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).

Combination of Mucosa-Exposure Device and Computer-Aided Detection for Adenoma Detection During Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Both computer-aided detection (CADe)-assisted and Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy have been found to increase adenoma detection. We investigated the performance of the combination of the 2 tools compared with CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone to detect colorectal neoplasias during colonoscopy in a multicenter randomized trial. METHODS: Men and women undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, polyp surveillance, or clincial indications at 6 centers in Italy and Switzerland were enrolled. Patients were assigned (1:1) to colonoscopy with the combinations of CADe (GI-Genius; Medtronic) and a mucosal exposure device (Endocuff Vision [ECV]; Olympus) or to CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone (control group). All detected lesions were removed and sent to histopathology for diagnosis. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenomas and serrated lesions detection rate, the rate of unnecessary polypectomies (polyp resection without histologically proven adenomas), and withdrawal time. RESULTS: From July 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022, there were 1316 subjects randomized and eligible for analysis; 660 to the ECV group, 656 to the control group). The adenoma detection rate was significantly higher in the ECV group (49.6%) than in the control group (44.0%) (relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26; P = .04). Adenomas detected per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the ECV group (mean ± SD, 0.94 ± 0.54) than in the control group (0.74 ± 0.21) (incidence rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.54; P = .02). The 2 groups did not differ in term of detection of advanced adenomas and serrated lesions. There was no significant difference between groups in mean ± SD withdrawal time (9.01 ± 2.48 seconds for the ECV group vs 8.96 ± 2.24 seconds for controls; P = .69) or proportion of subjects undergoing unnecessary polypectomies (relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.14; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of CADe and ECV during colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate and adenomas detected per colonoscopy without increasing withdrawal time compared with CADe alone. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT04676308.

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.

Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia During Colonoscopy : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopy may increase adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and reduce adenoma miss rates, but it may increase overdiagnosis and overtreatment of nonneoplastic polyps. PURPOSE: To quantify the benefits and harms of CADe in randomized trials. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. (PROSPERO: CRD42022293181). DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases through February 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials comparing CADe-assisted with standard colonoscopy for polyp and cancer detection. DATA EXTRACTION: Adenoma detection rate (proportion of patients with ≥1 adenoma), number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenoma (≥10 mm with high-grade dysplasia and villous histology), number of serrated lesions per colonoscopy, and adenoma miss rate were extracted as benefit outcomes. Number of polypectomies for nonneoplastic lesions and withdrawal time were extracted as harm outcomes. For each outcome, studies were pooled using a random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-one randomized trials on 18 232 patients were included. The ADR was higher in the CADe group than in the standard colonoscopy group (44.0% vs. 35.9%; relative risk, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.33]; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to a 55% (risk ratio, 0.45 [CI, 0.35 to 0.58]) relative reduction in miss rate (moderate-certainty evidence). More nonneoplastic polyps were removed in the CADe than the standard group (0.52 vs. 0.34 per colonoscopy; mean difference [MD], 0.18 polypectomy [CI, 0.11 to 0.26 polypectomy]; low-certainty evidence). Mean inspection time increased only marginally with CADe (MD, 0.47 minute [CI, 0.23 to 0.72 minute]; moderate-certainty evidence). LIMITATIONS: This review focused on surrogates of patient-important outcomes. Most patients, however, may consider cancer incidence and cancer-related mortality important outcomes. The effect of CADe on such patient-important outcomes remains unclear. CONCLUSION: The use of CADe for polyp detection during colonoscopy results in increased detection of adenomas but not advanced adenomas and in higher rates of unnecessary removal of nonneoplastic polyps. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: European Commission Horizon 2020 Marie Sklodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship.

