Impact of a real-time automatic quality control system on colorectal polyp and adenoma detection: a prospective randomized controlled study (with videos)

Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy

Diagnostic errors impact patient health and healthcare costs. Artificial Intelligence (AI) shows promise in mitigating this burden by supporting Medical Doctors in decision-making. However, the mere display of excellent or even superhuman performance by AI in specific tasks does not guarantee a positive impact on medical practice. Effective AI assistance should target the primary causes of human errors and foster effective collaborative decision-making with human experts who remain the ultimate decision-makers. In this narrative review, we apply these principles to the specific scenario of AI assistance during colonoscopy. By unraveling the neurocognitive foundations of the colonoscopy procedure, we identify multiple bottlenecks in perception, attention, and decision-making that contribute to diagnostic errors, shedding light on potential interventions to mitigate them. Furthermore, we explored how existing AI devices fare in clinical practice and whether they achieved an optimal integration with the human decision-maker. We argue that to foster optimal Human-AI collaboration, future research should expand our knowledge of factors influencing AI's impact, establish evidence-based cognitive models, and develop training programs based on them. These efforts will enhance human-AI collaboration, ultimately improving diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes. The principles illuminated in this review hold more general value, extending their relevance to a wide array of medical procedures and beyond.

Endocuff With or Without Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy in Detection of Colorectal Adenoma: A Randomized Colonoscopy Trial

INTRODUCTION

Both artificial intelligence (AI) and distal attachment devices have been shown to improve adenoma detection rate and reduce miss rate during colonoscopy. We studied the combined effect of Endocuff and AI on enhancing detection rates of various colonic lesions.

METHODS

This was a 3-arm prospective randomized colonoscopy study involving patients aged 40 years or older. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to undergo Endocuff with AI, AI alone, or standard high-definition (HD) colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) between the Endocuff-AI and AI groups while secondary outcomes included detection rates of polyp (PDR), sessile serrated lesion (sessile detection rate [SDR]), and advanced adenoma (advanced adenoma detection rate) between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 682 patients were included (mean age 65.4 years, 52.3% male), with 53.7% undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. The ADR for the Endocuff-AI, AI, and HD groups was 58.7%, 53.8%, and 46.3%, respectively, while the corresponding PDR was 77.0%, 74.0%, and 61.2%. A significant increase in ADR, PDR, and SDR was observed between the Endocuff-AI and AI groups (ADR difference: 4.9%, 95% CI: 1.4%-8.2%, P = 0.03; PDR difference: 3.0%, 95% CI: 0.4%-5.8%, P = 0.04; SDR difference: 6.4%, 95% CI: 3.4%-9.7%, P < 0.01). Both Endocuff-AI and AI groups had a higher ADR, PDR, SDR, and advanced adenoma detection rate than the HD group (all P < 0.01).

DISCUSSION

Endocuff in combination with AI further improves various colonic lesion detection rates when compared with AI alone.

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.

Application of artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Endoscopy is an important method for diagnosing gastrointestinal (GI) diseases. In this study, we provide an overview of the advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technology in the field of GI endoscopy over recent years, including esophagus, stomach, large intestine, and capsule endoscopy (small intestine). AI-assisted endoscopy shows high accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in the detection and diagnosis of GI diseases at all levels. Hence, AI will make a breakthrough in the field of GI endoscopy in the near future. However, AI technology currently has some limitations and is still in the preclinical stages.

Impact of study design on adenoma detection in the evaluation of artificial intelligence-aided colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported that artificial intelligence (AI) improves endoscopic polyp detection. Different methodologies-namely, parallel and tandem designs-have been used to evaluate the efficacy of AI-assisted colonoscopy in RCTs. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported a pooled effect that includes both study designs. However, it is unclear whether there are inconsistencies in the reported results of these 2 designs. Here, we aimed to determine whether study characteristics moderate between-trial differences in outcomes when evaluating the effectiveness of AI-assisted polyp detection.

