Impact of an artificial intelligence-aided endoscopic diagnosis system on improving endoscopy quality for trainees in colonoscopy: Prospective, randomized, multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to evaluate whether the use of CAD EYE (Fujifilm, Tokyo, Japan) for colonoscopy improves colonoscopy quality in gastroenterology trainees. METHODS: The patients in this multicenter randomized controlled trial were divided into Group A (observation using CAD EYE) and Group B (standard observation). Six trainees performed colonoscopies using a back-to-back method in pairs with gastroenterology experts. The primary end-point was the trainees' adenoma detection rate (ADR), and the secondary end-points were the trainees' adenoma miss rate (AMR) and Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool scores. Each trainee's learning curve was evaluated using a cumulative sum (CUSUM) control chart. RESULTS: We analyzed data for 231 patients (Group A, n = 113; Group B, n = 118). The ADR was not significantly different between the two groups. Group A had a significantly lower AMR (25.6% vs. 38.6%, P = 0.033) and number of missed adenomas per patient (0.5 vs. 0.9, P = 0.004) than Group B. Group A also had significantly higher ACE tool scores for pathology identification (2.26 vs. 2.07, P = 0.030) and interpretation and identification of pathology location (2.18 vs. 2.00, P = 0.038). For the CUSUM learning curve, Group A showed a trend toward a lower number of cases of missed multiple adenomas by the six trainees. CONCLUSION: CAD EYE did not improve ADR but decreased the AMR and improved the ability to accurately locate and identify colorectal adenomas. CAD EYE can be assumed to be beneficial for improving colonoscopy quality in gastroenterology trainees. TRIAL REGISTRATION: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000044031).

Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Miss Rate of Colorectal Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Artificial intelligence (AI) may detect colorectal polyps that have been missed due to perceptual pitfalls. By reducing such miss rate, AI may increase the detection of colorectal neoplasia leading to a higher degree of colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. METHODS: Patients undergoing CRC screening or surveillance were enrolled in 8 centers (Italy, UK, US), and randomized (1:1) to undergo 2 same-day, back-to-back colonoscopies with or without AI (deep learning computer aided diagnosis endoscopy) in 2 different arms, namely AI followed by colonoscopy without AI or vice-versa. Adenoma miss rate (AMR) was calculated as the number of histologically verified lesions detected at second colonoscopy divided by the total number of lesions detected at first and second colonoscopy. Mean number of lesions detected in the second colonoscopy and proportion of false negative subjects (no lesion at first colonoscopy and at least 1 at second) were calculated. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were adjusted by endoscopist, age, sex, and indication for colonoscopy. Adverse events were also measured. RESULTS: A total of 230 subjects (116 AI first, 114 standard colonoscopy first) were included in the study analysis. AMR was 15.5% (38 of 246) and 32.4% (80 of 247) in the arm with AI and non-AI colonoscopy first, respectively (adjusted OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.62). In detail, AMR was lower for AI first for the ≤5 mm (15.9% vs 35.8%; OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.21-0.55) and nonpolypoid lesions (16.8% vs 45.8%; OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.43), and it was lower both in the proximal (18.3% vs 32.5%; OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78) and distal colon (10.8% vs 32.1%; OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.11-0.57). Mean number of adenomas at second colonoscopy was lower in the AI-first group as compared with non-AI colonoscopy first (0.33 ± 0.63 vs 0.70 ± 0.97, P < .001). False negative rates were 6.8% (3 of 44 patients) and 29.6% (13 of 44) in the AI and non-AI first arms, respectively (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05-0.67). No difference in the rate of adverse events was found between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: AI resulted in an approximately 2-fold reduction in miss rate of colorectal neoplasia, supporting AI-benefit in reducing perceptual errors for small and subtle lesions at standard colonoscopy. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT03954548.

