Long-term impact of artificial intelligence on colorectal adenoma detection in high-risk colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Improved adenoma detection rate (ADR) has been demonstrated with artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy. However, data on the real-world application of AI and its effect on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening outcomes is limited. AIM: To analyze the long-term impact of AI on a diverse at-risk patient population undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy for positive CRC screening tests or symptoms. METHODS: AI software (GI Genius, Medtronic) was implemented into the standard procedure protocol in November 2022. Data was collected on patient demographics, procedure indication, polyp size, location, and pathology. CRC screening outcomes were evaluated before and at different intervals after AI introduction with one year of follow-up. RESULTS: We evaluated 1008 colonoscopies (278 pre-AI, 255 early post-AI, 285 established post-AI, and 190 late post-AI). The ADR was 38.1% pre-AI, 42.0% early post-AI (P = 0.77), 40.0% established post-AI (P = 0.44), and 39.5% late post-AI (P = 0.77). There were no significant differences in polyp detection rate (PDR, baseline 59.7%), advanced ADR (baseline 16.2%), and non-neoplastic PDR (baseline 30.0%) before and after AI introduction. CONCLUSION: In patients with an increased pre-test probability of having an abnormal colonoscopy, the current generation of AI did not yield enhanced CRC screening metrics over high-quality colonoscopy. Although the potential of AI in colonoscopy is undisputed, current AI technology may not universally elevate screening metrics across all situations and patient populations. Future studies that analyze different AI systems across various patient populations are needed to determine the most effective role of AI in optimizing CRC screening in clinical practice.

Overall Polyp Detection Rate as a Surrogate Measure for Screening Efficacy Independent of Histopathology: Evidence from National Endoscopy Database.

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is challenging to measure, given its dependency on pathology reporting. Polyp detection rate (PDR) (percentage of screening colonoscopies detecting a polyp) is a proposed alternative to overcome this issue. Overall PDR from all colonoscopies is a relatively novel concept, with no large-scale studies comparing overall PDR with screening-only PDR. The aim of the study was to compare PDR from screening, surveillance, and diagnostic indications with overall PDR and evaluate any correlation between individual endoscopist PDR by indication to determine if overall PDR can be a valuable surrogate for screening PDR. Our study analyzed a prospectively collected national endoscopy database maintained by the National Institute of Health from 2009 to 2014. Out of 354,505 colonoscopies performed between 2009-2014, 298,920 (n = 110,794 average-risk screening, n = 83,556 average-risk surveillance, n = 104,770 diagnostic) met inclusion criteria. The median screening PDR was 25.45 (IQR 13.15-39.60), comparable with the median overall PDR of 24.01 (IQR 11.46-35.86, p = 0.21). Median surveillance PDR was higher at 33.73 (IQR 16.92-47.01), and median diagnostic PDR was lower at 19.35 (IQR 9.66-29.17), compared with median overall PDR 24.01 (IQR 11.46-35.86; p < 0.01). The overall PDR showed excellent concordance with screening, surveillance, and diagnostic PDR (r > 0.85, p < 0.01, 2-tailed). The overall PDR is a reliable and pragmatic surrogate for screening PDR and can be measured in real time, irrespective of colonoscopy indication.