METHODS

A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore was performed through March 1, 2023, for RCTs comparing AI-assisted colonoscopy with routine high-definition colonoscopy in polyp detection. The primary outcome of interest was the impact of study type on the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes included the impact of the study type on adenomas per colonoscopy and withdrawal time, as well as the impact of geographic location, AI system, and endoscopist experience on ADR. Pooled event analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-four RCTs involving 17,413 colonoscopies (AI assisted: 8680; non-AI assisted: 8733) were included. AI-assisted colonoscopy improved overall ADR (risk ratio [RR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-1.31; I2 = 53%; P < .001). Tandem studies collectively demonstrated improved ADR in AI-aided colonoscopies (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.08-1.30; I2 = 0%; P < .001), as did parallel studies (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.17-1.35; I2 = 62%; P < .001), with no statistical subgroup difference between study design. Both tandem and parallel study designs revealed improvement in adenomas per colonoscopy in AI-aided colonoscopies, but this improvement was more marked among tandem studies (P < .001). AI assistance significantly increased withdrawal times for parallel (P = .002), but not tandem, studies. ADR improvement was more marked among studies conducted in Asia compared to Europe and North America in a subgroup analysis (P = .007). Type of AI system used or endoscopist experience did not affect overall improvement in ADR.

CONCLUSIONS

Either parallel or tandem study design can capture the improvement in ADR resulting from the use of AI-assisted polyp detection systems. Tandem studies powered to detect differences in endoscopic performance through paired comparison may be a resource-efficient method of evaluating new AI-assisted technologies.

Consensus statements on the current landscape of artificial intelligence applications in endoscopy, addressing roadblocks, and advancing artificial intelligence in gastroenterology

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) AI Task Force along with experts in endoscopy, technology space, regulatory authorities, and other medical subspecialties initiated a consensus process that analyzed the current literature, highlighted potential areas, and outlined the necessary research in artificial intelligence (AI) to allow a clearer understanding of AI as it pertains to endoscopy currently.

METHODS

A modified Delphi process was used to develop these consensus statements.

RESULTS

Statement 1: Current advances in AI allow for the development of AI-based algorithms that can be applied to endoscopy to augment endoscopist performance in detection and characterization of endoscopic lesions. Statement 2: Computer vision-based algorithms provide opportunities to redefine quality metrics in endoscopy using AI, which can be standardized and can reduce subjectivity in reporting quality metrics. Natural language processing-based algorithms can help with the data abstraction needed for reporting current quality metrics in GI endoscopy effortlessly. Statement 3: AI technologies can support smart endoscopy suites, which may help optimize workflows in the endoscopy suite, including automated documentation. Statement 4: Using AI and machine learning helps in predictive modeling, diagnosis, and prognostication. High-quality data with multidimensionality are needed for risk prediction, prognostication of specific clinical conditions, and their outcomes when using machine learning methods. Statement 5: Big data and cloud-based tools can help advance clinical research in gastroenterology. Multimodal data are key to understanding the maximal extent of the disease state and unlocking treatment options. Statement 6: Understanding how to evaluate AI algorithms in the gastroenterology literature and clinical trials is important for gastroenterologists, trainees, and researchers, and hence education efforts by GI societies are needed. Statement 7: Several challenges regarding integrating AI solutions into the clinical practice of endoscopy exist, including understanding the role of human-AI interaction. Transparency, interpretability, and explainability of AI algorithms play a key role in their clinical adoption in GI endoscopy. Developing appropriate AI governance, data procurement, and tools needed for the AI lifecycle are critical for the successful implementation of AI into clinical practice. Statement 8: For payment of AI in endoscopy, a thorough evaluation of the potential value proposition for AI systems may help guide purchasing decisions in endoscopy. Reliable cost-effectiveness studies to guide reimbursement are needed. Statement 9: Relevant clinical outcomes and performance metrics for AI in gastroenterology are currently not well defined. To improve the quality and interpretability of research in the field, steps need to be taken to define these evidence standards. Statement 10: A balanced view of AI technologies and active collaboration between the medical technology industry, computer scientists, gastroenterologists, and researchers are critical for the meaningful advancement of AI in gastroenterology.

