RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer) in answering patients' questions about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, with the ultimate goal of enhancing patients' awareness and adherence to national screening programs. METHODS: 15 questions on CRC screening were posed to ChatGPT4. The answers were rated by 20 gastroenterology experts and 20 non-experts in three domains (accuracy, completeness, and comprehensibility), and by 100 patients in three dichotomic domains (completeness, comprehensibility and trustability). RESULTS: According to expert rating, the mean accuracy score was 4.8±1.1 on a scale ranging from 1 to 6. Men completeness score was 2.1±0.7 and mean comprehensibility score was 2.8±0.4 on a scale ranging from 1 to 3. Overall, accuracy (4.8±1.1 vs 5.6±0.7, P<0.001) and completeness (2.1±0.7 vs 2.7±0.4, P<0.001) scores were significantly lower for expert compared to non-expert, while comprehensibility was comparable among the two groups (2.7±0.4 vs 2.8±0.3, P=0.546). Patients rated all questions as complete, comprehensible and trustable in 97 to 100% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT shows good performance with the potential to enhance awareness about CRC and improve screening outcomes. Generative language systems may be further improved after proper training in accordance with scientific evidence and current guidelines.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To develop and externally validate an updated artificial intelligence (AI) prediction system for stratifying the risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in T2 colorectal cancer (CRC). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Recent technical advances allow complete local excision of T2 CRC, traditionally treated with surgical resection. Yet, the widespread adoption of this approach is hampered by the inability to stratify the risk of LNM. METHODS: Data from pT2 CRC patients undergoing surgical resection between April 2000 and May 2022 at one Japanese and one Italian center were analyzed. Primary goal was AI system development for accurate LNM prediction. Predictors encompassed seven variables: age, sex, tumor size and location, lympho-vascular invasion, histological differentiation, and carcinoembryonic antigen level. The tool's discriminating power was assessed via Area Under the Curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: Out of 735 initial patients, 692 were eligible. Training and validation cohorts comprised of 492 and 200 patients, respectively. The AI model displayed an AUC of 0.75 in the combined validation dataset. Sensitivity for LNM prediction was 97.8% and specificity was 15.6%. The Positive and the Negative Predictive Value were 25.7% and 96% respectively. The False Negative (FN) rate was 2.2%, the False Positive was 84.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Our AI model, based on easily accessible clinical and pathological variables, moderately predicts LNM in T2 CRC. However, the risk of FN needs to be considered. The training of the model including more patients across Western and Eastern centers -differentiating between colon and rectal cancers- may improve its performance and accuracy.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUNDS AND AIMS: The Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES) is the most popular endoscopic disease activity measure of ulcerative colitis (UC). Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy is expected to reduce diagnostic variability among endoscopists. However, no study has been conducted to ascertain whether AI-based MES assignments can help predict clinical relapse, nor has AI been verified to improve the diagnostic performance of non-specialists. METHODS: This open-label, prospective cohort study enrolled 110 patients with UC in clinical remission. The AI algorithm was developed using 74713 images from 898 patients who underwent colonoscopy at three centers. Patients were followed up after colonoscopy for 12 months, and clinical relapse was defined as a partial Mayo score >2. A multi-video, multi-reader analysis involving 124 videos was conducted to determine whether the AI system reduced the diagnostic variability among six non-specialists. RESULTS: The clinical relapse rate for patients with AI-based MES = 1 (24.5% [12/49]) was significantly higher (log-rank test, P = 0.01) than that for patients with AI-based MES = 0 (3.2% [1/31]). Relapse occurred during the 12-month follow-up period in 16.2% (13/80) of patients with AI-based MES = 0 or 1 and 50.0% (10/20) of those with AI-based MES = 2 or 3 (log-rank test, P = 0.03). Using AI resulted in better inter- and intra-observer reproducibility than endoscopists alone. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy using the AI-based MES system can stratify the risk of clinical relapse in patients with UC and improve the diagnostic performance of non-specialists.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: There have been significant advances in the management of large (≥20 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) or nonpedunculated colorectal polyps; however, there is a lack of clear consensus on the management of these lesions with significant geographic variability especially between Eastern and Western paradigms. We aimed to provide an international consensus to better guide management and attempt to homogenize practices. METHODS: Two experts in interventional endoscopy spearheaded an evidence-based Delphi study on behalf of the World Endoscopy Organization Colorectal Cancer Screening Committee. A steering committee comprising six members devised 51 statements, and 43 experts from 18 countries on six continents participated in a three-round voting process. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool was used to assess evidence quality and recommendation strength. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement (strongly agree or agree) on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Forty-two statements reached consensus after three rounds of voting. Recommendations included: three statements on training and competency; 10 statements on preresection evaluation, including optical diagnosis, classification, and staging of LSTs; 14 statements on endoscopic resection indications and technique, including statements on en bloc and piecemeal resection decision-making; seven statements on postresection evaluation; and eight statements on postresection care. CONCLUSIONS: An international expert consensus based on the current available evidence has been developed to guide the evaluation, resection, and follow-up of LSTs. This may provide guiding principles for the global management of these lesions and standardize current practices.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) allows prediction of polyp histology during colonoscopy, which may reduce unnecessary removal of nonneoplastic polyps. However, the potential benefits and harms of CADx are still unclear. PURPOSE: To quantify the benefit and harm of using CADx in colonoscopy for the optical diagnosis of small (≤5-mm) rectosigmoid polyps. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Scopus were searched for articles published before 22 December 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Histologically verified diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated the real-time performance of physicians in predicting neoplastic change of small rectosigmoid polyps without or with CADx assistance during colonoscopy. DATA EXTRACTION: The clinical benefit and harm were estimated on the basis of accuracy values of the endoscopist before and after CADx assistance. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. The outcome measure for benefit was the proportion of polyps predicted to be nonneoplastic that would avoid removal with the use of CADx. The outcome measure for harm was the proportion of neoplastic polyps that would be not resected and left in situ due to an incorrect diagnosis with the use of CADx. Histology served as the reference standard for both outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten studies, including 3620 patients with 4103 small rectosigmoid polyps, were analyzed. The studies that assessed the performance of CADx alone (9 studies; 3237 polyps) showed a sensitivity of 87.3% (95% CI, 79.2% to 92.5%) and specificity of 88.9% (CI, 81.7% to 93.5%) in predicting neoplastic change. In the studies that compared histology prediction performance before versus after CADx assistance (4 studies; 2503 polyps), there was no difference in the proportion of polyps predicted to be nonneoplastic that would avoid removal (55.4% vs. 58.4%; risk ratio [RR], 1.06 [CI, 0.96 to 1.17]; moderate-certainty evidence) or in the proportion of neoplastic polyps that would be erroneously left in situ (8.2% vs. 7.5%; RR, 0.95 [CI, 0.69 to 1.33]; moderate-certainty evidence). LIMITATION: The application of optical diagnosis was only simulated, potentially altering the decision-making process of the operator. CONCLUSION: Computer-aided diagnosis provided no incremental benefit or harm in the management of small rectosigmoid polyps during colonoscopy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: European Commission. (PROSPERO: CRD42023402197).
Asunto(s)
Pólipos del Colon , Colonoscopía , Diagnóstico por Computador , Humanos , Pólipos del Colon/patología , Pólipos del Colon/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Colorrectales/patología , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnósticoRESUMEN
Integrating artificial intelligence into inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has the potential to revolutionise clinical practice and research. Artificial intelligence harnesses advanced algorithms to deliver accurate assessments of IBD endoscopy and histology, offering precise evaluations of disease activity, standardised scoring, and outcome prediction. Furthermore, artificial intelligence offers the potential for a holistic endo-histo-omics approach by interlacing and harmonising endoscopy, histology, and omics data towards precision medicine. The emerging applications of artificial intelligence could pave the way for personalised medicine in IBD, offering patient stratification for the most beneficial therapy with minimal risk. Although artificial intelligence holds promise, challenges remain, including data quality, standardisation, reproducibility, scarcity of randomised controlled trials, clinical implementation, ethical concerns, legal liability, and regulatory issues. The development of standardised guidelines and interdisciplinary collaboration, including policy makers and regulatory agencies, is crucial for addressing these challenges and advancing artificial intelligence in IBD clinical practice and trials.