Standard-definition White-light, High-definition White-light versus Narrow-band Imaging Endoscopy for Detecting Colorectal Adenomas: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the performance of standard-definition white-light endoscopy (SD-WL), high-definition white-light endoscopy (HD-WL), and high-definition narrow-band imaging (HD-NBI) in detecting colorectal lesions in the Chinese population. METHODS: This was a multicenter, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial with a non-inferiority design. Patients undergoing endoscopy for physical examination, screening, and surveillance were enrolled from July 2017 to December 2020. The primary outcome measure was the adenoma detection rate (ADR), defined as the proportion of patients with at least one adenoma detected. The associated factors for detecting adenomas were assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Out of 653 eligible patients enrolled, data from 596 patients were analyzed. The ADRs were 34.5% in the SD-WL group, 33.5% in the HD-WL group, and 37.5% in the HD-NBI group (P=0.72). The advanced neoplasm detection rates (ANDRs) in the three arms were 17.1%, 15.5%, and 10.4% (P=0.17). No significant differences were found between the SD group and HD group regarding ADR or ANDR (ADR: 34.5% vs. 35.6%, P=0.79; ANDR: 17.1% vs. 13.0%, P=0.16, respectively). Similar results were observed between the HD-WL group and HD-NBI group (ADR: 33.5% vs. 37.7%, P=0.45; ANDR: 15.5% vs. 10.4%, P=0.18, respectively). In the univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, neither HD-WL nor HD-NBI led to a significant difference in overall adenoma detection compared to SD-WL (HD-WL: OR 0.91, P=0.69; HD-NBI: OR 1.15, P=0.80). CONCLUSION: HD-NBI and HD-WL are comparable to SD-WL for overall adenoma detection among Chinese outpatients. It can be concluded that HD-NBI or HD-WL is not superior to SD-WL, but more effective instruction may be needed to guide the selection of different endoscopic methods in the future. Our study's conclusions may aid in the efficient allocation and utilization of limited colonoscopy resources, especially advanced imaging technologies.

Impact of inadequate bowel cleansing in sigmoidoscopy screening.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Long-time follow-up of sigmoidoscopy screening trials has shown reduced incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), but inadequate bowel cleansing may hamper efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of bowel cleansing quality in sigmoidoscopy screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individuals 50 to 74 years old who had a screening sigmoidoscopy in a population-based Norwegian, randomized trial between 2012 and 2019, were included in this cross-sectional study. The bowel cleansing quality was categorised as excellent, good, partly poor, or poor. The effect of bowel cleansing quality on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and referral to colonoscopy was evaluated by fitting multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: 35,710 individuals were included. The bowel cleansing at sigmoidoscopy was excellent in 20,934 (58.6%) individuals, good in 6580 (18.4%), partly poor in 7097 (19.9%) and poor in 1099 (3.1%). The corresponding ADRs were 17.0%, 16.6%, 14.5%, and 13.0%. Compared to participants with excellent bowel cleansing, those with poor bowel cleansing had an odds ratio for adenoma detection of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.79). We found substantial differences in the assessment of bowel cleansing quality among endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate bowel cleansing reduces the efficacy of sigmoidoscopy screening, by lowering ADR. A validated rating scale and improved bowel preparation are needed to make sigmoidoscopy an appropriate screening method.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550).

A smartphone application to enhance bowel preparation for first-time colonoscopy: a randomized controlled study.

Background and aims: Colonoscopy is an essential cancer screening tool; however, bowel preparation is a multifaceted process that involves several steps. Proper preparation is crucial for a successful colonoscopy in terms of diagnostic accuracy and procedural safety. We evaluated the performance of a smartphone application with bowel preparation instructions on individuals undergoing their first colonoscopy. Methods: In this randomized, prospective, endoscopist-blinded study, participants were scheduled to undergo their first colonoscopy between January 2020 and January 2022. The study protocol was registered at Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20190928002). They were randomly assigned to the smartphone education application (APP) or the standard education (control) group. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, polyp detection rate (PDR), and adenoma detection rate (ADR) were compared. Factors associated with excellent bowel preparation were also evaluated. Results: In total, 119 patients (APP group, n = 57; control group, n = 62) underwent their first colonoscopy. The mean BBPS score and proportion of excellent bowel preparation (BBPS≥8) were significantly higher in the APP group than in the control group. Smartphone application-guided bowel preparation achieved a higher proportion of adequate and excellent bowel preparation scores, was associated with other quality indicators, and achieved the target ADR, cecal intubation rate, and adequate withdrawal time. Conclusion: This application may be a user-friendly option to improve the first-time colonoscopy experience, resulting in effective screening of colorectal cancer. Clinical trial registration: The study protocol was registered at Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20190928002).

