A Comparison of Risk Classification Systems of Colorectal Adenomas: A Case-Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Because post-polypectomy surveillance uses a growing proportion of colonoscopy capacity, more targeted surveillance is warranted. We therefore compared surveillance burden and cancer detection using 3 different adenoma classification systems. METHODS: In a case-cohort study among individuals who had adenomas removed between 1993 and 2007, we included 675 individuals with colorectal cancer (cases) diagnosed a median of 5.6 years after adenoma removal and 906 randomly selected individuals (subcohort). We compared colorectal cancer incidence among high- and low-risk individuals defined according to the traditional (high-risk: diameter ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, villous growth pattern, or 3 or more adenomas), European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) 2020 (high-risk: diameter ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, or 5 or more adenomas), and novel (high-risk: diameter ≥20 mm or high-grade dysplasia) classification systems. For the different classification systems, we calculated the number of individuals recommended frequent surveillance colonoscopy and estimated number of delayed cancer diagnoses. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty individuals with adenomas (52.7%) were high risk based on the traditional classification, 369 (45.2%) were high risk based on the ESGE 2020 classification, and 220 (27.0%) were high risk based on the novel classification. Using the traditional, ESGE 2020, and novel classifications, the colorectal cancer incidences per 100,000 person-years were 479, 552, and 690 among high-risk individuals, and 123, 124, and 179 among low-risk individuals, respectively. Compared with the traditional classification, the number of individuals who needed frequent surveillance was reduced by 13.9% and 44.2%, respectively, and 1 (3.4%) and 7 (24.1%) cancer diagnoses were delayed using the ESGE 2020 and novel classifications. CONCLUSIONS: Using the ESGE 2020 and novel risk classifications will substantially reduce resources needed for colonoscopy surveillance after adenoma removal.

Speedometer for withdrawal time monitoring during colonoscopy: a clinical implementation trial.

OBJECTIVES: Meticulous inspection of the mucosa during colonoscopy, represents a lengthier withdrawal time, but has been shown to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR). We investigated if artificial intelligence-aided speed monitoring can improve suboptimal withdrawal time. METHODS: We evaluated the implementation of a computer-aided speed monitoring device during colonoscopy at a large academic endoscopy center. After informed consent, patients ≥18 years undergoing colonoscopy between 5 March and 29 April 2021 were examined without the use of the speedometer, and with the speedometer between 29 April and 30 June 2021. All colonoscopies were recorded, and withdrawal time was assessed based on the recordings in a blinded fashion. We compared mean withdrawal time, percentage of withdrawal time ≥6 min, and ADR with and without the speedometer. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-six patients in each group were eligible for analyses. Mean withdrawal time was 9 min and 6.6 s (95% CI: 8 min and 34.8 s to 9 min and 39 s) without the use of the speedometer, and 9 min and 9 s (95% CI: 8 min and 45 s to 9 min and 33.6 s) with the speedometer; difference 2.3 s (95% CI: -42.3-37.7, p = 0.91). The ADRs were 45.2% (95% CI: 37.6-52.8) without the speedometer as compared to 45.8% (95% CI: 38.2-53.4) with the speedometer (p = 0.91). The proportion of colonoscopies with withdrawal time ≥6 min without the speedometer was 85.5% (95% CI: 80.2-90.9) versus 86.7% (95% CI: 81.6-91.9) with the speedometer (p = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Use of speed monitoring during withdrawal did not increase withdrawal time or ADR in colonoscopy. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04710251.

Emergency hospital admissions, prognosis, and population mortality in Norway during the first wave of the Covid-19 epidemic.

BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the Covid-19 epidemic, a national lockdown was established in Norway, and inhabitants were asked to contact healthcare only if absolutely necessary. We investigated hospital admissions and mortality due to non-Covid-19 disease during the lockdown compared to previous years. METHODS: We compared the number of emergency admissions and in-hospital fatality for diagnoses probably unaffected (acute myocardial infarction, acute abdominal conditions, cerebrovascular diseases) and affected by the lockdown (infections, injuries) in the South-Eastern Health Region of Norway during weeks 12-22, 2020, compared to the mean of the same period in the years 2017-2019. We also compared population mortality March-May 2020, to the mean of the same period in years 2017-2019. RESULTS: A total of 280,043 emergency admissions were observed; 20,911 admissions probably unaffected, and 30,905 admissions probably affected by the lockdown. Admissions due to diagnoses probably unaffected was reduced by 12% (95% confidence interval (CI) 9-15%), compared to 2017-2019. Admissions for diagnoses probably affected was reduced by 30% (95% CI 28-32%). There was a 34% reduction in in-hospital fatality due to acute myocardial infarction (95% CI 4-56%), 19% due to infections (95% CI 1-33%), and no change for the other diagnoses, compared to 2017-2019. The risk of in-hospital mortality to total mortality was lower for acute myocardial infarction (relative risk 0.85, 95% CI 0.73-0.99) and injuries (relative risk 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Even though fewer patients were admitted to hospital, there was no increase in in-hospital fatality or population mortality, indicating that those who were most in need still received adequate care.

Impact of artificial intelligence on colorectal polyp detection for early-career endoscopists: an international comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) for polyp detection is being introduced to colonoscopy, but there is uncertainty how this affects endoscopists' ability to detect polyps and neoplasms. We performed a video-based study to address whether AI improved the endoscopists' performance to detect polyps. METHODS: We established a dataset of 200 colonoscopy videos (length 5 s; 100 without polyps and 100 with one polyp). About 33 early-career endoscopists (50-400 colonoscopies performed) from 10 European countries classified each video as either 'polyp present' or 'polyp not present'. The video assessment was performed twice with a four-week interval. The first assessment was performed without any AI tool, whereas the second was performed with an AI tool for polyp detection. The primary endpoint was early-career endoscopists' sensitivity to detect polyps. Gold standard for presence and histology of polyps were confirmed by two expert endoscopists and pathologists, respectively. McNemar's test was used for statistical significance. RESULTS: There were 86 neoplastic and 14 non-neoplastic polyps (mean size 5.6 mm) in the 100 videos with polyps. Early-career endoscopists' sensitivity to detect polyps increased from 86.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 85.1-87.5%) to 91.7% (95%CI: 90.7-92.6%) with the AI aid (p < .0001). Their sensitivity to detect neoplastic polyps increased from 85.4% (95% CI: 84.0-86.7%) to 92.1% (95%CI: 91.1-93.1%) with the AI aid (p < .0001). CONCLUSION: The polyp detection AI tool helped early-career endoscopists to increase their sensitivity to identify all polyps and neoplastic polyps during colonoscopy.

Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence for screening colonoscopy: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools increase detection of precancerous polyps during colonoscopy and might contribute to long-term colorectal cancer prevention. The aim of the study was to investigate the incremental effect of the implementation of AI detection tools in screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, and the cost-effectiveness of such tools. METHODS: We conducted Markov model microsimulation of using colonoscopy with and without AI for colorectal cancer screening for individuals at average risk (no personal or family history of colorectal cancer, adenomas, inflammatory bowel disease, or hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome). We ran the microsimulation in a hypothetical cohort of 100 000 individuals in the USA aged 50-100 years. The primary analysis investigated screening colonoscopy with versus without AI every 10 years starting at age 50 years and finishing at age 80 years, with follow-up until age 100 years, assuming 60% screening population uptake. In secondary analyses, we modelled once-in-life screening colonoscopy at age 65 years in adults aged 50-79 years at average risk for colorectal cancer. Post-polypectomy surveillance followed the simplified current guideline. Costs of AI tools and cost for downstream treatment of screening detected disease were estimated with 3% annual discount rates. The main outcome measures included the incremental effect of AI-assisted colonoscopy versus standard (no-AI) colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, and cost-effectiveness of screening projected for the average risk screening US population. FINDINGS: In the primary analyses, compared with no screening, the relative reduction of colorectal cancer incidence with screening colonoscopy without AI tools was 44·2% and with screening colonoscopy with AI tools was 48·9% (4·8% incremental gain). Compared with no screening, the relative reduction in colorectal cancer mortality with screening colonoscopy with no AI was 48·7% and with screening colonoscopy with AI was 52·3% (3·6% incremental gain). AI detection tools decreased the discounted costs per screened individual from $3400 to $3343 (a saving of $57 per individual). Results were similar in the secondary analyses modelling once-in-life colonoscopy. At the US population level, the implementation of AI detection during screening colonoscopy resulted in yearly additional prevention of 7194 colorectal cancer cases and 2089 related deaths, and a yearly saving of US$290 million. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that implementation of AI detection tools in screening colonoscopy is a cost-saving strategy to further prevent colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. FUNDING: European Commission and Japan Society of Promotion of Science.

