established.

DESIGN

We conducted a randomised controlled trial at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Sweden. Patients underwent colonoscopy with or without the assistance of AI (AI-C or conventional colonoscopy (CC)). Examinations were performed with two different AI systems, that is, Fujifilm CADEye and Medtronic GI Genius. The primary outcome was ADR.

RESULTS

Among 286 patients, 240 underwent analysis (average age: 66 years). The ADR was 42% for all patients, and no significant difference emerged between AI-C and CC groups (41% vs 43%). The overall PDR was 61%, with a trend towards higher PDR in the AI-C group. Subgroup analysis revealed higher detection rates for sessile serrated lesions (SSL) with AI assistance (AI-C 22%, CC 11%, p=0.004). No difference was noticed in the detection of polyps or adenomas per colonoscopy. Examinations were most often performed by experienced endoscopists, 78% (n=86 AI-C, 100 CC).

CONCLUSION

Amidst the ongoing AI integration, ADR did not improve with AI. Particularly noteworthy is the enhanced detection rates for SSL by AI assistance, especially since they pose a risk for postcolonoscopy CRC. The integration of AI into standard colonoscopy practice warrants further investigation and the development of improved software might be necessary before enforcing its mandatory implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05178095.

A computer-aided system improves the performance of endoscopists in detecting colorectal polyps: a multi-center, randomized controlled trial

Background

Up to 45.9% of polyps are missed during colonoscopy, which is the major cause of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (CRC). Computer-aided detection (CADe) techniques based on deep learning might improve endoscopists' performance in detecting polyps. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the CADe system in assisting endoscopists in a real-world clinical setting.

Methods

The CADe system was trained to detect colorectal polyps, recognize the ileocecal region, and monitor the speed of withdrawal during colonoscopy in real-time. Between 17 January 2021 and 16 July 2021. We recruited consecutive patients aged 18-75 years from three centers in China. We randomized patients in 1:1 groups to either colonoscopy with the CADe system or unassisted (control). The primary outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of the endoscopists. We used subgroup analysis to examine the polyp detection rate (PDR) and the miss detection rate of endoscopists.

Results

A total of 1293 patients were included. The sensitivity of the endoscopists in the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group (84.97 vs. 72.07%, p < 0.001), and the specificity of the endoscopists in these two groups was comparable (100.00 vs. 100.00%). In a subgroup analysis, the CADe system improved the PDR of the 6-9 mm polyps (18.04 vs. 13.85%, p < 0.05) and reduced the miss detection rate, especially at 10:00-12:00 am (12.5 vs. 39.81%, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The CADe system can potentially improve the sensitivity of endoscopists in detecting polyps, reduce the missed detection of polyps in colonoscopy, and reduce the risk of CRC.

Registration

This clinical trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Trial Registration Number: ChiCTR2100041988).

Clinical trial registration

website www.chictr.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR2100041988.

Direct comparison of multiple computer-aided polyp detection systems

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems for computer-aided detection (CADe) of polyps receive regular updates and occasionally offer customizable detection thresholds, both of which impact their performance, but little is known about these effects. This study aimed to compare the performance of different CADe systems on the same benchmark dataset.

METHODS

 101 colonoscopy videos were used as benchmark. Each video frame with a visible polyp was manually annotated with bounding boxes, resulting in 129 705 polyp images. The videos were then analyzed by three different CADe systems, representing five conditions: two versions of GI Genius, Endo-AID with detection Types A and B, and EndoMind, a freely available system. Evaluation included an analysis of sensitivity and false-positive rate, among other metrics.

RESULTS

 Endo-AID detection Type A, the earlier version of GI Genius, and EndoMind detected all 93 polyps. Both the later version of GI Genius and Endo-AID Type B missed 1 polyp. The mean per-frame sensitivities were 50.63 % and 67.85 %, respectively, for the earlier and later versions of GI Genius, 65.60 % and 52.95 %, respectively, for Endo-AID Types A and B, and 60.22 % for EndoMind.

CONCLUSIONS

 This study compares the performance of different CADe systems, different updates, and different configuration modes. This might help clinicians to select the most appropriate system for their specific needs.

