Improvement in adenoma detection using a novel artificial intelligence-aided polyp detection device

Colon Cancer Screening, Surveillance, and Treatment: Novel Artificial Intelligence Driving Strategies in the Management of Colon Lesions

Colonoscopy, a crucial procedure for detecting and removing colorectal polyps, has seen transformative advancements through the integration of artificial intelligence, specifically in computer-aided detection (CADe) and diagnosis (CADx). These tools enhance real-time detection and characterization of lesions, potentially reducing human error, and standardizing the quality of colonoscopy across endoscopists. CADe has proven effective in increasing adenoma detection rate, potentially reducing long-term colorectal cancer incidence. However, CADe's benefits are accompanied by challenges, such as potentially longer procedure times, increased non-neoplastic polyp resections, and a higher surveillance burden. CADx, although promising in differentiating neoplastic and non-neoplastic diminutive polyps, encounters limitations in accuracy, particularly in the proximal colon. Real-world data also revealed gaps between trial efficacy and practical outcomes, emphasizing the need for further research in uncontrolled settings. Moreover, CADx limited specificity and binary output underscore the necessity for explainable artificial intelligence to gain endoscopists' trust. This review aimed to explore the benefits, harms, and limitations of artificial intelligence for colon cancer screening, surveillance, and treatment focusing on CADe and CADx systems for lesion detection and characterization, respectively, while addressing challenges in integrating these technologies into clinical practice.

Effectiveness of a novel artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy system for adenoma detection: a prospective, propensity score-matched, non-randomized controlled study in Korea

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The real-world effectiveness of computer-aided detection (CADe) systems during colonoscopies remains uncertain. We assessed the effectiveness of the novel CADe system, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device (ENAD), in enhancing the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and other quality indicators in real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

We enrolled patients who underwent elective colonoscopies between May 2022 and October 2022 at a tertiary healthcare center. Standard colonoscopy (SC) was compared to ENAD-assisted colonoscopy. Eight experienced endoscopists performed the procedures in randomly assigned CADe- and non-CADe-assisted rooms. The primary outcome was a comparison of ADR between the ENAD and SC groups.

RESULTS

A total of 1,758 sex- and age-matched patients were included and evenly distributed into two groups. The ENAD group had a significantly higher ADR (45.1% vs. 38.8%, p=0.010), higher sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR) (5.7% vs. 2.5%, p=0.001), higher mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) (0.78±1.17 vs. 0.61±0.99; incidence risk ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.42), and longer withdrawal time (9.0±3.4 vs. 8.3±3.1, p<0.001) than the SC group. However, the mean withdrawal times were not significantly different between the two groups in cases where no polyps were detected (6.9±1.7 vs. 6.7±1.7, p=0.058).

CONCLUSIONS

ENAD-assisted colonoscopy significantly improved the ADR, APC, and SSLDR in real-world clinical practice, particularly for smaller and nonpolypoid adenomas.

Patient and procedural factors associated with true histology rates in patients undergoing colonoscopy with computer-aided detection of polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Computer-aided detection (CADe) devices have been shown to increase adenoma detection rates and adenomas per colonoscopy compared to standard colonoscopies. Questions remain about whether CADe colonoscopies are mainly increasing the detection of small, nonneoplastic lesions or if they are detecting more pathologically meaningful polyps. In this analysis, we compare the true histology rate (defined as polyps with confirmation of clinically relevant histopathology) of CADe-identified polyps with polyps identified during standard colonoscopies.

METHODS

Using data from the SKOUT trial, we compared the true histology rate (THR) between CADe and standard colonoscopies. We also conducted a subgroup analysis by patient, procedural, and endoscopist factors. To account for multiple testing of comparisons, we used the false discovery rate.

RESULTS

A total of 1423 participants were included (CADe, n = 714; standard, n = 709). Overall, THR was similar between the CADe and standard colonoscopy arms for adenomas, sessile serrated lesions, and large hyperplastic polyps. Higher THR with CADe colonoscopy was observed in some subgroups for adenomas. Endoscopists with 11 to 20 years of experience and procedures occurring after 12 pm had significantly higher adenoma THRs in the CADe cohort. Patients younger than 65 years, male patients, and procedures with a withdrawal time of ≥8 minutes had borderline significance in the CADe device adenoma THR subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

CADe colonoscopies may hold the key to improving endoscopic quality measures, provided that the polyps identified by the CADe device are those of clinical relevance. Although the benefit and significance in the CADe group were demonstrated in this analysis, further research is warranted to ensure that the true histology is maintained when applied in real-world applications.