Effect of computer-aided colonoscopy on adenoma miss rates and polyp detection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Multiple computer-aided techniques utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) have been created to improve the detection of polyps during colonoscopy and thereby reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer. While adenoma detection rates (ADR) and polyp detection rates (PDR) are important colonoscopy quality indicators, adenoma miss rates (AMR) may better quantify missed lesions, which can ultimately lead to interval colorectal cancer. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of computer-aided colonoscopy (CAC) with respect to AMR, ADR, and PDR in randomized controlled trials. METHODS: A comprehensive, systematic literature search was performed across multiple databases in September of 2022 to identify randomized, controlled trials that compared CAC with traditional colonoscopy. Primary outcomes were AMR, ADR, and PDR. RESULTS: Fourteen studies totaling 10 928 patients were included in the final analysis. There was a 65% reduction in the adenoma miss rate with CAC (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.49, P < 0.001, I2  = 50%). There was a 78% reduction in the sessile serrated lesion miss rate with CAC (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.65, P < 0.01, I2  = 0%). There was a 52% increase in ADR in the CAC group compared with the control group (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.39-1.67, P = 0.04, I2  = 47%). There was 93% increase in the number of adenomas > 10 mm detected per colonoscopy with CAC (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.18-3.16, P < 0.01, I2  = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study demonstrate the promise of CAC in improving AMR, ADR, PDR across a spectrum of size and morphological lesion characteristics.

Clinical Evaluation of Computer-Aided Colorectal Neoplasia Detection Using a Novel Endoscopic Artificial Intelligence: A Single-Center Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Computer-aided diagnostic systems are emerging in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy. In this study, we assessed the clinical performance of the computer-aided detection (CADe) of colonic adenomas using a new endoscopic artificial intelligence system. METHODS: This was a single-center prospective randomized study including 415 participants allocated into the CADe group (n = 207) and control group (n = 208). All endoscopic examinations were performed by experienced endoscopists. The performance of the CADe was assessed based on the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Additionally, we compared the adenoma miss rate for the rectosigmoid colon (AMRrs) between the groups. RESULTS: The basic demographic and procedural characteristics of the CADe and control groups were as follows: mean age, 54.9 and 55.9 years; male sex, 73.9% and 69.7% of participants; and mean withdrawal time, 411.8 and 399.0 s, respectively. The ADR was 59.4% in the CADe group and 47.6% in the control group (p = 0.018). The AMRrs was 11.9% in the CADe group and 26.0% in the control group (p = 0.037). CONCLUSION: The colonoscopy with the CADe system yielded an 11.8% higher ADR than that performed by experienced endoscopists alone. Moreover, there was no need to extend the examination time or request the assistance of additional medical staff to achieve this improved effectiveness. We believe that the novel CADe system can lead to considerable advances in colorectal cancer diagnosis.

Risk Factors Related to Polyp Miss Rate of Short-Term Repeated Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is regarded as the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. However, previous studies have reported large numbers of polyps were missed during routine colonoscopy. AIMS: To evaluate polyp miss rate in short-term repeated colonoscopy and explore the related risk factors. METHODS: A total of 3695 patients and 12,412 polyps were included in our studies. We calculated the miss rate for polyps of different sizes, pathologies, morphologies and locations, and patients of different characteristics. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate risk factors related to miss rate. RESULTS: The polyp miss rate was 26.3% and the adenoma miss rate was 22.4% in our study. The advanced adenoma miss rate was 11.0% and the proportion of missed advanced adenomas in missed adenomas sized > 5 mm was up to 22.8%. Polyps sized < 5 mm had a significantly higher miss rate. The miss rate of pedunculated polyps was lower than that of flat or sessile polyps. Polyps in the right colon were prone to be missed than that in the left colon. For older men, current smokers, individuals with multiple polyps detected in the first colonoscopy, the risk of missing polyps was significantly higher. CONCLUSION: Nearly a quarter of polyps were missed during routine colonoscopy. Diminutive, flat, sessile, and right-side colon polyps were at higher risk of missing. The risk of missing polyps was higher in older men, current smokers, and individuals with multiple polyps detected in the first colonoscopy than their counterparts.