Small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with Meckel's diverticulum: clinical features, diagnostic workup, and findings. A European multicenter I-CARE study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Meckel's diverticulum (MD) may remain silent or be associated with adverse events such as GI bleeding. The main aim of this study was to evaluate indicative small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) findings, and the secondary aim was to describe clinical presentation in patients with MD. METHODS: This retrospective European multicenter study included patients with MD undergoing SBCE from 2001 until July 2021. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients with a confirmed MD were included. Median age was 32 years with a male-to-female ratio of approximately 3:1. GI bleeding or iron-deficiency anemia was present in nearly all patients. Mean hemoglobin was 7.63 ± 1.8 g/dL with a transfusion requirement of 52.2%. Typical capsule endoscopy (CE) findings were double lumen (n = 49 [71%]), visible entrance into the MD (n = 49 [71%]), mucosal webs (n = 30 [43.5%]), and bulges (n = 19 [27.5%]). Two or more of these findings were seen in 48 patients (69.6%). Ulcers were detected in 52.2% of patients (n = 36). In 63.8% of patients (n = 44), a combination of double lumen and visible entrance into the MD was evident, additionally revealing ulcers in 39.1% (n = 27). Mean percent SB (small bowel) transit time for the first indicative image of MD was 57% of the total SB transit time. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis of MD is rare and sometimes challenging, and a preoperative criterion standard does not exist. In SBCE, the most frequent findings were double-lumen sign and visible diverticular entrance, sometimes together with ulcers.

Artificial intelligence-assisted optical diagnosis for the resect-and-discard strategy in clinical practice: the Artificial intelligence BLI Characterization (ABC) study.

BACKGROUND: Optical diagnosis of colonic polyps is poorly reproducible outside of high volume referral centers. The present study aimed to assess whether real-time artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted optical diagnosis is accurate enough to implement the leave-in-situ strategy for diminutive (≤ 5 mm) rectosigmoid polyps (DRSPs). METHODS: Consecutive colonoscopy outpatients with ≥ 1 DRSP were included. DRSPs were categorized as adenomas or nonadenomas by the endoscopists, who had differing expertise in optical diagnosis, with the assistance of a real-time AI system (CAD-EYE). The primary end point was ≥ 90 % negative predictive value (NPV) for adenomatous histology in high confidence AI-assisted optical diagnosis of DRSPs (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable endoscopic Innovations [PIVI-1] threshold), with histopathology as the reference standard. The agreement between optical- and histology-based post-polypectomy surveillance intervals (≥ 90 %; PIVI-2 threshold) was also calculated according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United States Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) guidelines. RESULTS: Overall 596 DRSPs were retrieved for histology in 389 patients; an AI-assisted high confidence optical diagnosis was made in 92.3 %. The NPV of AI-assisted optical diagnosis for DRSPs (PIVI-1) was 91.0 % (95 %CI 87.1 %-93.9 %). The PIVI-2 threshold was met with 97.4 % (95 %CI 95.7 %-98.9 %) and 92.6 % (95 %CI 90.0 %-95.2 %) of patients according to ESGE and USMSTF, respectively. AI-assisted optical diagnosis accuracy was significantly lower for nonexperts (82.3 %, 95 %CI 76.4 %-87.3 %) than for experts (91.9 %, 95 %CI 88.5 %-94.5 %); however, nonexperts quickly approached the performance levels of experts over time. CONCLUSION: AI-assisted optical diagnosis matches the required PIVI thresholds. This does not however offset the need for endoscopists' high level confidence and expertise. The AI system seems to be useful, especially for nonexperts.

Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022.