Asunto(s)
Inteligencia Artificial , Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino , Medicina de Precisión , Humanos , Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino/patología , Medicina de Precisión/métodos , Endoscopía Gastrointestinal/métodosRESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Accurate polyp size estimation during colonoscopy has an impact on clinical decision-making. A laser-based virtual scale endoscope (VSE) is available to allow measuring polyp size using a virtual adaptive scale. This study evaluates video-based polyp size measurement accuracy among expert endoscopists using either VSE or visual assessment (VA) with either snare as reference size or without any reference size information. METHODS: A prospective, video-based study was conducted with 10 expert endoscopists. Video sequences from 90 polyps with known reference size (fresh specimen measured using calipers) were distributed on three different slide sets so that each slide set showed the same polyp only once with either VSE, VA or snare-based information. A slide set was randomly assigned to each endoscopist. Endoscopists were asked to provide size estimation based on video review. RESULTS: Relative accuracies for VSE, VA, and snare-based estimation were 75.1% (95% CI [71.6-78.5]), 65.0% (95% CI [59.5-70.4]) and 62.0% (95% CI [54.8-69.0]), respectively. VSE yielded significantly higher relative accuracy compared to VA (p = 0.002) and to snare (p = 0.001). A significantly lower percentage of polyps 1-5 mm were misclassified as >5 mm using VSE versus VA and snare (6.52% vs. 19.6% and 17.5%, p = 0.004) and a significantly lower percentage of polyps >5 mm were misclassified as 1-5 mm using VSE versus VA and snare (11.4% vs. 31.9% and 14.9%, p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists estimate polyp size with the highest accuracy when virtual adaptive scale information is displayed. Using a snare to assist sizing did not improve measurement accuracy compared to displaying visual information alone.
Asunto(s)
Pólipos del Colon , Colonoscopía , Grabación en Video , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Colonoscopía/métodos , Pólipos del Colon/patología , Competencia Clínica , Masculino , FemeninoRESUMEN
Computer-assisted polyp characterization (computer-aided diagnosis, CADx) facilitates optical diagnosis during colonoscopy. Several studies have demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity of CADx tools in identifying neoplastic changes in colorectal polyps. To implement CADx tools in colonoscopy, there is a need to confirm whether these tools satisfy the threshold levels that are required to introduce optical diagnosis strategies such as "diagnose-and-leave," "resect-and-discard" or "DISCARD-lite." In this article, we review the available data from prospective trials regarding the effect of multiple CADx tools and discuss whether they meet these thresholds.
RESUMEN
Establishing appropriate trust and maintaining a balanced reliance on digital resources are vital for accurate optical diagnoses and effective integration of computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) in colonoscopy. Active learning using diverse polyp image datasets can help in developing precise CADx systems. Enhancing doctors' digital literacy and interpreting their results is crucial. Explainable artificial intelligence (AI) addresses opacity, and textual descriptions, along with AI-generated content, deepen the interpretability of AI-based findings by doctors. AI conveying uncertainties and decision confidence aids doctors' acceptance of results. Optimal AI-doctor collaboration requires improving algorithm performance, transparency, addressing uncertainties, and enhancing doctors' optical diagnostic skills.