A computer-aided detection system in the everyday setting of diagnostic, screening, and surveillance colonoscopy: an international, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

 Computer-aided detection (CADe) has been developed to improve detection during colonoscopy. After initial reports of high efficacy, there has been an increasing recognition of variability in the effectiveness of CADe systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate a CADe system in a varied colonoscopy population.

METHODS

 A multicenter, randomized trial was conducted at seven hospitals (both university and non-university) in Europe and Canada. Participants referred for diagnostic, non-immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT) screening, or surveillance colonoscopy were randomized (1:1) to undergo CADe-assisted or conventional colonoscopy by experienced endoscopists. Participants with insufficient bowel preparation were excluded from the analysis. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes included adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) and sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) per colonoscopy.

RESULTS

 581 participants were enrolled, of whom 497 were included in the final analysis: 250 in the CADe arm and 247 in the conventional colonoscopy arm. The indication was surveillance in 202/497 colonoscopies (40.6 %), diagnostic in 199/497 (40.0 %), and non-iFOBT screening in 96/497 (19.3 %). Overall, ADR (38.4 % vs. 37.7 %; P = 0.43) and APC (0.66 vs. 0.66; P = 0.97) were similar between CADe and conventional colonoscopy. SSLs per colonoscopy was increased (0.30 vs. 0.19; P = 0.049) in the CADe arm vs. the conventional colonoscopy arm.

CONCLUSIONS

 In this study conducted by experienced endoscopists, CADe did not result in a statistically significant increase in ADR. However, the ADR of our control group substantially surpassed our sample size assumptions, increasing the risk of an underpowered trial.

Use of a Novel Artificial Intelligence System Leads to the Detection of Significantly Higher Number of Adenomas During Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy: Results From a Large, Prospective, US Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) has recently been proposed as a quality measure for colonoscopy. We evaluated the impact of a novel artificial intelligence (AI) system, compared with standard high-definition colonoscopy, for APC measurement.

METHODS

This was a US-based, multicenter, prospective randomized trial examining a novel AI detection system (EW10-EC02) that enables a real-time colorectal polyp detection enabled with the colonoscope (CAD-EYE). Eligible average-risk subjects (45 years or older) undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy were randomized to undergo either CAD-EYE-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) or conventional colonoscopy (CC). Modified intention-to-treat analysis was performed for all patients who completed colonoscopy with the primary outcome of APC. Secondary outcomes included positive predictive value (total number of adenomas divided by total polyps removed) and adenoma detection rate.

RESULTS

In modified intention-to-treat analysis, of 1,031 subjects (age: 59.1 ± 9.8 years; 49.9% male), 510 underwent CAC vs 523 underwent CC with no significant differences in age, gender, ethnicity, or colonoscopy indication between the 2 groups. CAC led to a significantly higher APC compared with CC: 0.99 ± 1.6 vs 0.85 ± 1.5, P = 0.02, incidence rate ratio 1.17 (1.03-1.33, P = 0.02) with no significant difference in the withdrawal time: 11.28 ± 4.59 minutes vs 10.8 ± 4.81 minutes; P = 0.11 between the 2 groups. Difference in positive predictive value of a polyp being an adenoma among CAC and CC was less than 10% threshold established: 48.6% vs 54%, 95% CI -9.56% to -1.48%. There were no significant differences in adenoma detection rate (46.9% vs 42.8%), advanced adenoma (6.5% vs 6.3%), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (12.9% vs 10.1%), and polyp detection rate (63.9% vs 59.3%) between the 2 groups. There was a higher polyp per colonoscopy with CAC compared with CC: 1.68 ± 2.1 vs 1.33 ± 1.8 (incidence rate ratio 1.27; 1.15-1.4; P < 0.01).

DISCUSSION

Use of a novel AI detection system showed to a significantly higher number of adenomas per colonoscopy compared with conventional high-definition colonoscopy without any increase in colonoscopy withdrawal time, thus supporting the use of AI-assisted colonoscopy to improve colonoscopy quality ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04979962).

Artificial Intelligence in Colorectal Cancer: From Patient Screening over Tailoring Treatment Decisions to Identification of Novel Biomarkers

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly entering and transforming not only medical research but also clinical practice. In the last 10 years, new AI methods have enabled computers to perform visual tasks, reaching high performance and thereby potentially supporting and even outperforming human experts. This is in particular relevant for colorectal cancer (CRC), which is the 3rd most common cancer type in general, as along the CRC patient journey many complex visual tasks need to be performed: from endoscopy over imaging to histopathology; the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of CRC involve visual image analysis tasks.