Deep Learning Computer-aided Polyp Detection Reduces Adenoma Miss Rate: A United States Multi-center Randomized Tandem Colonoscopy Study (CADeT-CS Trial).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Artificial intelligence-based computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) systems are intended to address the issue of missed polyps during colonoscopy. The effect of CADe during screening and surveillance colonoscopy has not previously been studied in a United States (U.S.) population. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multi-center, single-blind randomized tandem colonoscopy study to evaluate a deep-learning based CADe system (EndoScreener, Shanghai Wision AI, China). Patients were enrolled across 4 U.S. academic medical centers from 2019 through 2020. Patients presenting for colorectal cancer screening or surveillance were randomized to CADe colonoscopy first or high-definition white light (HDWL) colonoscopy first, followed immediately by the other procedure in tandem fashion by the same endoscopist. The primary outcome was adenoma miss rate (AMR), and secondary outcomes included sessile serrated lesion (SSL) miss rate and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). RESULTS: A total of 232 patients entered the study, with 116 patients randomized to undergo CADe colonoscopy first and 116 patients randomized to undergo HDWL colonoscopy first. After the exclusion of 9 patients, the study cohort included 223 patients. AMR was lower in the CADe-first group compared with the HDWL-first group (20.12% [34/169] vs 31.25% [45/144]; odds ratio [OR], 1.8048; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0780-3.0217; P = .0247). SSL miss rate was lower in the CADe-first group (7.14% [1/14]) vs the HDWL-first group (42.11% [8/19]; P = .0482). First-pass APC was higher in the CADe-first group (1.19 [standard deviation (SD), 2.03] vs 0.90 [SD, 1.55]; P = .0323). First-pass ADR was 50.44% in the CADe-first group and 43.64 % in the HDWL-first group (P = .3091). CONCLUSION: In this U.S. multicenter tandem colonoscopy randomized controlled trial, we demonstrate a decrease in AMR and SSL miss rate and an increase in first-pass APC with the use of a CADe-system when compared with HDWL colonoscopy alone.

Comparing right colon adenoma detection rate during water exchange and air insufflation: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported that water exchange (WE) produced the highest adenoma detection rate (ADR) but did not evaluate right colon adenoma detection rate (rADR) as a primary outcome and only one of the trials employed blinded colonoscopists. The aim of our study was to determine whether, compared with air insufflation, WE significantly increases rADR and right colon serrated lesion detection rate (rSLDR) and decreases adenoma miss rate (rAMR). METHODS: This prospective, double-blind RCT was conducted at a regional hospital in Taiwan between December 2015 and February 2020. Standard WE and air insufflation were performed. After cecal intubation, the second blinded endoscopist examined the right colon and obtained rADR (primary outcome) and rSLDR. Then, the primary colonoscopist reinserted the scope to the cecum with WE in both groups and performed a tandem examination of the right colon to obtain rAMR. RESULTS: There were 284 patients (50.9% male, mean age 58.9 ± 9.4 years) who were randomized to WE (n = 144) or air insufflation (n = 140). The baseline characteristics were similar. The rADR (34.7% vs. 22.3%, p = 0.025), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores (mean, 2.6 ± 0.6vs. 2.2 ± 0.6, p < 0.001), rSLDR (18.1% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.007), and rAMR (31.5% vs. 45.2%, p = 0.038) were significantly different between WE and air insufflation. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrated a significantly higher rADR and rSLDR with the WE method performed by blinded colonoscopists. The impact of the significant findings in this report on the occurrence of interval cancers deserves to be studied.

Detection of Colorectal Neoplasms Using Linked Color Imaging: A Prospective, Randomized, Tandem Colonoscopy Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) has been shown to be related to a lower incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. We analyzed the efficacy of linked color imaging (LCI) by assessing the detection, miss, and visibility of various featured adenomas as compared with white light imaging (WLI). METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, tandem trial. The participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups: first observation by LCI, then second observation by WLI (LCI group); or both observations by WLI (WLI group). Suspected neoplastic lesions were resected after magnifying image-enhanced endoscopy. The primary outcome was to compare the ADR during the first observation. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of adenoma miss rate (AMR) and visibility score. RESULTS: A total of 780 patients were randomized, 700 of whom were included in the final analysis. The ADR was 69.6% and 63.2% in the LCI and WLI groups, respectively, with no significant difference. However, LCI improved the average ADR in low-detectors compared with high-detectors (76.0% vs 55.1%; P < .001). Total AMR was 20.6% in the LCI group, which was significantly lower than that in the WLI group (31.1%) (P < .001). AMR in the LCI group was significantly lower, especially for diminutive adenomas (23.4% vs 35.1%; P < .001) and nonpolypoid lesions (25.6% vs 37.9%; P < .001) compared with the WLI group. CONCLUSION: Although both methods provided a similar ADR, LCI had a lower AMR than WLI. LCI could benefit endoscopists with lower ADR, an observation that warrants additional study. (UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, Number: UMIN000026359).