Risk of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancer is increased by primary sclerosing cholangitis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is continued uncertainty regarding the risks of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with or without concomitant primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). OBJECTIVE: To give updated estimates on risk of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers in patients with IBD, including pancreatic cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, gall bladder cancer, and intra - and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS: In a population-based cohort study, we included all patients diagnosed with IBD in Norway and Sweden from 1987 to 2016. The cohort comprised of 141,960 patients, identified through hospital databases and the National Patient Register. Participants were followed through linkage to national cancer, cause of death, and population registries. We calculated absolute risk and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers by PSC and other clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 141,960 IBD patients, 3.2% were diagnosed with PSC. During a median follow-up of 10.0 years, we identified 443 biliary tract cancers (SIR 5.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.8-5.7), 161 hepatocellular carcinomas (SIR 2.4, 95% CI 2.0-2.7) and 282 pancreatic cancers (SIR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.5). The relative risks were considerably higher in PSC-IBD patients, with SIR of 140 (95% CI 123-159) for biliary tract, 38.6 (95% CI 29.2-50.0) for hepatocellular, and 9.0 (95% CI 6.3-12.6) for pancreatic cancer. The SIRs were still slightly increased in non-PSC-IBD patients, compared to the general population. For biliary tract cancer, the cumulative probability at 25 years was 15.6% in PSC-IBD patients, and 0.4% in non-PSC-IBD patients. CONCLUSIONS: The dramatically increased risks of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers in PSC-IBD patients support periodic surveillance for these malignancies. While much lower, the excess relative risks in non-PSC-IBD patients were not trivial compared to non-IBD related risk factors.

Long-term colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after adenoma removal in women and men.

BACKGROUND: Women and men with colorectal adenomas are at increased risk of colorectal cancer and colonoscopic surveillance is recommended. However, the long-term cancer risk remains unknown. AIMS: To investigate colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after adenoma removal in women and men METHODS: We identified all individuals who had adenomas removed in Norway from 1993 to 2007, with follow-up through 2018. We calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and incidence-based mortality ratios (SMR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for colorectal cancer in women and men using the female and male population for comparison. We defined high-risk adenomas as ≥2 adenomas, villous component, or high-grade dysplasia. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 40 293 individuals. During median follow-up of 13.0 years, 1079 women (5.5%) and 866 men (4.2%) developed colorectal cancer; 328 women (1.7%) and 275 men (1.3%) died of colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer incidence was more increased in women (SIR 1.64, 95% CI 1.54-1.74) than in men (SIR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05-1.19). Colorectal cancer mortality was increased in women (SMR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.26) and reduced in men (SMR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89). Women with high-risk adenomas had an increased risk of colorectal cancer death (SMR 1.37, 95% CI 1.19-1.57); women with low-risk adenomas (SMR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76-1.07) and men with high-risk adenomas had a similar risk (SMR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76-1.04), while men with low-risk adenomas had reduced risk (SMR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: After adenoma removal, women had an increased risk of colorectal cancer death, while men had reduced risk, compared to the general female and male populations. Sex-specific surveillance recommendations after adenoma removal should be considered.