MR1: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as the first-line examination, before consideration of other endoscopic and radiological diagnostic tests for suspected small-bowel bleeding, given the excellent safety profile of capsule endoscopy, its patient tolerability, and its potential to visualize the entire small-bowel mucosa.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR2: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with overt suspected small-bowel bleeding as soon as possible after the bleeding episode, ideally within 48 hours, to maximize the diagnostic and subsequent therapeutic yield.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR3: ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy prior to small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding or iron-deficiency anemia.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR4: ESGE recommends conservative management in those patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding and high quality negative small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR5: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy to confirm and possibly treat lesions identified by small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR6: ESGE recommends the performance of small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a first-line examination in patients with iron-deficiency anemia when small bowel evaluation is indicated.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR7: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected Crohn's disease and negative ileocolonoscopy findings as the initial diagnostic modality for investigating the small bowel, in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known bowel stenosis.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR8: ESGE recommends, in patients with unremarkable or nondiagnostic findings from dedicated small-bowel cross-sectional imaging, small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a subsequent investigation if deemed likely to influence patient management.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR9: ESGE recommends, in patients with established Crohn's disease, the use of a patency capsule before small-bowel capsule endoscopy to decrease the capsule retention rate.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR10: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) as an alternative to surgery for foreign bodies retained in the small bowel requiring retrieval in patients without acute intestinal obstruction.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR11: ESGE recommends DAE-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (DAE-ERCP) as a first-line endoscopic approach to treat pancreaticobiliary diseases in patients with surgically altered anatomy (except for Billroth II patients).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Artificial intelligence and colonoscopy experience: lessons from two randomised trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Artificial intelligence has been shown to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR) as the main surrogate outcome parameter of colonoscopy quality. To which extent this effect may be related to physician experience is not known. We performed a randomised trial with colonoscopists in their qualification period (AID-2) and compared these data with a previously published randomised trial in expert endoscopists (AID-1). METHODS: In this prospective, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (AID-2), 10 non-expert endoscopists (<2000 colonoscopies) performed screening/surveillance/diagnostic colonoscopies in consecutive 40-80 year-old subjects using high-definition colonoscopy with or without a real-time deep-learning computer-aided detection (CADe) (GI Genius, Medtronic). The primary outcome was ADR in both groups with histology of resected lesions as reference. In a post-hoc analysis, data from this randomised controlled trial (RCT) were compared with data from the previous AID-1 RCT involving six experienced endoscopists in an otherwise similar setting. RESULTS: In 660 patients (62.3±10 years; men/women: 330/330) with equal distribution of study parameters, overall ADR was higher in the CADe than in the control group (53.3% vs 44.5%; relative risk (RR): 1.22; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.40; p<0.01 for non-inferiority and p=0.02 for superiority). Similar increases were seen in adenoma numbers per colonoscopy and in small and distal lesions. No differences were observed with regards to detection of non-neoplastic lesions. When pooling these data with those from the AID-1 study, use of CADe (RR 1.29; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.42) and colonoscopy indication, but not the level of examiner experience (RR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.16) were associated with ADR differences in a multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In less experienced examiners, CADe assistance during colonoscopy increased ADR and a number of related polyp parameters as compared with the control group. Experience appears to play a minor role as determining factor for ADR. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT:04260321.

Efficacy of a computer-aided detection system in a fecal immunochemical test-based organized colorectal cancer screening program: a randomized controlled trial (AIFIT study).

BACKGROUND: Computer-aided detection (CADe) increases adenoma detection in primary screening colonoscopy. The potential benefit of CADe in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program is unknown. This study assessed whether use of CADe increases the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in a FIT-based CRC screening program. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized trial, FIT-positive individuals aged 50-74 years undergoing colonoscopy, were randomized (1:1) to receive high definition white-light (HDWL) colonoscopy, with or without a real-time deep-learning CADe by endoscopists with baseline ADR > 25 %. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) and advanced adenoma detection rate (advanced-ADR). Subgroup analysis according to baseline endoscopists' ADR (≤ 40 %, 41 %-45 %, ≥ 46 %) was also performed. RESULTS: 800 individuals (median age 61.0 years [interquartile range 55-67]; 409 men) were included: 405 underwent CADe-assisted colonoscopy and 395 underwent HDWL colonoscopy alone. ADR and APC were significantly higher in the CADe group than in the HDWL arm: ADR 53.6 % (95 %CI 48.6 %-58.5 %) vs. 45.3 % (95 %CI 40.3 %-50.45 %; RR 1.18; 95 %CI 1.03-1.36); APC 1.13 (SD 1.54) vs. 0.90 (SD 1.32; P  = 0.03). No significant difference in advanced-ADR was found (18.5 % [95 %CI 14.8 %-22.6 %] vs. 15.9 % [95 %CI 12.5 %-19.9 %], respectively). An increase in ADR was observed in all endoscopist groups regardless of baseline ADR. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating CADe significantly increased ADR and APC in the framework of a FIT-based CRC screening program. The impact of CADe appeared to be consistent regardless of endoscopist baseline ADR.