Water exchange colonoscopy decreased adenoma miss rates compared with literature data and local data with CO2 insufflation: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Reports showed adenoma miss rates (AMRs) of 22.5-27% in the right colon and 23.4-33.3% in the proximal colon. Missed lesions could contribute to postcolonoscopy cancers. Water exchange (WE) with near-complete removal of infused water during insertion increased adenoma detection rate but the impact on AMR had not been reported. We hypothesized that WE could reduce AMRs. Study 1 compared the AMRs of WE with literature data. Study 2 developed local AMR data with CO2 insufflation. METHODS: The lead author attended a research seminar in 2017 on WE colonoscopy. For performance improvement, study 1 was undertaken. When data in study 1 confirmed WE produced a considerably lower AMRs in the right and proximal colon, study 2 with CO2 insufflation was performed. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients completed each study. In study 1, WE removed 89% of infused water upon arrival to the cecum. The AMRs of right colon (17.5%) and proximal colon (15.5%) were considerably lower than those in the literature. Upon completion of study 2, compared with local data of CO2 insufflation, WE showed a significantly lower AMR in the right (17.5% vs. 33.8%, P = 0.034) and proximal (15.5% vs. 30.4%, P = 0.018) colon, respectively. The major limitation was that the investigation consisted of two consecutive observational studies, not a randomized controlled trial (RCT). CONCLUSIONS: WE with near-complete (89%) removal of infused water during insertion significantly decreased AMRs in the right and proximal colon compared with literature data and those of CO2 insufflation in our hands. The provocative data warrant confirmation in a RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03832322 (Retrospectively registered on February 2, 2019).

Emerging technological advancements in colonoscopy: Third Eye® Retroscope® and Third Eye® Panoramic(TM) , Fuse® Full Spectrum Endoscopy® colonoscopy platform, Extra-Wide-Angle-View colonoscope, and NaviAid(TM) G-EYE(TM) balloon colonoscope.

Colonoscopy is the criterion standard for detecting colorectal adenomas and cancers. However, multiple studies have reported a significant percentage of adenomas are missed during standard, forward-viewing colonoscopy. Missed adenomas can lead to interval colorectal cancers. Aside from inadequate colon preparation, incomplete examinations (e.g. failure to intubate the cecum), short withdrawal times, and patient-related factors, the primary reason for missing colorectal adenomas and early cancers is poor visualization of the proximal aspect of colonic folds, at anatomical flexures, and in the ileocecal valve area. These anatomical sites tend to be hidden from the standard forward-viewing colonoscope (170-degree angle of view) and can often only be seen through manipulation of the colonoscope by the endoscopist. Thus, there is mounting evidence supporting the need to reduce the adenoma 'miss rate' of standard forward-viewing colonoscopy by improving upon current colonoscope technology and its current visualization/optics limitations. Recently, there are a number of emerging technologies that may help revolutionize how colonoscopy is carried out and that will significantly reduce adenoma miss rates. These include the Third Eye® Retroscope® and Third Eye® Panoramic(TM) (Avantis Medical Systems, Sunnyvale, CA, USA); Fuse® Full Spectrum Endoscopy® colonoscopy platform (EndoChoice Inc., Alpharetta, GA, USA); Extra-Wide-Angle-View colonoscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), and the NaviAid(TM) G-EYE(TM) balloon colonoscope (SMART Medical Systems Ltd, Ra'anana, Israel).