Effect of artificial intelligence on novice-performed colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled tandem study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The efficacy and safety of colonoscopy performed by artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted novices remain unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the lesion detection capability of novices, AI-assisted novices, and experts.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, noninferiority tandem study was conducted across 3 hospitals in China from May 1, 2022, to November 11, 2022. Eligible patients were randomized into 1 of 3 groups: the CN group (control novice group, withdrawal performed by a novice independently), the AN group (AI-assisted novice group, withdrawal performed by a novice with AI assistance), or the CE group (control expert group, withdrawal performed by an expert independently). Participants underwent a repeat colonoscopy conducted by an AI-assisted expert to evaluate the lesion miss rate and ensure lesion detection. The primary outcome was the adenoma miss rate (AMR).

RESULTS

A total of 685 eligible patients were analyzed: 229 in the CN group, 227 in the AN group, and 229 in the CE group. Both AMR and polyp miss rate were lower in the AN group than in the CN group (18.82% vs 43.69% [P < .001] and 21.23% vs 35.38% [P < .001], respectively). The noninferiority margin was met between the AN and CE groups of both AMR and polyp miss rate (18.82% vs 26.97% [P = .202] and 21.23% vs 24.10% [P < .249]).

CONCLUSIONS

AI-assisted colonoscopy lowered the AMR of novices, making them noninferior to experts. The withdrawal technique of new endoscopists can be enhanced by AI-assisted colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT05323279.).

Care Delivery Interventions for Individuals with Cancer: A Literature Review and Focus on Gastrointestinal Malignancies

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal malignancies represent a particularly challenging condition, often requiring a multidisciplinary approach to management in order to meet the unique needs of these individuals and their caregivers.

PURPOSE

In this literature review, we sought to describe care delivery interventions that strive to improve the quality of life and care for patients with a focus on gastrointestinal malignancies.

CONCLUSION

We highlight patient-centered care delivery interventions, including patient-reported outcomes, hospital-at-home interventions, and other models of care for individuals with cancer. By demonstrating the relevance and utility of these different care models for patients with gastrointestinal malignancies, we hope to highlight the importance of developing and testing new interventions to address the unique needs of this population.

ENDOANGEL versus water exchange for the detection of colorectal adenomas

Background

Recently, the ENDOANGEL (EN) system, a computer-assisted detection technique, and water exchange (WE) assisted colonoscopy have both been shown to increase the colorectal adenoma detection rate (ADR).

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the ADR between EN- and WE-assisted colonoscopy.

Design

This was a retrospective study.

Methods

Data from patients who underwent either EN- or WE-assisted colonoscopy between October 2021 and August 2022 were analysed consecutively. The primary outcome measure was the ADR.

Results

The ADR was found to be similar between the EN and WE groups, with 80 out of 199 (40.2%) patients in the EN group compared to 78 out of 174 (44.8%) patients in the WE group [1.21; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.80-1.83]. In the analysis using stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting after adjustment for confounding factors, both colonoscopy methods had similar performance in terms of ADR (1.41; 95% CI, 0.88-2.27).

Conclusion

EN was found to be comparable to WE in terms of ADR during colonoscopy, and both methods may be effectively used in clinical practice.

Evaluation of computer aided detection during colonoscopy among Veterans: Randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

There has been significant interest in use of computer aided detection (CADe) devices in colonoscopy to improve polyp detection and reduce miss rate.

AIM

To investigate the use of CADe amongst veterans.

METHODS

Between September 2020 and December 2021, we performed a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of CADe. Patients at Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System presenting for screening or low-risk surveillance were randomized to colonoscopy performed with or without CADe. Primary outcomes of interest included adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), and adenomas per extraction. In addition, we measured serrated polyps per colonoscopy, non-adenomatous, non-serrated polyps per colonoscopy, serrated polyp detection rate, and procedural time.

RESULTS

A total of 244 patients were enrolled (124 with CADe), with similar patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, indication) between the two groups. Use of CADe was found to have decreased number of adenomas (1.79 vs 2.53, P = 0.030) per colonoscopy compared to without CADe. There was no significant difference in number of serrated polyps or non-adenomatous non-serrated polyps per colonoscopy between the two groups. Overall, use of CADe was found to have lower ADR (68.5% vs 80.0%, P = 0.041) compared to without use of CADe. Serrated polyp detection rate was lower with CADe (3.2% vs 7.5%) compared to without CADe, but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.137). There was no significant difference in withdrawal and procedure times between the two groups or in detection of adenomas per extraction (71.4% vs 73.1%, P = 0.613). No adverse events were identified.