SUMMARY

In all these clinical areas, AI models have shown promising results by supporting physicians, improving accuracy, and providing new biological insights and biomarkers. By predicting prognostic and predictive biomarkers from routine images/slides, AI models could lead to an improved patient stratification for precision oncology approaches in the near future. Moreover, it is conceivable that AI models, in particular together with innovative techniques such as single-cell or spatial profiling, could help identify novel clinically as well as biologically meaningful biomarkers that could pave the way to new therapeutic approaches.

KEY MESSAGES

Here, we give a comprehensive overview of AI in colorectal cancer, describing and discussing these developments as well as the next steps which need to be taken to incorporate AI methods more broadly into the clinical care of CRC.

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.

Lack of Effectiveness of Computer Aided Detection for Colorectal Neoplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Nonrandomized Studies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Benefits of computer-aided detection (CADe) in detecting colorectal neoplasia were shown in many randomized trials in which endoscopists' behavior was strictly controlled. However, the effect of CADe on endoscopists' performance in less-controlled setting is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analyses were aimed at clarifying benefits and harms of using CADe in real-world colonoscopy.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar from inception to August 20, 2023. We included nonrandomized studies that compared the effectiveness between CADe-assisted and standard colonoscopy. Two investigators independently extracted study data and quality. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed utilizing risk ratio for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Eight studies were included, comprising 9782 patients (4569 with CADe and 5213 without CADe). Regarding benefits, there was a difference in neither adenoma detection rate (44% vs 38%; risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.28) nor mean adenomas per colonoscopy (0.93 vs 0.79; MD, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.32) between CADe-assisted and standard colonoscopy, respectively. Regarding harms, there was no difference in the mean non-neoplastic lesions per colonoscopy (8 studies included for analysis; 0.52 vs 0.47; MD, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.34) and withdrawal time (6 studies included for analysis; 14.3 vs 13.4 minutes; MD, 0.8 minutes; 95% CI, -0.18 to 1.90). There was a substantial heterogeneity, and all outcomes were graded with a very low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSION

CADe in colonoscopies neither improves the detection of colorectal neoplasia nor increases burden of colonoscopy in real-world, nonrandomized studies, questioning the generalizability of the results of randomized trials.

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.

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.

Recent advances in devices and technologies that might prove revolutionary for colonoscopy procedures

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy and second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the world. Adenoma detection rate (ADR), a quality indicator for colonoscopy, has gained prominence as it is inversely related to CRC incidence and mortality. As such, recent efforts have focused on developing novel colonoscopy devices and technologies to improve ADR.

AREAS COVERED

The main objective of this paper is to provide an overview of advancements in the fields of colonoscopy mechanical attachments, artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy, and colonoscopy optical enhancements with respect to ADR. We accomplished this by performing a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases from inception to September 2023. This review is intended to be an introduction to colonoscopy devices and technologies.

EXPERT OPINION

Numerous mechanical attachments and optical enhancements have been developed that have the potential to improve ADR and AI has gone from being an inaccessible concept to a feasible means for improving ADR. While these advances are exciting and portend a change in what will be considered standard colonoscopy, they continue to require refinement. Future studies should focus on combining modalities to further improve ADR and exploring the use of these technologies in other facets of colonoscopy.

Artificial intelligence in gastroenterology: A narrative review

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a complex concept, broadly defined in medicine as the development of computer systems to perform tasks that require human intelligence. It has the capacity to revolutionize medicine by increasing efficiency, expediting data and image analysis and identifying patterns, trends and associations in large datasets. Within gastroenterology, recent research efforts have focused on using AI in esophagogastroduodenoscopy, wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) and colonoscopy to assist in diagnosis, disease monitoring, lesion detection and therapeutic intervention. The main objective of this narrative review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the research being performed within gastroenterology on AI in esophagogastroduodenoscopy, WCE and colonoscopy.

Real-time colorectal polyp detection using a novel computer-aided detection system (CADe): a feasibility study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonoscopy aims to early detect and remove precancerous colorectal polyps, thereby preventing development of colorectal cancer (CRC). Recently, computer-aided detection (CADe) systems have been developed to assist endoscopists in polyp detection during colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to investigate feasibility and safety of a novel CADe system during real-time colonoscopy in three European tertiary referral centers.

METHODS

Ninety patients undergoing colonoscopy assisted by a real-time CADe system (DISCOVERY; Pentax Medical, Tokyo, Japan) were prospectively included. The CADe system was turned on only at withdrawal, and its output was displayed on secondary monitor. To study feasibility, inspection time, polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rate (SDR), and the number of false positives were recorded. To study safety, (severe) adverse events ((S)AEs) were collected. Additionally, user friendliness was rated from 1 (worst) to 10 (best) by endoscopists.