Expected value of artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

This ESGE Position Statement defines the expected value of artificial intelligence (AI) for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal neoplasia within the framework of the performance measures already defined by ESGE. This is based on the clinical relevance of the expected task and the preliminary evidence regarding artificial intelligence in artificial or clinical settings. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS:: (1) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, the adequate level of mucosal inspection with AI should be comparable to that assessed by experienced endoscopists. (2) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, automated recognition and photodocumentation of relevant anatomical landmarks should be obtained in ≥90% of the procedures. (3) For acceptance of AI in the detection of Barrett's high grade intraepithelial neoplasia or cancer, the AI-assisted detection rate for suspicious lesions for targeted biopsies should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists with or without advanced imaging techniques. (4) For acceptance of AI in the management of Barrett's neoplasia, AI-assisted selection of lesions amenable to endoscopic resection should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (5) For acceptance of AI in the diagnosis of gastric precancerous conditions, AI-assisted diagnosis of atrophy and intestinal metaplasia should be comparable to that provided by the established biopsy protocol, including the estimation of extent, and consequent allocation to the correct endoscopic surveillance interval. (6) For acceptance of artificial intelligence for automated lesion detection in small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), the performance of AI-assisted reading should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists for lesion detection, without increasing but possibly reducing the reading time of the operator. (7) For acceptance of AI in the detection of colorectal polyps, the AI-assisted adenoma detection rate should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (8) For acceptance of AI optical diagnosis (computer-aided diagnosis [CADx]) of diminutive polyps (≤5 mm), AI-assisted characterization should match performance standards for implementing resect-and-discard and diagnose-and-leave strategies. (9) For acceptance of AI in the management of polyps ≥ 6 mm, AI-assisted characterization should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists in selecting lesions amenable to endoscopic resection.

Factors That Affect Adequacy of Colon Cleansing for Colonoscopy in Hospitalized Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hospitalization is associated with inadequate colon cleansing before colonoscopy. We aimed to identify factors associated to inadequate colon cleansing among inpatients, and to derive and validate a model to identify inpatients with inadequate cleansing. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study at 12 hospitals in Italy. Consecutive adult inpatients scheduled for colonoscopy for any indication were enrolled from February through May 2019 (derivation cohort, n = 1016) and from June through August 2019 (validation cohort, n = 508). Inadequate cleansing was defined as Boston bowel preparation scale scores below 2 in any colon segment. We performed multivariate logistic regression to identify factors associated with inadequate cleansing. RESULTS: In the combined cohorts, 1032 patients (68%) had adequate colon cleansing. Physicians' meetings to optimize bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.65), written and oral instructions to patients (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), admission to gastroenterology unit (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98), split-dose regimens (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.20-0.35), a 1-liter polyethylene glycol-based bowel purge (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.23-0.65), and 75% or more intake of bowel preparation (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.05-0.15) significantly reduced odds of inadequate colon cleansing. Alternatively, bedridden status (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.55-2.98), constipation (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.55-3.0), diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.18-2.20), use of anti-psychotic drugs (OR, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.62-6.56), and 7 or more days of hospitalization (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.04) increased risk of inadequate colon cleansing. We developed a model to identify patients with inadequate cleaning using data from patients in the derivation cohort and tested it in the validation cohort. Calibration values were P = .218 for the discrimination cohort and P = .232 for the validation cohort. Discrimination values were c-statistic, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74-0.81) for the discrimination cohort and c-statistic, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.78) for the validation cohort. We developed app for use by clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective observational study, we identified setting-, patient- and preparation-related factors that affect colon cleansing among inpatients. We derived and validated a model to identify patients with inadequate preparation and developed an app for clinicians. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT03925506.