CONCLUSION

While several randomized controlled trials have demonstrated improved ADR and APC with use of CADe, in this RCT performed at a center with high ADR, use of CADe was found to have decreased APC and ADR. Further studies are needed to understand the true impact of CADe on performance quality among endoscopists as well as determine criteria for endoscopists to consider when choosing to adopt CADe in their practices.

Application of artificial intelligence in endoscopic gastrointestinal tumors

With an increasing number of patients with gastrointestinal cancer, effective and accurate early diagnostic clinical tools are required provide better health care for patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Recent studies have shown that artificial intelligence (AI) plays an important role in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with gastrointestinal tumors, which not only improves the efficiency of early tumor screening, but also significantly improves the survival rate of patients after treatment. With the aid of efficient learning and judgment abilities of AI, endoscopists can improve the accuracy of diagnosis and treatment through endoscopy and avoid incorrect descriptions or judgments of gastrointestinal lesions. The present article provides an overview of the application status of various artificial intelligence in gastric and colorectal cancers in recent years, and the direction of future research and clinical practice is clarified from a clinical perspective to provide a comprehensive theoretical basis for AI as a promising diagnostic and therapeutic tool for gastrointestinal cancer.

Can artificial intelligence replace endoscopists when assessing mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis? A systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDS AND AIMS

Mucosal healing (MH) in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is an important landmark for clinical decision making. Artificial intelligence systems (AI) that automatically deliver the grade of endoscopic inflammation may solve moderate interobserver agreement and the need of central reading in clinical trials.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of EMBASE and MEDLINE databases up to 01/12/2022 following PRISMA and the Joanna Briggs Institute methodologies to answer the following question: "Can AI replace endoscopists when assessing MH in IBD?". The research was restricted to ulcerative colitis (UC), and a diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) meta-analysis was performed. Risk of bias was evaluated with QUADAS-2 tool.

RESULTS

A total of 21 / 739 records were selected for full text evaluation, and 12 were included in the meta-analysis. Deep learning algorithms based on convolutional neural networks architecture achieved a satisfactory performance in evaluating MH on UC, with sensitivity, specificity, DOR and SROC of respectively 0.91(CI95 %:0.86-0.95);0.89(CI95 %:0.84-0.93);92.42(CI95 %:54.22-157.53) and 0.957 when evaluating fixed images (n = 8) and 0.86(CI95 %:0.75-0.93);0.91(CI95 %:0.87-0.94);70.86(CI95 %:24.63-203.86) and 0.941 when evaluating videos (n = 6). Moderate-high levels of heterogeneity were noted, limiting the quality of the evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

AI systems showed high potential in detecting MH in UC with optimal diagnostic performance, although moderate-high heterogeneity of the data was noted. Standardised and shared AI training may reduce heterogeneity between systems.

Artificial intelligence for colorectal neoplasia detection during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in detecting colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopy holds the potential to enhance adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and reduce adenoma miss rates (AMRs). However, varied outcomes have been observed across studies. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the potential advantages and disadvantages of employing AI-aided systems during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords, a comprehensive electronic literature search was performed of the Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library databases from the inception of each database until October 04, 2023, in order to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AI-assisted with standard colonoscopy for detecting colorectal neoplasia. Primary outcomes included AMR, ADR, and adenomas detected per colonoscopy (APC). Secondary outcomes comprised the poly missed detection rate (PMR), poly detection rate (PDR), and poly detected per colonoscopy (PPC). We utilized random-effects meta-analyses with Hartung-Knapp adjustment to consolidate results. The prediction interval (PI) and I2 statistics were utilized to quantify between-study heterogeneity. Moreover, meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the potential sources of heterogeneity. This systematic review and meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023428658).

FINDINGS

This study encompassed 33 trials involving 27,404 patients. Those undergoing AI-aided colonoscopy experienced a significant decrease in PMR (RR, 0.475; 95% CI, 0.294-0.768; I2 = 87.49%) and AMR (RR, 0.495; 95% CI, 0.390-0.627; I2 = 48.76%). Additionally, a significant increase in PDR (RR, 1.238; 95% CI, 1.158-1.323; I2 = 81.67%) and ADR (RR, 1.242; 95% CI, 1.159-1.332; I2 = 78.87%), along with a significant increase in the rates of PPC (IRR, 1.388; 95% CI, 1.270-1.517; I2 = 91.99%) and APC (IRR, 1.390; 95% CI, 1.277-1.513; I2 = 86.24%), was observed. This resulted in 0.271 more PPCs (95% CI, 0.144-0.259; I2 = 65.61%) and 0.202 more APCs (95% CI, 0.144-0.259; I2 = 68.15%).

