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.

Risk factors for erosive esophagitis: a multivariate analysis based on the ProGERD study initiative.

OBJECTIVES: Gastroesophageal reflux disease can be divided into three categories: nonerosive GERD (NERD), erosive GERD (ERD), and Barrett's esophagus. A shift among these categories rarely occurs. The aim of the present study was to elucidate potential patient-associated risk factors associated with ERD. METHODS: A total of 6,215 patients with troublesome heartburn were recruited to a large, prospective, multicenter open cohort study comprising an initial treatment phase and a 5-yr follow-up phase. Each center planned to recruit an equal number of patients with NERD and ERD. All patients underwent an interview based on standardized questionnaires, a physical examination, and endoscopy with biopsies. Data were analyzed by multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Risk factor analysis was performed on 5,289 patients (NERD: n = 2,834; ERD: n = 2,455), which was the intent-to-treat population excluding patients with suspected/proven complicated reflux disease. Stepwise regression analysis identified the following independent predictors of ERD: male gender, overweight, regular use of alcohol, a history of GERD >1 yr, and smoker or ex-smoker. A higher level of education and a positive Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) status were associated with a lower risk of ERD. CONCLUSIONS: Some patient-associated factors increase the risk of erosive esophagitis as opposed to nonerosive reflux disease. However, no single factor or combination of factors is capable of predicting mucosal damage with clinically sufficient certainty. Thus, endoscopy is still required in all GERD patients if valid information on the state of the esophageal mucosa is needed.