RESULTS

Mean inspection time was 10.8 ± 4.3 min, while PDR was 55.6%, ADR 28.9%, and SDR 11.1%. The CADe system users estimated that < 20 false positives occurred in 81 colonoscopy procedures (90%). No (S)AEs related to the CADe system were observed during the 30-day follow-up period. User friendliness was rated as good, with a median score of 8/10.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy with this novel CADe system in a real-time setting was feasible and safe. Although PDR and SDR were high compared to previous studies with other CADe systems, future randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these detection rates. The high SDR is of particular interest since interval CRC has been suggested to develop frequently through the serrated neoplasia pathway.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered in the Dutch Trial Register (reference number: NL8788).

Computer-Aided Detection Improves Adenomas per Colonoscopy for Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening is endoscopist dependent, and colonoscopy quality improvement programs aim to improve efficacy. This study evaluated the clinical benefit and safety of using a computer-aided detection (CADe) device in colonoscopy procedures.

METHODS

This randomized study prospectively evaluated the use of a CADe device at 5 academic and community centers by US board-certified gastroenterologists (n = 22). Participants aged ≥40 scheduled for screening or surveillance (≥3 years) colonoscopy were included; exclusion criteria included incomplete procedure, diagnostic indication, inflammatory bowel disease, and familial adenomatous polyposis. Patients were randomized by endoscopist to the standard or CADe colonoscopy arm using computer-generated, random-block method. The 2 primary endpoints were adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), the total number of adenomas resected divided by the total number of colonoscopies; and true histology rate (THR), the proportion of resections with clinically significant histology divided by the total number of polyp resections. The primary analysis used a modified intention-to-treat approach.

RESULTS

Between January and September 2021, 1440 participants were enrolled to be randomized. After exclusion of participants who did not meet the eligibility criteria, 677 in the standard arm and 682 in the CADe arm were included in a modified intention-to-treat analysis. APC increased significantly with use of the CADe device (standard vs CADe: 0.83 vs 1.05, P = .002; total number of adenomas, 562 vs 719). There was no decrease in THR with use of the CADe device (standard vs CADe: 71.7% vs 67.4%, P for noninferiority < .001; total number of non-neoplastic lesions, 284 vs 375). Adenoma detection rate was 43.9% and 47.8% in the standard and CADe arms, respectively (P = .065).

CONCLUSIONS

For experienced endoscopists performing screening and surveillance colonoscopies in the United States, the CADe device statistically improved overall adenoma detection (APC) without a concomitant increase in resection of non-neoplastic lesions (THR).

CLINICALTRIALS

gov registration: NCT04754347.

Risk of total metachronous advanced neoplasia in patients with both small tubular adenomas and serrated polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The impact of concomitant small serrated polyps (SPs) on the risk of subsequent neoplasia when small tubular adenomas (TAs) are found is uncertain.

METHODS

Patients who on index colonoscopy had ≤2 TAs of <10 mm in size in isolation were compared with those with concomitant ≤2 small-sized SPs. SP was inclusive of polyps described by pathology as sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) or proximal hyperplastic polyps (HPs) <10 mm in size. The primary endpoint was the rate of total metachronous advanced neoplasia (T-MAN) compared among the TAs in the isolation group and the groups inclusive of SPs (SSLs or proximal HPs).

RESULTS

For patients with TAs and small SPs found concomitantly, the rate of T-MAN was 9.6% (24/251), which was significantly higher than the rate of T-MAN in patients with isolated small TAs (5.2% [59/1138], P = .011). Within the concomitant SP cohort, the rate of T-MAN in the proximal HP subgroup remained significantly increased (9% [19/212]) compared with the isolated small TA group (P = .037).

CONCLUSIONS

When small TAs are found concomitantly with small SPs, there is an increase in the rate of T-MAN in comparison with isolated TAs. This increase in T-MAN also occurs when small TAs are found in conjunction with small proximal HPs. The presence of concomitant small SPs should be considered in determining surveillance intervals when small TAs are identified in colonoscopy screening programs.

Quality Indicators for the Detection and Removal of Colorectal Polyps and Interventions to Improve Them

Modifiable risk factors for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer include suboptimal lesion detection (missed neoplasms) and inadequate lesion removal (incomplete polypectomy) during colonoscopy. Competent detection and removal of colorectal polyps are thus fundamental to ensuring adequate colonoscopy quality. Several well-researched quality metrics for polyp detection have been implemented into clinical practice, chief among these the adenoma detection rate. Less data are available on quality indicators for polyp removal, which currently include complete resection rates and skills assessment tools. This review summarizes the available literature on quality indicators for the detection and removal of colorectal polyps, as well as interventions to improve them.