Asunto(s)
Inteligencia Artificial , Colonoscopía , Diagnóstico por Computador , Humanos , Colonoscopía/métodos , Diagnóstico por Computador/métodos , Pólipos del Colon/diagnóstico por imagen , Pólipos del Colon/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico por imagen , AlgoritmosRESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
Importance: Cancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests. Objective: To estimate lifetime gained with cancer screening. Data Sources: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized clinical trials with more than 9 years of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality and estimated lifetime gained for 6 commonly used cancer screening tests, comparing screening with no screening. The analysis included the general population. MEDLINE and the Cochrane library databases were searched, and the last search was performed October 12, 2022. Study Selection: Mammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for colorectal cancer; computed tomography screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Searches and selection criteria followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data were independently extracted by a single observer, and pooled analysis of clinical trials was used for analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Life-years gained by screening was calculated as the difference in observed lifetime in the screening vs the no screening groups and computed absolute lifetime gained in days with 95% CIs for each screening test from meta-analyses or single randomized clinical trials. Results: In total, 2â¯111â¯958 individuals enrolled in randomized clinical trials comparing screening with no screening using 6 different tests were eligible. Median follow-up was 10 years for computed tomography, prostate-specific antigen testing, and colonoscopy; 13 years for mammography; and 15 years for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT. The only screening test with a significant lifetime gain was sigmoidoscopy (110 days; 95% CI, 0-274 days). There was no significant difference following mammography (0 days: 95% CI, -190 to 237 days), prostate cancer screening (37 days; 95% CI, -37 to 73 days), colonoscopy (37 days; 95% CI, -146 to 146 days), FOBT screening every year or every other year (0 days; 95% CI, -70.7 to 70.7 days), and lung cancer screening (107 days; 95% CI, -286 days to 430 days). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Neoplasias de la Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Antígeno Prostático Específico , Tamizaje Masivo/métodos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Colonoscopía , Sangre OcultaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopy may increase adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and reduce adenoma miss rates, but it may increase overdiagnosis and overtreatment of nonneoplastic polyps. PURPOSE: To quantify the benefits and harms of CADe in randomized trials. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. (PROSPERO: CRD42022293181). DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases through February 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials comparing CADe-assisted with standard colonoscopy for polyp and cancer detection. DATA EXTRACTION: Adenoma detection rate (proportion of patients with ≥1 adenoma), number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenoma (≥10 mm with high-grade dysplasia and villous histology), number of serrated lesions per colonoscopy, and adenoma miss rate were extracted as benefit outcomes. Number of polypectomies for nonneoplastic lesions and withdrawal time were extracted as harm outcomes. For each outcome, studies were pooled using a random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-one randomized trials on 18 232 patients were included. The ADR was higher in the CADe group than in the standard colonoscopy group (44.0% vs. 35.9%; relative risk, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.33]; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to a 55% (risk ratio, 0.45 [CI, 0.35 to 0.58]) relative reduction in miss rate (moderate-certainty evidence). More nonneoplastic polyps were removed in the CADe than the standard group (0.52 vs. 0.34 per colonoscopy; mean difference [MD], 0.18 polypectomy [CI, 0.11 to 0.26 polypectomy]; low-certainty evidence). Mean inspection time increased only marginally with CADe (MD, 0.47 minute [CI, 0.23 to 0.72 minute]; moderate-certainty evidence). LIMITATIONS: This review focused on surrogates of patient-important outcomes. Most patients, however, may consider cancer incidence and cancer-related mortality important outcomes. The effect of CADe on such patient-important outcomes remains unclear. CONCLUSION: The use of CADe for polyp detection during colonoscopy results in increased detection of adenomas but not advanced adenomas and in higher rates of unnecessary removal of nonneoplastic polyps. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: European Commission Horizon 2020 Marie Sklodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship.
Asunto(s)
Inteligencia Artificial , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Humanos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Computadores , Colonoscopía , Bases de Datos FactualesRESUMEN
Gastrointestinal endoscopy is largely dependent on medical devices. The European Union (EU) has recently introduced stricter rules and regulations for the approval of medical devices. This has consequences both for endoscopists and for patients. The new regulations increase the need for clinical trials and observational studies for new and current devices used in endoscopy to ensure clinical benefit and reduce patient harm. European endoscopy environments should facilitate industry-sponsored clinical trials and registry studies to meet the demand for robust data on endoscopic devices as required in the new legislation. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) will play an active role in the establishment of the new system.The EU is establishing independent expert panels for device regulation in gastroenterology and hepatology, including endoscopy, that are charged with assessing the requirements for device testing. The ESGE encourages endoscopists with expertise in the technical and clinical performance of endoscopy devices to apply for expert panel membership. The ESGE has provided information for interested endoscopists on the ESGE website. Private European companies called "notified bodies" are entitled to conduct device approval for the EU. The ESGE will actively engage with these notified bodies for topics related to the new endoscopy device approval process to ensure continued access to high quality endoscopy devices for endoscopists in Europe.