Polyp detection with colonoscopy assisted by the GI Genius artificial intelligence endoscopy module compared with standard colonoscopy in routine colonoscopy practice (COLO-DETECT): a multicentre, open-label, parallel-arm, pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Increased polyp detection during colonoscopy is associated with decreased post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. The COLO-DETECT trial aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of the GI Genius intelligent endoscopy module for polyp detection, comparing colonoscopy assisted by GI Genius (computer-aided detection [CADe]-assisted colonoscopy) with standard colonoscopy in routine practice. METHODS: We did a multicentre, open-label, parallel-arm, pragmatic randomised controlled trial in 12 National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (ten NHS Trusts) in England, among adults (aged ≥18 years) undergoing planned colonoscopy for gastrointestinal symptoms or for surveillance due to personal or family history (ie, symptomatic indications), or colorectal cancer screening. Randomisation (1:1) to CADe-assisted colonoscopy or standard colonoscopy was done with a web-based dynamic adaptive algorithm, immediately before colonoscopy, with stratification by age group, sex, colonoscopy indication (screening or symptomatic), and NHS Trust. Recruiting staff, participants, and colonoscopists were unmasked to trial allocation; histopathologists, co-chief investigators, and trial statisticians were masked. CADe-assisted colonoscopy consisted of standard colonoscopy plus the GI Genius module active for at least the entire inspection phase of colonoscope withdrawal. The primary outcome was mean adenomas per procedure (total number of adenomas detected divided by total number of procedures); the key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma). Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT), with outcomes compared between groups by mixed-effects regression modelling, in which effect estimates were adjusted for randomisation stratification variables. Data were imputed for outcome measures with more than 5% missing values. All participants who underwent colonoscopy were assessed for safety. The trial is registered on ISRCTN (ISRCTN10451355) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04723758), and is complete. FINDINGS: Between March 29, 2021, and April 6, 2023, 2032 participants (1132 [55·7%] male, 900 [44·3%] female; mean age 62·4 years [SD 10·8]) were recruited and randomly assigned: 1015 to CADe-assisted colonoscopy and 1017 to standard colonoscopy. 1231 (60·6%) participants were undergoing screening and 801 (39·4%) had symptomatic indications. Mean adenomas per procedure was 1·56 (SD 2·82; n=1001 participants with available data) in the CADe-assisted colonoscopy group versus 1·21 (1·91; n=1009) in the standard colonoscopy group, representing an adjusted mean difference of 0·36 (95% CI 0·14-0·57; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1·30 [95% CI 1·15-1·47], p<0·0001). Adenomas were detected in 555 (56·6%) of 980 participants in the CADe-assisted colonoscopy group versus 477 (48·4%) of 986 in the standard colonoscopy group, representing a proportion difference of 8·3% (95% CI 3·9-12·7; adjusted odds ratio 1·47 [95% CI 1·21-1·78], p<0·0001). Numbers of adverse events were similar between the CADe-assisted colonoscopy and standard colonoscopy groups (adverse events: 25 vs 19; serious adverse events: four vs six), and no adverse events in the CADe-assisted colonoscopy group were deemed to be related to GI Genius use on independent review. INTERPRETATION: Results of the COLO-DETECT trial support the use of GI Genius to increase detection of premalignant colorectal polyps in routine colonoscopy practice. FUNDING: Medtronic.

'I Do It All Alone': The Burdens and Benefits of Being Diagnosed With, and Treated for, Colorectal Cancer During the Covid-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The Covid-19 pandemic dramatically altered the way cancer care services were accessed and delivered, including for colorectal cancer (CRC). In the United Kingdom, patients were discouraged from presenting in primary care, many consultations took place remotely, investigative procedures and screening programmes were temporarily suspended, and fewer operations and treatments were delivered. People had to face the practical consequences of having cancer during a pandemic and navigate never before seen pathways, often alone. We examined the experience of being diagnosed and treated for CRC during the pandemic, and the implications of this on people's cancer journeys. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with people diagnosed with CRC during the Covid-19 pandemic (January 2020-May 2021), in the North East of England. An iterative topic guide was used during interviews, which took place remotely (telephone or Zoom), were audio recorded, pseudo-anonymised and transcribed. Initial transcripts were independently coded by two researchers, and a code 'bank' developed for application across transcripts. Development of themes and overarching analytical constructs was undertaken collaboratively by the research team. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 19 participants, analysed and four key themes identified: (1) The relative threats of Covid-19 and Cancer were not comparable, with cancer seen as posing a far greater risk than Covid-19; (2) Remote consultations were problematic, affecting patients' abilities to build rapport and trust with clinicians, assess nonverbal communication, and feel able to disclose, comprehend and retain information; (3) Stoma follow-up care was seen to be lacking, with long wait times for stoma reversal experienced by some; Finally, (4) Being alone during consultations negatively impacted some peoples' abilities to absorb information, and left them without the support of loved ones at an emotionally vulnerable time. However, some participants preferred being alone at certain points in their pathways, including receiving a diagnosis, and most frequently when receiving in-patient treatment. CONCLUSION: Being alone brought unexpected benefits, absolving people from undertaking emotions work for others, and instead focus on their recovery, however, remote consultations negatively impacted patients' experiences. This study highlights the complex benefits and burdens of pandemic-located cancer journeys, including how these shifted at different points across cancer pathways. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Lorraine Angell, a cancer survivor, has been central to this study from idea conception, contributing to: development of study focus and design; securing funding; production of patient-facing materials; development of interview topic guides; analysis and interpretation of data; and drafting of key findings and manuscripts.