CONCLUSIONS

The consensus process led by the ASGE AI Task Force and experts from various disciplines has shed light on the potential of AI in endoscopy and gastroenterology. AI-based algorithms have shown promise in augmenting endoscopist performance, redefining quality metrics, optimizing workflows, and aiding in predictive modeling and diagnosis. However, challenges remain in evaluating AI algorithms, ensuring transparency and interpretability, addressing governance and data procurement, determining payment models, defining relevant clinical outcomes, and fostering collaboration between stakeholders. Addressing these challenges while maintaining a balanced perspective is crucial for the meaningful advancement of AI in gastroenterology.

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.

Artificial intelligence image-based prediction models in IBD exhibit high risk of bias: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There has been an increase in the development of both machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) prediction models in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. We aim in this systematic review to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of ML and DL IBD image-based prediction studies.

METHODS

We searched three databases, PubMed, Scopus and Embase, to identify ML and DL diagnostic or prognostic predictive models using imaging data in IBD, to Dec 31, 2022. We restricted our search to include studies that primarily used conventional imaging data, were undertaken in human participants, and published in English. Two reviewers independently reviewed the abstracts. The methodological quality of the studies was determined, and risk of bias evaluated using the prediction risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST).

RESULTS

Forty studies were included, thirty-nine developed diagnostic models. Seven studies utilized ML approaches, six were retrospective and none used multicenter data for model development. Thirty-three studies utilized DL approaches, ten were prospective, and twelve multicenter studies. Overall, all studies demonstrated high risk of bias. ML studies were evaluated in 4 domains all rated as high risk of bias: participants (6/7), predictors (1/7), outcome (3/7), and analysis (7/7), and DL studies evaluated in 3 domains: participants (24/33), outcome (10/33), and analysis (18/33). The majority of image-based studies used colonoscopy images.

CONCLUSION

The risk of bias was high in AI IBD image-based prediction models, owing to insufficient sample size, unreported missingness and lack of an external validation cohort. Models with a high risk of bias are unlikely to be generalizable and suitable for clinical implementation.

Development and evaluation of a program based on a generative pre-trained transformer model from a public natural language processing platform for efficiency enhancement in post-procedural quality control of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Post-procedural quality control of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is emphasized in guidelines. However, this process can be tedious and time-consuming. Recently, a pre-training model called generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) on a public natural language processing platform has emerged and garnered significant attention, whose capabilities align well with the post-procedural quality control process and have the potential to streamline it. Therefore, we developed a simple program utilizing this platform and evaluated its performance.

METHODS

Esophageal ESDs were retrospectively included. The manual quality control process was performed and act as reference standard. GPT's prompt was optimized through multiple iterations. A Python program was developed to automatically submit prompt with pathological report of each ESD procedure and collect quality control information provided by GPT. Its performance on quality control was evaluated with accuracy, precision, recall, and F-1 score.

RESULTS

165 cases were involved into the dataset, of which 5 were utilized as the prompt optimization dataset and 160 as the validation dataset. Definitive prompt was achieved through seven iterations. Time spent on the validation dataset by GPT was 13.47 ± 2.43 min. Accuracies of pathological diagnosis, invasion depth, horizontal margin, vertical margin, vascular invasion, and lymphatic invasion of the quality control program were (0.940, 0.952) (95% CI), (0.925, 0.945) (95% CI), 0.931, 1.0, and 1.0, respectively. Precisions were (0.965, 0.969) (95% CI), (0.934, 0.954) (95% CI), and 0.957 for pathological diagnosis, invasion depth, and horizontal margin, respectively. Recalls were (0.940, 0.952) (95% CI), (0.925, 0.945) (95% CI), and 0.931 for factors as mentioned, respectively. F1-score were (0.945, 0.957) (95% CI), (0.928, 0.948) (95% CI), and 0.941 for factors as mentioned, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This quality control program was qualified of post-procedural quality control of esophageal ESDs. GPT can be easily applied to this quality control process and reduce workload of the endoscopists.

Direct comparison of multiple computer-aided polyp detection systems

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems for computer-aided detection (CADe) of polyps receive regular updates and occasionally offer customizable detection thresholds, both of which impact their performance, but little is known about these effects. This study aimed to compare the performance of different CADe systems on the same benchmark dataset.