Effect of fecal immunochemical test cut-off levels on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is higher after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) compared to direct screening colonoscopy. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis evaluated how ADR, the rates of advanced adenoma detection (AADR), colorectal cancer detection (CDR), and sessile serrated lesion detection (SSLDR) are affected by different FIT positivity thresholds. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and EBM Reviews databases for studies reporting ADR, AADR, CDR, and SSLDR according to different FIT cut-off values in asymptomatic average-risk individuals aged 50-74 years old. Data were stratified according to sex, age, time to colonoscopy, publication year, continent, and FIT kit type. Study quality, heterogeneity, and publication bias were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 4280 articles were retrieved and fifty-eight studies were included (277,661 FIT-positive colonoscopies; mean cecal intubation 96.3%; mean age 60.8 years; male 52.1%). Mean ADR was 56.1% (95% CI 53.4 - 58.7%), while mean AADR, CDR, and SSLDR were 27.2% (95% CI 24.4 - 30.1%), 5.3% (95% CI 4.7 - 6.0%), and 3.0% (95% CI 1.7 - 4.6%), respectively. For each 20 µg Hb/g increase in FIT cut-off level, ADR increased by 1.54% (95% CI 0.52 - 2.56%, p < 0.01), AADR by 3.90% (95% CI 2.76 - 5.05%, p < 0.01) and CDR by 1.46% (95% CI 0.66 - 2.24%, p < 0.01). Many detection rates were greater amongst males and Europeans. CONCLUSIONS: ADRs in FIT-positive colonoscopies are influenced by the adopted FIT positivity threshold, and identified targets, importantly, proved to be higher than most current societal recommendations.

GI genius endoscopy module: a clinical profile.

INTRODUCTION: The identification of early-stage colorectal cancers (CRC) and the resection of pre-cancerous neoplastic lesions through colonoscopy allows to decrease both CRC incidence and mortality. However, colonoscopy miss rates up to 26% for adenomas and 9% for advanced adenomas have been reported. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) systems have been emerging as easy-to-use tools, potentially lowering the risk of missing lesions. AREAS COVERED: This review paper focuses on GI Genius device (Medtronic Co. Minneapolis, MN, U.S.A.) a computer-assisted tool designed to assist endoscopists during standard white-light colonoscopies in detecting mucosal lesions. EXPERT OPINION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that GI Genius is a safe and effective tool for improving adenoma detection, especially in CRC screening and surveillance colonoscopies. However, its impact seems to be less significant among experienced endoscopists and in real-world clinical scenarios compared to the controlled conditions of RCTs. Furthermore, it appears that GI Genius mainly enhances the detection of non-advanced, small polyps, but does not significantly impact the identification of advanced and difficult-to-detect adenoma. When using GI Genius, no complications were documented. Only a small number of studies reported an increased in withdrawal time or the removal of non-neoplastic lesions.

Human-artificial intelligence interaction in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

The number and variety of applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is growing rapidly. New technologies based on machine learning (ML) and convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are at various stages of development and deployment to assist patients and endoscopists in preparing for endoscopic procedures, in detection, diagnosis and classification of pathology during endoscopy and in confirmation of key performance indicators. Platforms based on ML and CNNs require regulatory approval as medical devices. Interactions between humans and the technologies we use are complex and are influenced by design, behavioural and psychological elements. Due to the substantial differences between AI and prior technologies, important differences may be expected in how we interact with advice from AI technologies. Human-AI interaction (HAII) may be optimised by developing AI algorithms to minimise false positives and designing platform interfaces to maximise usability. Human factors influencing HAII may include automation bias, alarm fatigue, algorithm aversion, learning effect and deskilling. Each of these areas merits further study in the specific setting of AI applications in GI endoscopy and professional societies should engage to ensure that sufficient emphasis is placed on human-centred design in development of new AI technologies.