Artificial intelligence for colorectal neoplasia detection during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Background: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in detecting colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopy holds the potential to enhance adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and reduce adenoma miss rates (AMRs). However, varied outcomes have been observed across studies. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the potential advantages and disadvantages of employing AI-aided systems during colonoscopy. Methods: Using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords, a comprehensive electronic literature search was performed of the Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library databases from the inception of each database until October 04, 2023, in order to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AI-assisted with standard colonoscopy for detecting colorectal neoplasia. Primary outcomes included AMR, ADR, and adenomas detected per colonoscopy (APC). Secondary outcomes comprised the poly missed detection rate (PMR), poly detection rate (PDR), and poly detected per colonoscopy (PPC). We utilized random-effects meta-analyses with Hartung-Knapp adjustment to consolidate results. The prediction interval (PI) and I2 statistics were utilized to quantify between-study heterogeneity. Moreover, meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the potential sources of heterogeneity. This systematic review and meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023428658). Findings: This study encompassed 33 trials involving 27,404 patients. Those undergoing AI-aided colonoscopy experienced a significant decrease in PMR (RR, 0.475; 95% CI, 0.294-0.768; I2 = 87.49%) and AMR (RR, 0.495; 95% CI, 0.390-0.627; I2 = 48.76%). Additionally, a significant increase in PDR (RR, 1.238; 95% CI, 1.158-1.323; I2 = 81.67%) and ADR (RR, 1.242; 95% CI, 1.159-1.332; I2 = 78.87%), along with a significant increase in the rates of PPC (IRR, 1.388; 95% CI, 1.270-1.517; I2 = 91.99%) and APC (IRR, 1.390; 95% CI, 1.277-1.513; I2 = 86.24%), was observed. This resulted in 0.271 more PPCs (95% CI, 0.144-0.259; I2 = 65.61%) and 0.202 more APCs (95% CI, 0.144-0.259; I2 = 68.15%). Interpretation: AI-aided colonoscopy significantly enhanced the detection of colorectal neoplasia detection, likely by reducing the miss rate. However, future studies should focus on evaluating the cost-effectiveness and long-term benefits of AI-aided colonoscopy in reducing cancer incidence. Funding: This work was supported by the Heilongjiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (LH2023H096), the Postdoctoral research project in Heilongjiang Province (LBH-Z22210), the National Natural Science Foundation of China's General Program (82072640) and the Outstanding Youth Project of Heilongjiang Natural Science Foundation (YQ2021H023).

Retroflexion, a costless endoscopic maneuver, increases adenoma detection rate in the ascending colon.

BACKGROUND: Missed polyps during colonoscopy are considered an important factor for interval cancer appearance, especially in the ascending colon (AC). We evaluated the contribution of retroflexion to polyp and adenoma detection in the AC. METHODS: This prospective observational study included consecutive patients who underwent a complete colonoscopy between 06/2017 and 06/2018. The AC was examined in 2 phases: the first included 2 forward views from the hepatic flexure to the cecum; the second involved a retroflexion in the cecum, inspection up to the hepatic flexure and reinsertion to the cecum. RESULTS: The study included 655 patients, 628 (95.88%) with successful retroflexion (mean age: 62.5±10.8 years, 332 male). Indications for colonoscopy were screening in 33.28%, follow up in 36.03%, and diagnostic assessment in 30.69%. In total, 286 polyps and 220 adenomas were detected in the AC. Phase 1 identified 119 adenomas, yielding an adenoma detection rate (ADR) in the AC of 14.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.52-16.84%) while phase 2 identified 86 additional adenomas, improving the ADR in the AC to 22.75% (95%CI 19.54-25.96%; P<0.01). Adenoma miss rate was 39.1% (86/225) and per-patient adenoma miss rate was 11.15% (73/655). Retroflexion proved beneficial mainly in the upper third of the AC (odds ratio [OR] 4.29, 95%CI 1.84-11.56; P<0.01) and for small (<5 mm) adenomas (OR 1.61, 95%CI 1.02-2.56; P=0.04). Multivariate analysis showed that age >60 years, detection of adenomas in forward views and the indication "follow up" influenced ADR during retroflexion. CONCLUSION: Retroflexion is a simple and safe maneuver that increases the ADR in the AC and should complete a second forward view.

Effect of water exchange method on adenoma miss rate of patients undergoing selective polypectomy: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adenomas may be missed in up to 40% of screening colonoscopies. Although the water exchange (WE) method can improve ADR, as shown in several RCTs, it remains uncertain whether it can increase the detection of missing adenomas compared with standard air-insufflated (AI) colonoscopy. METHODS: Patients aged 18-80 years who underwent selective polypectomy were randomly allocated to the WE or AI group. The primary endpoint was the adenoma miss rate (AMR), defined as the number of patients with one or more additional adenomas during the polypectomy procedure divided by the total number of patients in each group. RESULTS: A total of 450 patients were enrolled, with 225 in each group. The overall AMRs were 45.8% (103/225) in the WE group and 35.6% (80/225) in the AI group (p = 0.035). More patients in the WE group had at least one missed adenoma in the proximal colon (38.2% vs 24.4%, p = 0.002). The adenoma-level miss rate was also higher in the WE group than in the AI group (35.1% vs 29.0%, p = 0.036). Subgroup analysis showed that patients in the WE group had more missed adenomas located in the proximal colon or with flat shapes. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that substantial adenomas were missed in patients undergoing selective polypectomy. The WE method significantly improved the detection of missed adenomas, especially those located in the proximal colon or with flat shapes. (ClnicalTrials.gov number: NCT02880748).