METHODS

 101 colonoscopy videos were used as benchmark. Each video frame with a visible polyp was manually annotated with bounding boxes, resulting in 129 705 polyp images. The videos were then analyzed by three different CADe systems, representing five conditions: two versions of GI Genius, Endo-AID with detection Types A and B, and EndoMind, a freely available system. Evaluation included an analysis of sensitivity and false-positive rate, among other metrics.

RESULTS

 Endo-AID detection Type A, the earlier version of GI Genius, and EndoMind detected all 93 polyps. Both the later version of GI Genius and Endo-AID Type B missed 1 polyp. The mean per-frame sensitivities were 50.63 % and 67.85 %, respectively, for the earlier and later versions of GI Genius, 65.60 % and 52.95 %, respectively, for Endo-AID Types A and B, and 60.22 % for EndoMind.

CONCLUSIONS

 This study compares the performance of different CADe systems, different updates, and different configuration modes. This might help clinicians to select the most appropriate system for their specific needs.

Development and validation of a three-dimensional deep learning-based system for assessing bowel preparation on colonoscopy video

Background

The performance of existing image-based training models in evaluating bowel preparation on colonoscopy videos was relatively low, and only a few models used external data to prove their generalization. Therefore, this study attempted to develop a more precise and stable AI system for assessing bowel preparation of colonoscopy video.

Methods

We proposed a system named ViENDO to assess the bowel preparation quality, including two CNNs. First, Information-Net was used to identify and filter out colonoscopy video frames unsuitable for Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) scoring. Second, BBPS-Net was trained and tested with 5,566 suitable short video clips through three-dimensional (3D) convolutional neural network (CNN) technology to detect BBPS-based insufficient bowel preparation. Then, ViENDO was applied to complete withdrawal colonoscopy videos from multiple centers to predict BBPS segment scores in clinical settings. We also conducted a human-machine contest to compare its performance with endoscopists.

Results

In video clips, BBPS-Net for determining inadequate bowel preparation generated an area under the curve of up to 0.98 and accuracy of 95.2%. When applied to full-length withdrawal colonoscopy videos, ViENDO assessed bowel cleanliness with an accuracy of 93.8% in the internal test set and 91.7% in the external dataset. The human-machine contest demonstrated that the accuracy of ViENDO was slightly superior compared to most endoscopists, though no statistical significance was found.

Conclusion

The 3D-CNN-based AI model showed good performance in evaluating full-length bowel preparation on colonoscopy video. It has the potential as a substitute for endoscopists to provide BBPS-based assessments during daily clinical practice.

[Guidelines for clinical trial protocols for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the SPIRIT-AI extensionDiretrizes para protocolos de ensaios clínicos com intervenções que utilizam inteligência artificial: a extensão SPIRIT-AI]

The SPIRIT 2013 statement aims to improve the completeness of clinical trial protocol reporting by providing evidence-based recommendations for the minimum set of items to be addressed. This guidance has been instrumental in promoting transparent evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate their impact on health outcomes. The SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trial protocols evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for trial reports: CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 26 candidate items, which were consulted upon by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The SPIRIT-AI extension includes 15 new items that were considered sufficiently important for clinical trial protocols of AI interventions. These new items should be routinely reported in addition to the core SPIRIT 2013 items. SPIRIT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention will be integrated, considerations for the handling of input and output data, the human-AI interaction and analysis of error cases. SPIRIT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness for clinical trial protocols for AI interventions. Its use will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically appraise the design and risk of bias for a planned clinical trial.

Application of artificial intelligence in endoscopic gastrointestinal tumors

With an increasing number of patients with gastrointestinal cancer, effective and accurate early diagnostic clinical tools are required provide better health care for patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Recent studies have shown that artificial intelligence (AI) plays an important role in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with gastrointestinal tumors, which not only improves the efficiency of early tumor screening, but also significantly improves the survival rate of patients after treatment. With the aid of efficient learning and judgment abilities of AI, endoscopists can improve the accuracy of diagnosis and treatment through endoscopy and avoid incorrect descriptions or judgments of gastrointestinal lesions. The present article provides an overview of the application status of various artificial intelligence in gastric and colorectal cancers in recent years, and the direction of future research and clinical practice is clarified from a clinical perspective to provide a comprehensive theoretical basis for AI as a promising diagnostic and therapeutic tool for gastrointestinal cancer.