INTERPRETATION

AI-aided colonoscopy significantly enhanced the detection of colorectal neoplasia detection, likely by reducing the miss rate. However, future studies should focus on evaluating the cost-effectiveness and long-term benefits of AI-aided colonoscopy in reducing cancer incidence.

FUNDING

This work was supported by the Heilongjiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (LH2023H096), the Postdoctoral research project in Heilongjiang Province (LBH-Z22210), the National Natural Science Foundation of China's General Program (82072640) and the Outstanding Youth Project of Heilongjiang Natural Science Foundation (YQ2021H023).

Effects of machine learning-based clinical decision support systems on decision-making, care delivery, and patient outcomes: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to summarize the research literature evaluating machine learning (ML)-based clinical decision support (CDS) systems in healthcare settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a review in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses extension for Scoping Review). Four databases, including PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Scopus were searched for studies published from January 2016 to April 2021 evaluating the use of ML-based CDS in clinical settings. We extracted the study design, care setting, clinical task, CDS task, and ML method. The level of CDS autonomy was examined using a previously published 3-level classification based on the division of clinical tasks between the clinician and CDS; effects on decision-making, care delivery, and patient outcomes were summarized.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies evaluating the use of ML-based CDS in clinical settings were identified. All were undertaken in developed countries and largely in secondary and tertiary care settings. The most common clinical tasks supported by ML-based CDS were image recognition and interpretation (n = 12) and risk assessment (n = 9). The majority of studies examined assistive CDS (n = 23) which required clinicians to confirm or approve CDS recommendations for risk assessment in sepsis and for interpreting cancerous lesions in colonoscopy. Effects on decision-making, care delivery, and patient outcomes were mixed.

CONCLUSION

ML-based CDS are being evaluated in many clinical areas. There remain many opportunities to apply and evaluate effects of ML-based CDS on decision-making, care delivery, and patient outcomes, particularly in resource-constrained settings.

Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy

Diagnostic errors impact patient health and healthcare costs. Artificial Intelligence (AI) shows promise in mitigating this burden by supporting Medical Doctors in decision-making. However, the mere display of excellent or even superhuman performance by AI in specific tasks does not guarantee a positive impact on medical practice. Effective AI assistance should target the primary causes of human errors and foster effective collaborative decision-making with human experts who remain the ultimate decision-makers. In this narrative review, we apply these principles to the specific scenario of AI assistance during colonoscopy. By unraveling the neurocognitive foundations of the colonoscopy procedure, we identify multiple bottlenecks in perception, attention, and decision-making that contribute to diagnostic errors, shedding light on potential interventions to mitigate them. Furthermore, we explored how existing AI devices fare in clinical practice and whether they achieved an optimal integration with the human decision-maker. We argue that to foster optimal Human-AI collaboration, future research should expand our knowledge of factors influencing AI's impact, establish evidence-based cognitive models, and develop training programs based on them. These efforts will enhance human-AI collaboration, ultimately improving diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes. The principles illuminated in this review hold more general value, extending their relevance to a wide array of medical procedures and beyond.

Optimization of colonoscopy quality: Comprehensive review of the literature and future perspectives

Colonoscopy is crucial in preventing colorectal cancer (CRC) and reducing associated mortality. This comprehensive review examines the importance of high-quality colonoscopy and associated quality indicators, including bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), complete resection, specimen retrieval, complication rates, and patient satisfaction, while also discussing other ADR-related metrics. Additionally, the review draws attention to often overlooked quality aspects, such as nonpolypoid lesion detection, as well as insertion and withdrawal skills. Moreover, it explores the potential of artificial intelligence in enhancing colonoscopy quality and highlights specific considerations for organized screening programs. The review also emphasizes the implications of organized screening programs and the need for continuous quality improvement. A high-quality colonoscopy is crucial for preventing postcolonoscopy CRC- and CRC-related deaths. Health-care professionals must develop a thorough understanding of colonoscopy quality components, including technical quality, patient safety, and patient experience. By prioritizing ongoing evaluation and refinement of these quality indicators, health-care providers can contribute to improved patient outcomes and develop more effective CRC screening programs.