Mortality in Norway and Sweden during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Norway and Sweden are similar countries in terms of socioeconomics and health care. Norway implemented extensive COVID-19 measures, such as school closures and lockdowns, whereas Sweden did not. Aims: To compare mortality in Norway and Sweden, two similar countries with very different mitigation measures against COVID-19. Methods: Using real-world data from national registries, we compared all-cause and COVID-19-related mortality rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) per 100,000 person-weeks and mortality rate ratios (MRR) comparing the five preceding years (2015-2019) with the pandemic year (2020) in Norway and Sweden. Results: In Norway, all-cause mortality was stable from 2015 to 2019 (mortality rate 14.6-15.1 per 100,000 person-weeks; mean mortality rate 14.9) and was lower in 2020 than from 2015 to 2019 (mortality rate 14.4; MRR 0.97; 95% CI 0.96-0.98). In Sweden, all-cause mortality was stable from 2015 to 2018 (mortality rate 17.0-17.8; mean mortality rate 17.1) and similar to that in 2020 (mortality rate 17.6), but lower in 2019 (mortality rate 16.2). Compared with the years 2015-2019, all-cause mortality in the pandemic year was 3% higher due to the lower rate in 2019 (MRR 1.03; 95% CI 1.02-1.04). Excess mortality was confined to people aged ⩾70 years in Sweden compared with previous years. The COVID-19-associated mortality rates per 100,000 person-weeks during the first wave of the pandemic were 0.3 in Norway and 2.9 in Sweden. Conclusions: All-cause mortality in 2020 decreased in Norway and increased in Sweden compared with previous years. The observed excess deaths in Sweden during the pandemic may, in part, be explained by mortality displacement due to the low all-cause mortality in the previous year.

Real-Time Artificial Intelligence-Based Optical Diagnosis of Neoplastic Polyps during Colonoscopy.

Real-Time AI-Based Diagnosis of Neoplastic PolypsColonoscopists diagnosed small colonic polyps as benign or malignant on the basis of their appearance. The results were compared in real time to see if CADx could distinguish among polyps requiring removal. For standard visual inspection versus CADx, we determined sensitivity for diagnosis (88.4% vs. 90.4%) and high confidence in assessment (74.2% vs. 92.6%).

Covid-19 transmission in fitness centers in Norway - a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Closed fitness centers during the Covid-19 pandemic may negatively impact health and wellbeing. We assessed whether training at fitness centers increases the risk of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection. METHODS: In a two-group parallel randomized controlled trial, fitness center members aged 18 to 64 without Covid-19-relevant comorbidities, were randomized to access to training at a fitness center or no-access. Fitness centers applied physical distancing (1 m for floor exercise, 2 m for high-intensity classes) and enhanced hand and surface hygiene. Primary outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 RNA status by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) after 14 days, hospital admission after 21 days. The secondary endpoint was SARS-CoV-2 antibody status after 1 month. RESULTS: 3764 individuals were randomized; 1896 to the training arm and 1868 to the no-training arm. In the training arm, 81.8% trained at least once, and 38.5% trained ≥six times. Of 3016 individuals who returned the SARS-CoV-2 RNA tests (80.5%), there was one positive test in the training arm, and none in the no-training arm (risk difference 0.053%; 95% CI - 0.050 to 0.156%; p = 0.32). Eleven individuals in the training arm (0.8% of tested) and 27 in the no-training arm (2.4% of tested) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (risk difference - 0.87%; 95%CI - 1.52% to - 0.23%; p = 0.001). No outpatient visits or hospital admissions due to Covid-19 occurred in either arm. CONCLUSION: Provided good hygiene and physical distancing measures and low population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, there was no increased infection risk of SARS-CoV-2 in fitness centers in Oslo, Norway for individuals without Covid-19-relevant comorbidities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on May 13, 2020. Due to administrative issues it was first posted on the register website on May 29, 2020: NCT04406909 .

