Computer-Aided Image Enhanced Endoscopy Automated System to Boost Polyp and Adenoma Detection Accuracy.

Colonoscopy is the gold standard to detect colon polyps prematurely. Early detection, characterization and resection of polyps decrease colon cancer incidence. Colon polyp missing rate remains high despite novel methods development. Narrowed-band imaging (NBI) is one of the image enhance techniques used to boost polyp detection and characterization, which uses special filters to enhance the contrast of the mucosa surface and vascular pattern of the polyp. However, the single-button-activated system is not convenient for a full-time colonoscopy operation. We selected three methods to simulate the NBI system: Color Transfer with Mean Shift (CTMS), Multi-scale Retinex with Color Restoration (MSRCR), and Gamma and Sigmoid Conversions (GSC). The results show that the classification accuracy using the original images is the lowest. All color transfer methods outperform the original images approach. Our results verified that the color transfer has a positive impact on the polyp identification and classification task. Combined analysis results of the mAP and the accuracy show an excellent performance of the MSRCR method.

Polyp detection and false-positive rates by computer-aided analysis of withdrawal-phase videos of colonoscopy of the right-sided colon segment in a randomized controlled trial comparing water exchange and air insufflation.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Water exchange (WE) improves lesion detection but misses polyps because of human limitations. Computer-aided detection (CADe) identifies additional polyps overlooked by the colonoscopist. Additional polyp detection rate (APDR) is the proportion of patients with at least 1 additional polyp detected by CADe. The number of false positives (because of feces and air bubble) per colonoscopy (FPPC) is a major CADe limitation, which might be reduced by salvage cleaning with WE. We compared the APDR and FPPC by CADe between videos of WE and air insufflation in the right-sided colon. METHODS: CADe used a convolutional neural network with transfer learning. We edited and coded withdrawal-phase videos in a randomized controlled trial that compared right-sided colon findings between air insufflation and WE. Two experienced blinded endoscopists analyzed the CADe-overlaid videos and identified additional polyps by consensus. An artifact triggered by CADe but not considered a polyp by the reviewers was defined as a false positive. The primary outcome was APDR. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-five coded videos of colonoscopies inserted with WE (n = 123) and air insufflation (n = 122) methods were analyzed. The APDR in the WE group was significantly higher (37 [30.1%] vs 15 [12.3%], P = .001). The mean [standard deviation] FPPC related to feces (1.78 [1.67] vs 2.09 [2.09], P = .007) and bubbles (.53 [.89] vs 1.25 [2.45], P = .001) in the WE group were significantly lower. CONCLUSIONS: CADe showed significantly higher APDR and lower number of FPPC related to feces and bubbles in the WE group. The results support the hypothesis that the strengths of CADe and WE complement the weaknesses of each other in optimizing polyp detection.