Computer-aided quality assessment of endoscopist competence during colonoscopy: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopists' competence can vary widely, as shown in the variation in adenoma detection rate (ADR). Computer-aided quality assessment (CAQ) can automatically assess performance during individual procedures. This review aims to identify and describe different CAQ systems for colonoscopy. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was done using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS based on three blocks of terms according to the inclusion criteria: Colonoscopy, Competence assessment, and Automatic evaluation. Articles were systematically reviewed by two reviewers, first by abstract and then in full text. The methodological quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). RESULTS: 12,575 studies were identified, 6,831 remained after removal of duplicates, and 6,806 did not pass the eligibility criteria and were excluded, leaving thirteen studies for final analysis. Five categories of CAQ systems were identified: Withdrawal speedometer (seven studies), Scope movement analysis (three studies), Effective withdrawal time (one study), Fold examination quality (one study), and Visual gaze pattern (one study). The withdrawal speedometer was the only CAQ system that tested its feedback by examining changes in ADR. Three studies observed an improvement in ADR, and two studies did not. The methodological quality of the studies was high (mean MERSQI 15.2 points, maximum 18 points). CONCLUSIONS: Thirteen studies developed or tested CAQ systems, most frequently by correlating it to ADR. Only five studies tested feedback by implementing the CAQ system. A meta-analysis was impossible due to the heterogeneous study designs, and more studies are warranted.

Linked color imaging improves colorectal lesion detection especially for low performance endoscopists: An international trial in Asia.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Linked color imaging (LCI) is an image-enhanced endoscopy technique that accentuates the color difference between red and white, potentially improving the adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, it remains unclear whether LCI performance in detecting colorectal lesions differs based on endoscopists' experience levels. We aimed to evaluate the differences in LCI efficacy based on the experience levels of endoscopists by conducting an exploratory analysis. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of an international randomized controlled trial comparing the detection of adenoma and other lesions using colonoscopy with LCI and high-definition white light imaging (WLI), we included patients from 11 institutions across four countries/regions: Japan, Thailand, Taiwan, and Singapore. We retrospectively reviewed differences in the lesion detection of LCI according to endoscopists' colonoscopy history or ADR. RESULTS: We included 1692 and 1138 patients who underwent colonoscopies performed by 54 experts (experience of ≥ 5000 colonoscopies) and by 43 non-experts (experience of < 5000 colonoscopies), respectively. Both expert and non-expert groups showed a significant improvement in ADR with LCI compared to WLI (expert, 61.7% vs 46.4%; P < 0.001; non-expert, 56.6% vs 46.4%; P < 0.001). LCI had no effect on sessile serrated lesion detection rate in non-experts (3.1% vs 2.5%; P = 0.518). LCI significantly improved detection rates in endoscopists with relatively low detection performance, defined as an ADR < 50%. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study analyzed data from a previous trial and revealed that LCI is useful for both experts and non-experts and is even more beneficial for endoscopists with relatively low detection performance using WLI.

Prospective, randomized study comparing two different regimens of split-dose polyethylene glycol and their effect on endoscopic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Different split regimens of polyethylene glycol are routinely used and no guidelines are available to select an optimal protocol of ingestion. This study aims to compare the efficacy and side effect profile of two different regimens of polyethylene glycol bowel preparation solution: PEG (3 + 1) vs. PEG (2 + 2). METHODS: 240 patients above the age of 18 years were included in the study between June 1st and November 31st, 2023. Patients were randomly assigned either to Group A, consisting of 115 patients receiving a 3 L of PEG the night before the colonoscopy, and 1 L the same morning of the procedure. Or to group B, where 125 patients ingested 2 L the night before the procedure, and the remaining 2 L the same morning. The cleansing efficacy was evaluated by the attending endoscopist using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, through a score assigned for each segment of the colon (0-3). Side effects, tolerability, and willingness to retake the same preparation were listed by an independent investigator using a questionnaire administered before the procedure. RESULTS: A higher percentage of patients had gastric fullness with the 3 + 1 vs. 2 + 2 preparation (58.3% vs. 31.2%; p <.001). A higher Boston bowel preparation score was seen in patients who took the 2 + 2 vs. 3 + 1 preparation (7.87 vs. 7.23). Using the 2 + 2 preparation was significantly associated with higher Boston bowel preparation scores vs. the 3 + 1 preparation (OR = 1.37, p =.001, 95% CI 1.14, 1.64). After adjustment over other variables (age, gender, comorbidities, previous abdominal surgeries, presence of adenoma, and time between last dose and colonoscopy), results remained the same (aOR = 1.34, p =.003, 95% CI 1.10, 1.62). CONCLUSION: While both (2 + 2) and (3 + 1) regimens of polyethylene glycol are a good choice for a successful colonoscopy, we recommend the use of (2 + 2) regimen for its superior efficacy in bowel cleansing.

