Computer-Aided Diagnosis for Leaving Colorectal Polyps In Situ : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

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).

Endoscopic Gastrointestinal Placement of Capsule Endoscopy to Investigate the Small Bowel: a Multicentric European Retrospective Series of 630 Procedures in Adult Patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Small bowel (SB) capsule endoscopy (CE) is a first line procedure for exploring the SB. Endoscopic GastroIntestinal PlacemenT (EGIPT) of SB CE is sometimes necessary. While the experience of EGIPT is large in pediatric populations, we aimed to describe the safety, efficacy and outcomes of EGIPT of SB CE in adult patients. METHODS: The international CApsule endoscopy REsearch (iCARE) group set up a retrospective multicenter study. Patients over 18 year-old who underwent EGIPT of SB CE before May 2022 were included. Data were collected from medical records and capsule recordings. The primary endpoint was the technical success rate of the EGIPT procedures. RESULTS: 630 patients were included (mean age 62.5 years old, 55.9% female) from 39,565 patients (1.6%) issued from 29 centers. EGIPT technical success was achieved in 610 procedures (96.8%). Anesthesia (moderate/deep sedation or general anesthesia) and centers with intermediate or high procedure loads were independent factors of technical success. Severe adverse events occurred in three (0.5%) patients. When technically successful, EGIPT was associated with a high SB CE completion rate (84.4%) and with a substantial diagnostic yield (61.1%). Completion rate was significantly higher when the capsule was delivered in the SB compared to when delivered in the stomach. CONCLUSION: EGIPT of SB CE is highly feasible, safe and comes with high completion rate and diagnostic yield. When indicated, it should rather be performed under anesthesia and the capsule should be delivered in the duodenum rather than in the stomach, for better SB examination outcomes.

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.

White light computer-aided optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps in routine clinical practice.

Background and study aims Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems could make the optical diagnosis (OD) of diminutive colorectal polyps (DCPs) more reliable and objective. This study was aimed at prospectively evaluating feasibility and diagnostic performance of AI-standalone and AI-assisted OD of DCPs in a real-life setting by using a white light-based system (GI Genius, Medtronic Co, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States). Patients and methods Consecutive colonoscopy outpatients with at least one DCP were evaluated by 11 endoscopists (5 experts and 6 non-experts in OD). DCPs were classified in real time by AI (AI-standalone OD) and by the endoscopist with the assistance of AI (AI-assisted OD), with histopathology as the reference standard. Results Of the 480 DCPs, AI provided the outcome "adenoma" or "non-adenoma" in 81.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 77.5-84.6). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and accuracy of AI-standalone OD were 97.0% (95% CI 94.0-98.6), 38.1% (95% CI 28.9-48.1), 80.1% (95% CI 75.2-84.2), 83.3% (95% CI 69.2-92.0), and 80.5% (95% CI 68.7-82.8%), respectively. Compared with AI-standalone, the specificity of AI-assisted OD was significantly higher (58.9%, 95% CI 49.7-67.5) and a trend toward an increase was observed for other diagnostic performance measures. Overall accuracy and negative predictive value of AI-assisted OD for experts and non-experts were 85.8% (95% CI 80.0-90.4) vs. 80.1% (95% CI 73.6-85.6) and 89.1% (95% CI 75.6-95.9) vs. 80.0% (95% CI 63.9-90.4), respectively. Conclusions Standalone AI is able to provide an OD of adenoma/non-adenoma in more than 80% of DCPs, with a high sensitivity but low specificity. The human-machine interaction improved diagnostic performance, especially when experts were involved.

Scoring systems for risk stratification in upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

Several scoring systems have been developed for both upper and lower GI bleeding to predict the bleeding severity and discriminate between low-risk patients, who may be suitable for outpatient management, and those who would likely need hospital-based interventions and are at high risk for adverse outcomes. Risk scores created to identify low-risk patients (namely the Glasgow Blatchford Score and the Oakland score) showed very good discriminative performances and their implementation has proven to be effective in reducing hospital admissions and healthcare burden. Conversely, the performances of risk scores in identifying specific adverse events to define high-risk patients are less accurate, and whether their integration into routine clinical practice has a tangible impact on patient management remains unproven. This review describes the existing risk score systems for GI bleeding, emphasizes key research findings, elucidates the circumstances in which their utilization can be beneficial, examines their constraints when considering routine clinical application, and discuss future development.