Efficacy of Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia in a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: One-fourth of colorectal neoplasias are missed during screening colonoscopies; these can develop into colorectal cancer (CRC). Deep learning systems allow for real-time computer-aided detection (CADe) of polyps with high accuracy. We performed a multicenter, randomized trial to assess the safety and efficacy of a CADe system in detection of colorectal neoplasias during real-time colonoscopy. METHODS: We analyzed data from 685 subjects (61.32 ± 10.2 years old; 337 men) undergoing screening colonoscopies for CRC, post-polypectomy surveillance, or workup due to positive results from a fecal immunochemical test or signs or symptoms of CRC, at 3 centers in Italy from September through November 2019. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups who underwent high-definition colonoscopies with the CADe system or without (controls). The CADe system included an artificial intelligence-based medical device (GI-Genius, Medtronic) trained to process colonoscopy images and superimpose them, in real time, on the endoscopy display a green box over suspected lesions. A minimum withdrawal time of 6 minutes was required. Lesions were collected and histopathology findings were used as the reference standard. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR, the percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy, non-neoplastic resection rate, and withdrawal time. RESULTS: The ADR was significantly higher in the CADe group (54.8%) than in the control group (40.4%) (relative risk [RR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.45). Adenomas detected per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CADe group (mean, 1.07 ±1.54) than in the control group (mean 0.71 ± 1.20) (incidence rate ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.15-1.86). Adenomas 5 mm or smaller were detected in a significantly higher proportion of subjects in the CADe group (33.7%) than in the control group (26.5%; RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.01-1.52), as were adenomas of 6 to 9 mm (detected in 10.6% of subjects in the CADe group vs 5.8% in the control group; RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.09-2.86), regardless of morphology or location. There was no significant difference between groups in withdrawal time (417 ± 101 seconds for the CADe group vs 435 ± 149 for controls; P = .1) or proportion of subjects with resection of non-neoplastic lesions (26.0% in the CADe group vs 28.7% of controls; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: In a multicenter, randomized trial, we found that including CADe in real-time colonoscopy significantly increases ADR and adenomas detected per colonoscopy without increasing withdrawal time. ClinicalTrials.gov no: 04079478.

Risk of Covert Submucosal Cancer in Patients With Granular Mixed Laterally Spreading Tumors.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Granular mixed laterally spreading tumors (GM-LSTs) have an intermediate level of risk for submucosal invasive cancer (SMICs) without clear signs of invasion (covert); the optimal resection method is uncertain. We aimed to determine the risk of covert SMIC in GM-LSTs based on clinical and endoscopic factors. METHODS: We collected data from 693 patients (50.6% male; median age, 69 years) with colorectal GM-LSTs, without signs of invasion, who underwent endoscopic resection (74.2%) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (25.2%) at 7 centers in Italy from 2016 through 2019. We performed multivariate and univariate analyses to identify demographic and endoscopic factors associated with risk of SMIC. We developed a multivariate model to calculate the number needed to treat (NNT) to detect 1 SMIC. RESULTS: Based on pathology analysis, 66 patients (9.5%) had covert SMIC. In multivariate analyses, increased risk of covert SMIC were independently associated with increasing lesion size (odds ratio per mm increase, 1.02, 95% CI, 1.01-1.03; P = .003) and rectal location (odds ratio, 3.08; 95% CI, 1.62-5.83; P = .004). A logistic regression model based on lesion size (with a cutoff of 40 mm) and rectal location identified patients with covert SMIC with 47.0% sensitivity, 82.6% specificity, and an area under the curve of 0.69. The NNT to identify 1 patient with a nonrectal SMIC smaller than 4 cm was 20; the NNT to identify 1 patient with a rectal SMIC of 4 cm or more was 5. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of data from 693 patients, we found the risk of covert SMIC in patients with GM-LSTs to be approximately 10%. GM-LSTs of 4 cm or more and a rectal location are high risk and should be treated by en-bloc resection. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03836131.

Colon capsule endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Primary colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are the most commonly used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modalities. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) might be an alternative. Data on the performance of CCE as a CRC screening tool in a screening population remain scarce. This is the first systematic review to provide an overview of the applicability of CCE as a CRC screening tool. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted of literature published up to September 2020. Studies reporting on CRC screening by second-generation CCE in an average-risk screening population were included. RESULTS: 582 studies were identified and 13 were included, comprising 2485 patients. Eight studies used CCE as a filter test after a positive FIT result and five studies used CCE for primary screening. The polyp detection rate of CCE was 24 % - 74 %. For polyps > 6 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 79 % - 96 % and specificity was 66 % - 97 %. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 84 % - 97 %, which was superior to computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The CRC detection rate for completed CCEs was 93 % (25/27). Bowel preparation was adequate in 70 % - 92 % of examinations, and completion rates varied from 57 % to 92 %, depending on the booster used. No CCE-related complications were described. CONCLUSION: CCE appeared to be a safe and effective tool for the detection of CRC and polyps in a screening setting. Accuracy was comparable to colonoscopy and superior to CTC, making CCE a good alternative to colonoscopy in CRC screening programs, although completion rates require improvement.