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).

Propofol sedation does not improve measures of colonoscopy quality but increase cost - findings from a large population-based cohort study.

Background: Propofol is often used for sedation during colonoscopy. We assessed the impact of propofol sedation on colonoscopy related quality metrics and cost in a population-based cohort study. Methods: All colonoscopies performed at 21 hospitals in the province of Ontario, Canada, during an 18-month period, from April 1, 2017 to October 31, 2018, using either propofol or conscious sedation were evaluated. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) and secondary outcomes were sessile serrated polyp detection rate (ssPDR), polyp detection rate (PDR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), and perforation rate. Binary outcomes were assessed using a modified Poisson regression model adjusted for clustering and potential confounders based on patient, procedure, and physician characteristics. Findings: A total of 46,634 colonoscopies were performed, of which 16,408 (35.2%) received propofol and 30,226 (64.8%) received conscious sedation. Compared to conscious sedation, the use of propofol was associated with a lower ADR (24.6% vs. 27.0%, p < 0.0001) but not ssPDR (5.0% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.26), PDR (40.5% vs 40.4%, p = 0.79), CIR (97.1% vs. 96.8%, p = 0.15) or perforation rate (0.04% vs. 0.06%, p = 0.45). On multi-variable analysis, propofol sedation was not associated with any differences in ADR (RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.74-1.10, p = 0.30), ssPDR (RR = 1.20, 95% CI 0.90-1.60, p = 0.22), PDR (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.90-1.11, p = 0.99), or CIR (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.26, p = 0.99). The additional cost associated with propofol sedation was $12,730,496 for every 100,000 cases. Interpretation: The use of propofol sedation was not associated with improved colonoscopy related quality metrics but increased costs. The routine use of propofol for colonoscopy should be reevaluated. Funding: None.

Single Versus Second Observer vs Artificial Intelligence to Increase the ADENOMA Detection Rate of Colonoscopy-A Network Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Screening colonoscopy has significantly contributed to the reduction of the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and its associated mortality, with adenoma detection rate (ADR) as the quality marker. To increase the ADR, various solutions have been proposed including the utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and employing second observers during colonoscopies. In the interest of AI improving ADR independently, without a second observer, and the operational similarity between AI and second observer, this network meta-analysis aims at evaluating the effectiveness of AI, second observer, and a single observer in improving ADR. METHODS: We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science Core Collection, Korean Citation Index, SciELO, Global Index Medicus, and Cochrane. A direct head-to-head comparator analysis and network meta-analysis were performed using the random-effects model. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: We analyzed 26 studies, involving 22,560 subjects. In the direct comparative analysis, AI demonstrated higher ADR (OR: 0.668, 95% CI 0.595-0.749, p < 0.001) than single observer. Dual observer demonstrated a higher ADR (OR: 0.771, 95% CI 0.688-0.865, p < 0.001) than single operator. In network meta-analysis, results were consistent on the network meta-analysis, maintaining consistency. No statistical difference was noted when comparing AI to second observer. (RR 1.1 (0.9-1.2, p = 0.3). Results were consistent when evaluating only RCTs. Net ranking provided higher score to AI followed by second observer followed by single observer. CONCLUSION: Artificial Intelligence and second-observer colonoscopy showed superior success in Adenoma Detection Rate when compared to single-observer colonoscopy. Although not statistically significant, net ranking model favors the superiority of AI to the second observer.