Artificial intelligence for colorectal neoplasia detection during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in detecting colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopy holds the potential to enhance adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and reduce adenoma miss rates (AMRs). However, varied outcomes have been observed across studies. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the potential advantages and disadvantages of employing AI-aided systems during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords, a comprehensive electronic literature search was performed of the Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library databases from the inception of each database until October 04, 2023, in order to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AI-assisted with standard colonoscopy for detecting colorectal neoplasia. Primary outcomes included AMR, ADR, and adenomas detected per colonoscopy (APC). Secondary outcomes comprised the poly missed detection rate (PMR), poly detection rate (PDR), and poly detected per colonoscopy (PPC). We utilized random-effects meta-analyses with Hartung-Knapp adjustment to consolidate results. The prediction interval (PI) and I2 statistics were utilized to quantify between-study heterogeneity. Moreover, meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the potential sources of heterogeneity. This systematic review and meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023428658).

FINDINGS

This study encompassed 33 trials involving 27,404 patients. Those undergoing AI-aided colonoscopy experienced a significant decrease in PMR (RR, 0.475; 95% CI, 0.294-0.768; I2 = 87.49%) and AMR (RR, 0.495; 95% CI, 0.390-0.627; I2 = 48.76%). Additionally, a significant increase in PDR (RR, 1.238; 95% CI, 1.158-1.323; I2 = 81.67%) and ADR (RR, 1.242; 95% CI, 1.159-1.332; I2 = 78.87%), along with a significant increase in the rates of PPC (IRR, 1.388; 95% CI, 1.270-1.517; I2 = 91.99%) and APC (IRR, 1.390; 95% CI, 1.277-1.513; I2 = 86.24%), was observed. This resulted in 0.271 more PPCs (95% CI, 0.144-0.259; I2 = 65.61%) and 0.202 more APCs (95% CI, 0.144-0.259; I2 = 68.15%).

INTERPRETATION

AI-aided colonoscopy significantly enhanced the detection of colorectal neoplasia detection, likely by reducing the miss rate. However, future studies should focus on evaluating the cost-effectiveness and long-term benefits of AI-aided colonoscopy in reducing cancer incidence.

FUNDING

This work was supported by the Heilongjiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (LH2023H096), the Postdoctoral research project in Heilongjiang Province (LBH-Z22210), the National Natural Science Foundation of China's General Program (82072640) and the Outstanding Youth Project of Heilongjiang Natural Science Foundation (YQ2021H023).

Deep learning based identification of pituitary adenoma on surgical endoscopic images: a pilot study

Accurate tumor identification during surgical excision is necessary for neurosurgeons to determine the extent of resection without damaging the surrounding tissues. No conventional technologies have achieved reliable performance for pituitary adenomas. This study proposes a deep learning approach using intraoperative endoscopic images to discriminate pituitary adenomas from non-tumorous tissue inside the sella turcica. Static images were extracted from 50 intraoperative videos of patients with pituitary adenomas. All patients underwent endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery with a 4 K ultrahigh-definition endoscope. The tumor and non-tumorous tissue within the sella turcica were delineated on static images. Using intraoperative images, we developed and validated deep learning models to identify tumorous tissue. Model performance was evaluated using a fivefold per-patient methodology. As a proof-of-concept, the model's predictions were pathologically cross-referenced with a medical professional's diagnosis using the intraoperative images of a prospectively enrolled patient. In total, 605 static images were obtained. Among the cropped 117,223 patches, 58,088 were labeled as tumors, while the remaining 59,135 were labeled as non-tumorous tissues. The evaluation of the image dataset revealed that the wide-ResNet model had the highest accuracy of 0.768, with an F1 score of 0.766. A preliminary evaluation on one patient indicated alignment between the ground truth set by neurosurgeons, the model's predictions, and histopathological findings. Our deep learning algorithm has a positive tumor discrimination performance in intraoperative 4-K endoscopic images in patients with pituitary adenomas.