Implementation of European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommendations for small-bowel capsule endoscopy into clinical practice: Results of an official ESGE survey.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to document international practices in small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), measuring adherence to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) technical and clinical recommendations. METHODS: Participants reached through the ESGE contact list completed a 52-item web-based survey. RESULTS: 217 responded from 47 countries (176 and 41, respectively, from countries with or without a national society affiliated to ESGE). Of respondents, 45 % had undergone formal SBCE training. Among SBCE procedures, 91 % were performed with an ESGE recommended indication, obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB), iron-deficiency anemia (IDA), and suspected/established Crohn's disease being the commonest and with higher rates of positive findings (49.4 %, 38.2 % and 53.5 %, respectively). A watchful waiting strategy after a negative SBCE for OGIB or IDA was preferred by 46.7 % and 70.3 %, respectively. SBCE was a second-line exam for evaluation of extent of new Crohn's disease for 62.2 % of respondents. Endoscopists adhered to varying extents to ESGE technical recommendations regarding bowel preparation ( > 60 %), use in those with pacemaker holders (62.5 %), patency capsule use (51.2 %), and use of a validated scale for bowel preparation assessment (13.3 %). Of the respondents, 67 % read and interpreted the exams themselves and 84 % classified exams findings as relevant or irrelevant. Two thirds anticipated future increase in SBCE demand. Inability to obtain tissue (78.3 %) and high cost (68.1 %) were regarded as the main limitations, and implementation of artificial intelligence as the top development priority (56.2 %). CONCLUSIONS: To some extent, endoscopists follow ESGE guidelines on using SBCE in clinical practice. However, variations in practice have been identified, whose implications require further evaluation.

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.2. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.3. When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation. Very low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.4. Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.5. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.6. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting. Very low quality evidence.7. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance. Very low quality evidence.8. ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.9. ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥6 mm detected at CTC or CCE. Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6-9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. Source and scope This is an update of the 2014-15 Guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of imaging alternatives to standard colonoscopy. A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.

Clinical Validation of BASIC Classification for the Resect and Discard Strategy for Diminutive Colorectal Polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Blue-light imaging (BLI) is a chromoendoscopy technique that uses direct (not filtered) emission of blue light with short wavelength (410 nm) to increase visibility of microvascular pattern and superficial mucosa. A BLI-based classification system for colorectal polyps (also called BLI Adenomas Serrated International Classification, BASIC) has been created and was validated using still images or short videos. We aimed to validate BASIC in a clinical practice setting, using thresholds recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy for the resect and discard strategy as the reference standard. METHODS: We studied 333 patients (mean age, 62.7±8.1 y; 176 men) who underwent screening colonoscopy from January through July 2019. Six endoscopists trained in BASIC participated in the study. All detected diminutive polyps were characterized by real-time BLI and categorized as adenoma or non-adenoma according to BASIC. All polyps were removed and evaluated by histopathology. The BLI-directed surveillance intervals (based on high-confidence characterization of polyps 5 mm or smaller and pathology feature for others) were compared with histology-directed surveillance intervals, according to United States Multi-society Task Force and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommendations. We calculated negative-predictive values of optical real-time analysis of diminutive rectosigmoid adenomas. RESULTS: When we applied BASIC, 748 polyps smaller than 5 mm were categorized with 89% accuracy (95% CI, 85.9%-90.6%). BLI-directed surveillance was correct for 90% of patients according to the United States Multi-society task force criteria (95% CI, 86%-93%) and for 96% of patients according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy criteria (95% CI, 93%-97%). The negative-predictive value for 302 polyps smaller than 5 mm, located in the rectosigmoid colon and evaluated with high confidence, based on histologic features of adenomatous polyps, was 91% (95% CI, 85%-95%). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of data from 333 patients undergoing screen colonoscopies supports the validity of BASIC discriminating diminutive colorectal polyps with histologic features of adenomas from non-adenomas. This allows for the implementation of the resect and discard strategy based on BLI in clinical practice. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT03746171.

Accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy for advanced neoplasia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE-2) has shown promising accuracy for the diagnosis of overall neoplasia. Advanced neoplasia (AN) represents the main target of colorectal cancer screening programs. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CCE-2 for the detection of AN in patients with a positive result for the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) who are undergoing screening. METHODS: Patients aged 50 to 69 years with a positive result for the FIT in 4 population screening programs in Italy and Spain were enrolled. Screenees were asked to undergo CCE-2, followed by traditional colonoscopy (TC). TC was performed the same day or the following morning. Bowel preparation included a split-dose polyethylene glycol-based regimen, with sodium phosphate (NaP) with gastrografin as boosters. The CCE-2 video was read by an endoscopist blinded to the results of TC. The main outcomes were CCE-2 accuracy in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for AN when using 2 different size thresholds for TC referral (ie, polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm). RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-two patients were enrolled, and 178 patients completed both CCE-2 and TC (87.7%). Overall, 59 cases of AN were detected at TC. CCE-2 sensitivity was 90%, specificity was 66.1%, PPV was 57.4%, and NPV was 92.9% for AN when using a 6-mm cut-off (TC referral rate, 52.8%) and 76.7%, 90.7%, 80.7%, and 88.4% when using a 10-mm cut-off (TC referral rate, 32%), respectively. CCE-2 detected that 8 of 9 already developed colorectal cancers. Among the 41 false positives at the 6-mm cut-off, 34 (82.9%) presented with a nonadvanced adenoma at TC. Mean transit time was 4 hours and 4 minutes, and ≥70% of patients excreted the capsule within 5 hours. CONCLUSIONS: In an enriched disease setting, we showed the high sensitivity of CCE-2 for the diagnosis of AN at a 6-mm cut-off. The apparently low CCE-2 specificity is related to the choice of AN as the main outcome. (Clinical trial registration number: ISRCTN 62158762.).

Linked-color imaging versus white-light colonoscopy in an organized colorectal cancer screening program.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Linked-color imaging (LCI), a new image-enhancing technology emphasizing contrast in mucosal color, has been demonstrated to substantially reduce polyp miss rate as compared with standard white-light imaging (WLI) in tandem colonoscopy studies. Whether LCI increases adenoma detection rate (ADR) remains unclear. METHODS: Consecutive subjects undergoing screening colonoscopy after fecal immunochemical test (FIT) positivity were 1:1 randomized to undergo colonoscopy with LCI or WLI, both in high-definition systems. Insertion and withdrawal phases of each colonoscopy were carried out using the same assigned light. Experienced endoscopists from 7 Italian centers participated in the study. Randomization was stratified by gender, age, and screening round. The primary outcome measure was represented by ADR. RESULTS: Of 704 eligible subjects, 649 were included (48.9% men, mean age ± standard deviation, 60.8 ± 7.3 years) and randomized to LCI (n = 326) or WLI (n = 323) colonoscopy. The ADR was higher in the LCI group (51.8%) than in the WLI group (43.7%) (relative risk, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.40). The proportions of patients with advanced adenomas and sessile serrated lesions were, respectively, 21.2% and 8.6% in the LCI arm and 18.9% and 5.9% in the WLI arm (not significant for both comparisons). At multivariate analysis, LCI was independently associated with ADR, along with male gender, increasing age, and adequate (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score ≥6) bowel preparation. At per-polyp analysis, the mean ± standard deviation number of adenomas per colonoscopy was comparable in the LCI and WLI arms, whereas the corresponding figures for proximal adenomas was significantly higher in the LCI group (.72 ± 1.2 vs .55 ± 1.07, P = .05) CONCLUSIONS: In FIT-positive patients undergoing screening colonoscopy, the routine use of LCI significantly increased the ADR. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03690297.).