Excellent Bowel Preparation Quality Is Not Superior to Good Bowel Preparation Quality for Improving Adenoma/Polyp Detection Rate.

Background: Adequate bowel preparation quality is essential for high-quality colonoscopy according to the current guidelines. However, the excellent effect of bowel preparation on adenoma/polyp detection rate (ADR/PDR) remained controversial. Methods: During the period from December 2020 to August 2022, a total of 1566 consecutive patients underwent colonoscopy by an endoscopist. Their medical records were reviewed. According to the Boston bowel preparation scale, patients were divided into excellent, good, and poor bowel preparation quality groups. ADR/PDR, diminutive ADR/PDR, small ADR/PDR, intermediate ADR/PDR, large ADR/PDR, and number of adenomas/polyps were compared among them. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the factors that were significantly associated with ADR/PDR. Results: Overall, 1232 patients were included, of whom 463, 636, and 133 were assigned to the excellent, good, and poor groups, respectively. The good group had a significantly higher ADR/PDR (63% vs 55%, P = .015) and a larger number of adenomas/polyps (2.5 ± 3.2 vs 2.0 ± 2.8, P = .030) than the poor group. Both ADR/PDR (63% vs 55%, P = .097) and number of adenomas/polyps (2.2 ± 2.8 vs 2.0 ± 2.8, P = .219) were not significantly different between excellent and poor groups. The excellent (9% vs 4%, P = .045) and good (9% vs 4%, P = .040) groups had a significantly higher intermediate ADR/PDR than the poor group. Logistic regression analyses showed that either good (odds ratio [OR] = 1.786, 95% CI = 1.046-3.047, P = .034) or excellent (OR = 2.179, 95% CI = 1.241-3.826, P = .007) bowel preparation quality was independently associated with a higher ADR/PDR compared with poor bowel preparation quality. Excellent (OR = 1.202, 95% CI = 0.848-1.704, P = .302) bowel preparation quality was not independently associated with a higher ADR/PDR compared with good bowel preparation quality. Conclusions: The pursuit of excellence in bowel preparation does not show an association with increased ADR/PDR and number of adenomas/polyps compared with a good level. In addition, our study further contributes to the existing evidence that poor bowel preparation compromises ADR/PDR and number of adenomas/polyps.

The impact of EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy on the polyp detection rate: A cross-over randomized back-to-back study.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide, and most CRCs develop from polyps with malignant potential. We aimed to study the difference in polyp detection rate between EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopies (EAC) and standard colonoscopy (SC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was conducted at Cairo University Hospitals on patients referred for screening or diagnostic colonoscopy from July 2018 to August 2020. All included patients underwent back-to-back standard colonoscopy (SC) and ENDOCUFF VISION-assisted colonoscopies (EAC). RESULTS: 214 patients were included in this study. In comparison between EAC and SC, EAC increased the polyp detection rate (69 (32.24 %) vs. 57(26.64 %) (p < 0.05), EAC increased the detection of diminutive polyps ≤ 5 mm (104 vs. 81) (p < 0.05), and small polyps 6-9 mm (12 vs. 10) while there was no difference in large polyps ≥ 10 mm. EAC increased the adenoma detection rate (ADR) (37 (17.2 %) vs. 32(14.9 %) (p < 0.05). The findings detected by EAC shortened the interval of surveillance determined by SC findings. EndoCuff caused six mucosal erosions (2.8 %) in patients. CONCLUSION: EAC increases the number of detected colonic polyps, primarily small polyps on the left and right sides of the colon.

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).

