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).

Structured training program on confocal laser endomicroscopy for pancreatic cystic lesions: a multicenter prospective study among early-career endosonographers (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data on how to teach endosonographers needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE)-guided histologic diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are limited. Hence, we developed and tested a structured educational program to train early-career endosonographers in nCLE-guided diagnosis of PCLs. METHODS: Twenty-one early-career nCLE-naïve endosonographers watched a teaching module outlining nCLE criteria for diagnosing PCLs. Participants then reviewed 80 high-yield nCLE videos, recorded diagnoses, and received expert feedback (phase 1). Observers were then randomized to a refresher feedback session or self-learning at 4 weeks. Eight weeks after training, participants independently assessed the same 80 nCLE videos without feedback and provided histologic predictions (phase 2). Diagnostic performance of nCLE to differentiate mucinous versus nonmucinous PCLs and to diagnose specific subtypes were analyzed using histopathology as the criterion standard. Learning curves were determined using cumulative sum analysis. RESULTS: Accuracy and diagnostic confidence for differentiating mucinous versus nonmucinous PCLs improved as endosonographers progressed through nCLE videos in phase 1 (P < .001). Similar trends were observed with the diagnosis of PCL subtypes. Most participants achieved competency interpreting nCLE, requiring a median of 38 assessments (range, 9-67). During phase 2, participants independently differentiated PCLs with high accuracy (89%), high confidence (83%), and substantial interobserver agreement (κ = .63). Accuracy for nCLE-guided PCL subtype diagnoses ranged from 82% to 96%. The learned nCLE skills did not deteriorate at 8 weeks and were not impacted by a refresher session. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a practical, effective, and durable educational intervention to train early-career endosonographers in nCLE-guided diagnosis of PCLs.

Anesthetist-Directed Sedation Favors Success of Advanced Endoscopic Procedures.

OBJECTIVES: Sedation is required to perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) given the duration and complexity of these advanced procedures. Sedation options include anesthetist-directed sedation (ADS) vs. gastroenterologist-directed sedation (GDS). Although ADS has been shown to shorten induction and recovery times, it is not established whether it impacts likelihood of procedure completion. Our aim was to assess whether ADS impacts the success of advanced endoscopy procedures. METHODS: We prospectively assessed the sedation strategy for patients undergoing ERCP and EUS between October 2010 and October 2013. Although assignment to ADS vs. GDS was not randomized, it was determined by day of the week. A sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching was used to model a randomized trial. The main outcome, procedure failure, was defined as an inability to satisfactorily complete the ERCP or EUS such that an additional endoscopic, radiographic, or surgical procedure was required. Failure was further categorized as failure due to inadequate sedation vs. technical problems. RESULTS: During the 3-year study period, 60% of the 1,171 procedures were carried out with GDS and 40% were carried out with ADS. Failed procedures occurred in 13.0% of GDS cases compared with 8.9% of ADS procedures (multivariate odds ratio (OR): 2.4 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5-3.6)).This was driven by a higher rate of sedation failures in the GDS group, 7.0%, than in the ADS group, 1.3% (multivariate OR: 7.8 (95% CI: 3.3-18.8)). There was no difference in technical success between the GDS and ADS groups (multivariate OR: 1.2 (95% CI: 0.7-1.9)). We were able to match 417 GDS cases to 417 ADS cases based on procedure type, indication, and propensity score. Analysis of the propensity score-matched patients confirmed our findings of increased sedation failure (multivariate OR: 8.9 (95% CI: 2.5-32.1)) but not technical failure (multivariate OR: 1.2 (0.7-2.2)) in GDS compared with ADS procedures. Adverse events of sedation were rare in both groups. Failed ERCP in the GDS group resulted in a total of 93 additional days of hospitalization. We estimate that $67,891 would have been saved if ADS had been used for all ERCP procedures. No statistically significant difference in EUS success was identified, although this sub-analysis was limited by sample size. CONCLUSION: ADS improves the success of advanced endoscopic procedures. Its routine use may increase the quality and efficiency of these services.