A review of water exchange and artificial intelligence in improving adenoma detection.

Water exchange (WE) and artificial intelligence (AI) have made critical advances during the past decade. WE significantly increases adenoma detection and AI holds the potential to help endoscopists detect more polyps and adenomas. We performed an electronic literature search on PubMed using the following keywords: water-assisted and water exchange colonoscopy, adenoma and polyp detection, artificial intelligence, deep learning, neural networks, and computer-aided colonoscopy. We reviewed relevant articles published in English from 2010 to May 2020. Additional articles were searched manually from the reference lists of the publications reviewed. We discussed recent advances in both WE and AI, including their advantages and limitations. AI may mitigate operator-dependent factors that limit the potential of WE. By increasing bowel cleanliness and improving visualization, WE may provide the platform to optimize the performance of AI for colonoscopies. The strengths of WE and AI may complement each other in spite of their weaknesses to maximize adenoma detection.

Reducing adenoma miss rate of colonoscopy assisted by artificial intelligence: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We have developed the computer-aided detection (CADe) system using an original deep learning algorithm based on a convolutional neural network for assisting endoscopists in detecting colorectal lesions during colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to clarify whether adenoma miss rate (AMR) could be reduced with CADe assistance during screening and surveillance colonoscopy. METHODS: This study was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Patients aged 40 to 80 years who were referred for colorectal screening or surveillance at four sites in Japan were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to either the "standard colonoscopy (SC)-first group" or the "CADe-first group" to undergo a back-to-back tandem procedure. Tandem colonoscopies were performed on the same day for each participant by the same endoscopist in a preassigned order. All polyps detected in each pass were histopathologically diagnosed after biopsy or resection. RESULTS: A total of 358 patients were enrolled and 179 patients were assigned to the SC-first group or CADe-first group. The AMR of the CADe-first group was significantly lower than that of the SC-first group (13.8% vs. 36.7%, P < 0.0001). Similar results were observed for the polyp miss rate (14.2% vs. 40.6%, P < 0.0001) and sessile serrated lesion miss rate (13.0% vs. 38.5%, P = 0.03). The adenoma detection rate of CADe-assisted colonoscopy was 64.5%, which was significantly higher than that of standard colonoscopy (53.6%; P = 0.036). CONCLUSION: Our study results first showed a reduction in the AMR when assisting with CADe based on deep learning in a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based applications have transformed several industries and are widely used in various consumer products and services. In medicine, AI is primarily being used for image classification and natural language processing and has great potential to affect image-based specialties such as radiology, pathology, and gastroenterology (GE). This document reviews the reported applications of AI in GE, focusing on endoscopic image analysis. METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched through May 2020 for relevant articles by using key words such as machine learning, deep learning, artificial intelligence, computer-aided diagnosis, convolutional neural networks, GI endoscopy, and endoscopic image analysis. References and citations of the retrieved articles were also evaluated to identify pertinent studies. The manuscript was drafted by 2 authors and reviewed in person by members of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology Committee and subsequently by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Governing Board. RESULTS: Deep learning techniques such as convolutional neural networks have been used in several areas of GI endoscopy, including colorectal polyp detection and classification, analysis of endoscopic images for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection, detection and depth assessment of early gastric cancer, dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus, and detection of various abnormalities in wireless capsule endoscopy images. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of AI technologies across multiple GI endoscopic applications has the potential to transform clinical practice favorably and improve the efficiency and accuracy of current diagnostic methods.

The Role of Behind Folds Visualizing Techniques and Technologies in Improving Adenoma Detection Rate.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies in the Western world and is thought to develop from premalignant polyps. Over the past decade, several behind folds visualizing techniques (BFTs) have become available to improve polyp detection. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare BFTs with conventional colonoscopy (CC). RECENT FINDINGS: In the past five years, 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 8384 patients comparing different BFTs with CC were published. The overall relative risks for adenoma detection rate, polyp detection rate, and adenoma miss rate comparing BFTs with CC were 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.10; P = 0.15), 1.03 (95% CI 0.98-1.09; P = 0.28), and 0.70 (95% CI 0.46-1.05; P = 0.08), respectively. Other quality metrics for colonoscopy were not significantly different between BFT-assisted colonoscopy and CC either. This meta-analysis of RCTs published in the past five years does not show a significant benefit of BFTs on any of the important quality metrics of colonoscopy. The lack of additional effect of BFTs might be due to improved awareness of colonoscopy quality metrics and colonoscopy skills among endoscopists combined with improvements of conventional colonoscope technology.