Effect of Real-Time Computer-Aided Polyp Detection System (ENDO-AID) on Adenoma Detection in Endoscopists-in-Training: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The effect of computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) on adenoma detection rate (ADR) among endoscopists-in-training remains unknown. METHODS: We performed a single-blind, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial in Hong Kong between April 2021 and July 2022 (NCT04838951). Eligible subjects undergoing screening/surveillance/diagnostic colonoscopies were randomized 1:1 to receive colonoscopies with CADe (ENDO-AID[OIP-1]) or not (control) during withdrawal. Procedures were performed by endoscopists-in-training with <500 procedures and <3 years' experience. Randomization was stratified by patient age, sex, and endoscopist experience (beginner vs intermediate level, <200 vs 200-500 procedures). Image enhancement and distal attachment devices were disallowed. Subjects with incomplete colonoscopies or inadequate bowel preparation were excluded. Treatment allocation was blinded to outcome assessors. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were ADR for different adenoma sizes and locations, mean number of adenomas, and non-neoplastic resection rate. RESULTS: A total of 386 and 380 subjects were randomized to CADe and control groups, respectively. The overall ADR was significantly higher in the CADe group than in the control group (57.5% vs 44.5%; adjusted relative risk, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.17-1.72; P < .001). The ADRs for <5 mm (40.4% vs 25.0%) and 5- to 10-mm adenomas (36.8% vs 29.2%) were higher in the CADe group. The ADRs were higher in the CADe group in both the right colon (42.0% vs 30.8%) and left colon (34.5% vs 27.6%), but there was no significant difference in advanced ADR. The ADRs were higher in the CADe group among beginner (60.0% vs 41.9%) and intermediate-level (56.5% vs 45.5%) endoscopists. Mean number of adenomas (1.48 vs 0.86) and non-neoplastic resection rate (52.1% vs 35.0%) were higher in the CADe group. CONCLUSIONS: Among endoscopists-in-training, the use of CADe during colonoscopies was associated with increased overall ADR. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT04838951).

Comparison of the characteristics of the CF-H290I and PCF-Q260JI colonoscopes in non-sedated patients with a history of abdominal or pelvic surgery: a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The purpose of this randomized controlled study was to compare the characteristics of the CF-H290I (high-definition) colonoscope with those of the PCF-Q260JI (high-resolution) colonoscope in non-sedated patients with a history of abdominal or pelvic surgery in an effort to help endoscopists to select more effectively and objectively between the various colonoscopes. METHODS: A total of 397 patients who underwent colonoscopy at the Affiliated Wuxi People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, between August 2022 and October 2022 were randomized to a CF-H290I group (n = 198) or a PCF-Q260JI group (n = 199) using a computer-generated allocation method. We compared the adenoma detection rate (ADR), patient satisfaction with the examination, discomfort associated with colonoscopy including abdominal distension and pain, cecal intubation time, and patient willingness to undergo colonoscopy in the future between the CF-H290I and PCF-Q260JI groups. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the overall ADR between the CF-H290I and PCF-Q260JI groups (81 [40.9%] vs 63 [31.7%], Z = 3.674, P = 0.055). However, the ADRs in the transverse colon and left colon were significantly higher in the CF-H290I group (22 [11.1%] vs 6 [3.0%], Z = 9.588, P = 0.002 and 57 [28.8%] vs 37 [18.6%], Z = 5.212, P = 0.017, respectively). More sessile serrated lesions were detected in the CF-H290I group (52 [26.3] vs 30 [15.1%], Z = 7.579, P = 0.006). Patient satisfaction with colonoscopy was better in the PCF-Q260JI group (8.91 ± 1.09 vs 8.51 ± 1.44, t = -3.158, P < 0.01) with less likelihood of discomfort (23 [11.6%] vs 41 [20.7%], Z = 6.144, P = 0.013), The number of patients willing to undergo colonoscopy in the future was significantly greater in the PCF-Q260JI group (168 [84.4%] vs 149 [75.3%], Z = 5.186, P = 0.023). The cecal intubation time was significantly shorter in the CF-H290I group (256.09 ± 155.70 s vs 315.64 ± 171.64 s, P = 0.004). There were no complications such as perforation or bleeding in either group. CONCLUSION: The CF-H290I and PCF-Q260JI colonoscopes each have advantages when used in patients with a history of abdominal or pelvic surgery. The CF-H290I has higher ADRs in the transverse and left colon whereas the PCF-Q260JI is less painful and better accepted by patients. This study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Wuxi People's Hospital and was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200063092).