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).

The Clinical Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Surveillance of Incidentally Detected Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia: A Microsimulation Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is associated with a higher risk of noncardia intestinal gastric adenocarcinoma (GA). The aim of this study was to estimate lifetime benefits, complications, and cost-effectiveness of GIM surveillance using esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). METHODS: We developed a semi-Markov microsimulation model of patients with incidentally detected GIM, to compare the effectiveness of EGD surveillance with no surveillance at 10-year, 5-year, 3-year, 2-year, and 1-year intervals. We modeled a simulated cohort of 1,000,000 US individuals aged 50 with incidental GIM. Outcome measures were lifetime GA incidence, mortality, number of EGDs, complications, undiscounted life-years gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: In the absence of surveillance, the model simulated 32.0 lifetime GA cases and 23.0 lifetime GA deaths per 1000 individuals with GIM, respectively. Among surveilled individuals, simulated lifetime GA incidence (per 1000) decreased with shorter surveillance intervals (10-year to 1-year, 11.2-6.1) as did GA mortality (7.4-3.6). Compared with no surveillance, all modeled surveillance intervals yielded greater life expectancy (87-190 undiscounted life-years gained per 1000); 5-year surveillance provided the greatest number of life-years gained per EGD performed and was the cost-effective strategy ($40,706/QALY). In individuals with risk factors of family history of GA or anatomically extensive, incomplete-type GIM intensified 3-year surveillance was cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $28,156/QALY and $87,020/QALY, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Using microsimulation modeling, surveillance of incidentally detected GIM every 5 years is associated with reduced GA incidence/mortality and is cost-effective from a health care sector perspective. Real-world studies evaluating the impact of GIM surveillance on GA incidence and mortality in the United States are needed.

Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic, surgical and pharmacological obesity therapies: a microsimulation and threshold analyses.

OBJECTIVE: Weight loss interventions to treat obesity include sleeve gastrectomy (SG), lifestyle intervention (LI), endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) and semaglutide. We aimed to identify which treatments are cost-effective and identify requirements for semaglutide to be cost-effective. DESIGN: We developed a semi-Markov microsimulation model to compare the effectiveness of SG, ESG, semaglutide and LI for weight loss in 40 years old with class I/II/III obesity. Extensive one-way sensitivity and threshold analysis were performed to vary cost of treatment strategies and semaglutide adherence rate. Outcome measures were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), with a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100 000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: When strategies were compared with each other, ESG was cost-effective in class I obesity (US$4105/QALY). SG was cost-effective in class II obesity (US$5883/QALY) and class III obesity (US$7821/QALY). In class I/II/III, obesity, SG and ESG were cost-effective compared with LI. However, semaglutide was not cost-effective compared with LI for class I/II/III obesity (ICER US$508 414/QALY, US$420 483/QALY and US$350 637/QALY). For semaglutide to be cost-effective compared with LI, it would have to cost less than US$7462 (class III), US$5847 (class II) or US$5149 (class I) annually. For semaglutide to be cost-effective when compared with ESG, it would have to cost less than US$1879 (class III), US$1204 (class II) or US$297 (class I) annually. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effective strategies were: ESG for class I obesity and SG for class II/III obesity. Semaglutide may be cost-effective with substantial cost reduction. Given potentially higher utilisation rates with pharmacotherapy, semaglutide may provide the largest reduction in obesity-related mortality.