Impact of retroflexion in the right colon after repeated forward-view examinations.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Right colon polyps can especially be overlooked when they are located on the backs of haustral folds. Previous studies have reported that repeated forward-view examinations in the right colon were effective in reducing adenoma miss rates. The aim of this study was to clarify the impact of retroflexion in the right colon after repeated forward-view examinations. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, observational study was conducted at three institutions in Kumamoto, Japan, between February 2014 and December 2015. Subjects who were over 40 years old and scheduled for colonoscopy were recruited. For the forward view, after cecal intubation, the colonoscope was withdrawn to the hepatic flexure. The colonoscope was sequentially reinserted to the cecum and then withdrawn to the hepatic flexure. For the retroflexion view (RV), the colonoscope was reinserted to the cecum, retroflexed, and then withdrawn to the hepatic flexure. All polyps were resected at the time of detection. The primary outcome of this study was the adenoma miss rate for the repeated forward-view examinations. RESULTS: Of the 777 enrolled participants, retroflexion was successful in 730 (94.0%). The repeated forward-view withdrawal technique detected 291 adenomas, while the third withdrawal in the RV detected 53. The adenoma miss rate for the repeated forward-view withdrawal was 15.4%. No severe adverse events occurred during retroflexion. CONCLUSION: Because adenomas located on potential blind spots can be missed when only using forward-view examinations, retroflexion in the right colon after repeated forward-view examinations might improve colonoscopy detection rates.

Colonoscopy attachments for the detection of precancerous lesions during colonoscopy: A review of the literature.

Although colonoscopy has been proven effective in reducing the incidence of colorectal cancer through the detection and removal of precancerous lesions, it remains an imperfect examination, as it can fail in detecting up to almost one fourth of existing adenomas. Among reasons accounting for such failures, is the inability to meticulously visualize the colonic mucosa located either proximal to haustral folds or anatomic curves, including the hepatic and splenic flexures. In order to overcome these limitations, various colonoscope attachments aiming to improve mucosal visualization have been developed. All of them - transparent cap, Endocuff, Endocuff Vision and Endorings - are simply mounted onto the distal tip of the scope. In this review article, we introduce the rationale of their development, present their mode of action and discuss in detail the effect of their implementation in the detection of lesions during colonoscopy.

Diagnostic yield of scope retroflexion in the right colon: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Techniques have been implemented to improve colonoscopy adenoma detection rate (ADR) in the right colon. AIMS & METHODS: We prospectively examined the additional diagnostic yield of right colon examination with colonoscope retroflexion in consecutive, symptomatic and screening-surveillance patients. Right colon was examined in forward-view first and thereafter, retroflexion was performed to re-inspect it. RESULTS: Right colon examination in retroflexion was achieved in 620 (92%) patients. Increased inserted scope length to the cecum (OR: 0.48 [95% CI: 0.27-0.84]) and elderly status (OR: 0.53 [95% CI: 0.430-0.94]) predicted retrofexion failure. Forward-view colonoscopy detected 134 polyps and 112 adenomas in 105 and 85 patients, respectively. Scope retroflexion revealed 7 missed (6 adenomas--2 advanced) polyps in 7 patients; indicating 4.96 (95% CI: 1.37-8.55) % and 5.1 (95% CI: 1.12-9.05) % per-polyp and per-adenoma miss rates, respectively. In ITT analysis, per-patient polyp and adenoma miss rates were 1.041% and 0.89%, respectively. Among screening-surveillance patients, retroflexion detected 3 missed adenomas (2 advanced) in 3 patients, resulting in changed surveillance schedule in 2 of them (5.12 per 1000 screening-surveillance patients). Early study termination was favored by low right colon ADR improvement and lacking substantial surveillance interval change. CONCLUSION: The additional diagnostic yield of scope retroflexion in the right colon is questionable.