Women require routine opioids to prevent painful colonoscopies: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Women are at high risk for painful colonoscopy. Pain, but also sedation, are barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation. In a randomised controlled trial, we compared on-demand with pre-colonoscopy opioid administration to control pain in women at CRC screening age. METHODS: Women, aged 55-79 years, attending colonoscopy at two Norwegian endoscopy units were randomised 1:1:1 to (1) fentanyl on-demand, (2) fentanyl prior to colonoscopy, or (3) alfentanil on-demand. The primary endpoint was procedural pain reported by the patients on a validated four-point Likert scale and further dichotomized for the study into painful (moderate or severe pain) and non-painful (slight or no pain) colonoscopy. Secondary endpoints were: willingness to repeat colonoscopy, adverse events, cecal intubation time and rate, and post-procedure recovery time. RESULTS: Between June 2017 and May 2020, 183 patients were included in intention-to-treat analyses in the fentanyl on-demand group, 177 in the fentanyl prior to colonoscopy group, and 179 in the alfentanil on-demand group. Fewer women receiving fentanyl prior to colonoscopy reported a painful colonoscopy compared to those who were given fentanyl on-demand (25.2% vs. 44.1%, p < .001). There was no difference in the proportion of painful colonoscopies between fentanyl on-demand and alfentanil on-demand (44.1% vs. 39.5%, p = .40). No differences were observed for adverse events or any of the other secondary endpoints between the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Fentanyl prior to colonoscopy provided better pain control than fentanyl or alfentanil on-demand. Fentanyl before colonoscopy should be recommended to all women at screening age. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550). Norwegian Medicines Agency (16/16266-13). EU Clinical Trials Register (EUDRACTNR. 2016-005090-13).

Colorectal polyp characterization with endocytoscopy: Ready for widespread implementation with artificial intelligence?

Endocytoscopy provides an in-vivo visualization of nuclei and micro-vessels at the cellular level in real-time, facilitating so-called "optical biopsy" or "virtual histology" of colorectal polyps/neoplasms. This functionality is enabled by 520-fold magnification power with endocytoscopy and recent breakthroughs in artificial intelligence (AI) allowing a great advance in endocytoscopic imaging; interpretation of images is now fully supported by AI tool which outputs predictions of polyp histopathology during colonoscopy. The advantage of the use of AI during optical biopsy can be appreciated especially by non-expert endoscopists who to increase performance. This paper provides an overview of the latest evidence on colorectal polyp characterization with endocytoscopy combined with AI and identify the barriers to its widespread implementation.

Artificial intelligence for polyp detection during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based polyp detection systems are used during colonoscopy with the aim of increasing lesion detection and improving colonoscopy quality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials to determine the value of AI-based polyp detection systems for detection of polyps and colorectal cancer. We performed systematic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Independent reviewers screened studies and assessed eligibility, certainty of evidence, and risk of bias. We compared colonoscopy with and without AI by calculating relative and absolute risks and mean differences for detection of polyps, adenomas, and colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Five randomized trials were eligible for analysis. Colonoscopy with AI increased adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and polyp detection rates (PDRs) compared to colonoscopy without AI (values given with 95 %CI). ADR with AI was 29.6 % (22.2 % - 37.0 %) versus 19.3 % (12.7 % - 25.9 %) without AI; relative risk (RR] 1.52 (1.31 - 1.77), with high certainty. PDR was 45.4 % (41.1 % - 49.8 %) with AI versus 30.6 % (26.5 % - 34.6 %) without AI; RR 1.48 (1.37 - 1.60), with high certainty. There was no difference in detection of advanced adenomas (mean advanced adenomas per colonoscopy 0.03 for each group, high certainty). Mean adenomas detected per colonoscopy was higher for small adenomas (≤ 5 mm) for AI versus non-AI (mean difference 0.15 [0.12 - 0.18]), but not for larger adenomas (> 5 - ≤ 10 mm, mean difference 0.03 [0.01 - 0.05]; > 10 mm, mean difference 0.01 [0.00 - 0.02]; high certainty). Data on cancer are unavailable. CONCLUSIONS: AI-based polyp detection systems during colonoscopy increase detection of small nonadvanced adenomas and polyps, but not of advanced adenomas.