Cost-utility analysis of real-time artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy in Italy

Background and study aims Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy has proven to be effective compared with colonoscopy alone in an average-risk population. We aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of GI GENIUS, the first marketed real-time AI system in an Italian high-risk population. Methods A 1-year cycle cohort Markov model was developed to simulate the disease evolution of a cohort of Italian individuals positive on fecal immunochemical test (FIT), aged 50 years, undergoing colonoscopy with or without the AI system. Adenoma or colorectal cancer (CRC) were identified according to detection rates specific for each technique. Costs were estimated from the Italian National Health Service perspective. Results Colonoscopy+AI system was dominant with respect to standard colonoscopy. The GI GENIUS system prevented 155 CRC cases (-2.7%), 77 CRC-related deaths (-2.8%), and improved quality of life (+0.027 QALY) with respect to colonoscopy alone. The increase in screening cost (+€10.50) and care for adenoma (+€3.53) was offset by the savings in cost of care for CRC (-€28.37), leading to a total savings of €14.34 per patient. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the cost-efficacy of the AI system (almost 80% probability). Conclusions The implementation of AI detection tools in colonoscopy after patients test FIT-positive seems to be a cost-saving strategy for preventing CRC incidence and mortality.

Blue-light imaging or narrow-band imaging for proximal colonic lesions: a prospective randomized tandem colonoscopy study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Blue-light imaging (BLI) is a new image-enhanced endoscopy with a wavelength filter similar to narrow-band imaging (NBI). We compared the 2 with white-light imaging (WLI) on proximal colonic lesion detection and miss rates.

METHODS

In this 3-arm prospective randomized study with tandem examination of the proximal colon, we enrolled patients aged ≥40 years. Eligible patients were randomized in 1:1:1 ratio to receive BLI, NBI, or WLI during the first withdrawal from the proximal colon. The second withdrawal was performed using WLI in all patients. Primary outcomes were proximal polyp (pPDRs) and adenoma (pADRs) detection rates. Secondary outcomes were miss rates of proximal lesions found on tandem examination.

RESULTS

Of 901 patients included (mean age, 64.7 years; 52.9% men), 48.1% underwent colonoscopy for screening or surveillance. The corresponding pPDRs of the BLI, NBI, and WLI groups were 45.8%, 41.6, and 36.6%, whereas the corresponding pADRs were 36.6%, 33.8%, and 28.3%. There was a significant difference in pPDR and pADR between BLI and WLI groups (difference, 9.2% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 3.3-16.9] and 8.3% [95% CI, 2.7-15.9]) and between NBI and WLI groups (difference, 5.0% [95% CI, 1.4-12.9] and 5.6% [95% CI, 2.1-13.3]). Proximal adenoma miss rates were significantly lower with BLI (19.4%) than with WLI (27.4%; difference, -8.0%; 95% CI, -15.8 to -.1) but not between NBI (27.2%) and WLI.

CONCLUSIONS

Both BLI and NBI were superior to WLI on detecting proximal colonic lesions, but only BLI had lower proximal adenoma miss rates than WLI. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03696992.).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of computer-aided detection systems for colonoscopy in Japan

OBJECTIVES

The usefulness of computer-aided detection systems (CADe) for colonoscopy has been increasingly reported. In many countries, however, data on the cost-effectiveness of their use are lacking; consequently, CADe for colonoscopy has not been covered by health insurance. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy using CADe in Japan.

METHODS

We conducted a simulation model analysis using Japanese data to examine the cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy with and without CADe for a population aged 40-74 years who received colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT). The rates of receiving FIT screening and colonoscopy following a positive FIT were set as 40% and 70%, respectively. The sensitivities of FIT for advanced adenomas and CRC Dukes' A-D were 26.5% and 52.8-78.3%, respectively. CADe colonoscopy was judged to be cost-effective when its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was below JPY 5,000,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained.

RESULTS

Compared to conventional colonoscopy, CADe colonoscopy showed a higher QALY (20.4098 vs. 20.4088) and lower CRC incidence (2373 vs. 2415 per 100,000) and mortality (561 vs. 569 per 100,000). When the CADe cost was set at JPY 1000-6000, the ICER per QALY gained for CADe colonoscopy was lower than JPY 5,000,000 (JPY 796,328-4,971,274). The CADe cost threshold at which the ICER for CADe colonoscopy exceeded JPY 5,000,000 was JPY 6040.

CONCLUSIONS

Computer-aided detection systems for colonoscopy has the potential to be cost-effective when the CADe cost is up to JPY 6000. These results suggest that the insurance reimbursement of CADe for colonoscopy is reasonable.