The imitation game: a review of the use of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy, and endoscopists' perceptions thereof

The development of deep learning systems in artificial intelligence (AI) has enabled advances in endoscopy, and AI-aided colonoscopy has recently been ushered into clinical practice as a clinical decision-support tool. This has enabled real-time AI-aided detection of polyps with a higher sensitivity than the average endoscopist, and evidence to support its use has been promising thus far. This review article provides a summary of currently published data relating to AI-aided colonoscopy, discusses current clinical applications, and introduces ongoing research directions. We also explore endoscopists' perceptions and attitudes toward the use of this technology, and discuss factors influencing its uptake in clinical practice.

Role of Artificial Intelligence in Colonoscopy Detection of Advanced Neoplasias : A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

The role of computer-aided detection in identifying advanced colorectal neoplasia is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the contribution of computer-aided detection to colonoscopic detection of advanced colorectal neoplasias as well as adenomas, serrated polyps, and nonpolypoid and right-sided lesions.

DESIGN

Multicenter, parallel, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04673136).

SETTING

Spanish colorectal cancer screening program.

PARTICIPANTS

3213 persons with a positive fecal immunochemical test.

INTERVENTION

Enrollees were randomly assigned to colonoscopy with or without computer-aided detection.

MEASUREMENTS

Advanced colorectal neoplasia was defined as advanced adenoma and/or advanced serrated polyp.

RESULTS

The 2 comparison groups showed no significant difference in advanced colorectal neoplasia detection rate (34.8% with intervention vs. 34.6% for controls; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.01 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.10]) or the mean number of advanced colorectal neoplasias detected per colonoscopy (0.54 [SD, 0.95] with intervention vs. 0.52 [SD, 0.95] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.04 [99.9% CI, 0.88 to 1.22]). Adenoma detection rate also did not differ (64.2% with intervention vs. 62.0% for controls; aRR, 1.06 [99.9% CI, 0.91 to 1.23]). Computer-aided detection increased the mean number of nonpolypoid lesions (0.56 [SD, 1.25] vs. 0.47 [SD, 1.18] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.19 [99.9% CI, 1.01 to 1.41]), proximal adenomas (0.94 [SD, 1.62] vs. 0.81 [SD, 1.52] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.17 [99.9% CI, 1.03 to 1.33]), and lesions of 5 mm or smaller (polyps in general and adenomas and serrated lesions in particular) detected per colonoscopy.

LIMITATIONS

The high adenoma detection rate in the control group may limit the generalizability of the findings to endoscopists with low detection rates.

CONCLUSION

Computer-aided detection did not improve colonoscopic identification of advanced colorectal neoplasias.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Medtronic.

Artificial intelligence in endoscopy: Overview, applications, and future directions

Since the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine, endoscopy applications in gastroenterology have been at the forefront of innovations. The ever-increasing number of studies necessitates the need to organize and classify applications in a useful way. Separating AI capabilities by computer aided detection (CADe), diagnosis (CADx), and quality assessment (CADq) allows for a systematic evaluation of each application. CADe studies have shown promise in accurate detection of esophageal, gastric and colonic neoplasia as well as identifying sources of bleeding and Crohn's disease in the small bowel. While more advanced CADx applications employ optical biopsies to give further information to characterize neoplasia and grade inflammatory disease, diverse CADq applications ensure quality and increase the efficiency of procedures. Future applications show promise in advanced therapeutic modalities and integrated systems that provide multimodal capabilities. AI is set to revolutionize clinical decision making and performance of endoscopy.

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 Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship.

Advancing Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Versus Routine Colonoscopy

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a rapidly escalating public health concern, which underlines the significance of its early detection and the need for the refinement of current screening methods. In this systematic review, we aimed to analyze the potential advantages and limitations of artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer-aided detection (CADe) systems as compared to routine colonoscopy. This review begins by shedding light on the global prevalence and mortality rates of CRC, highlighting the urgent need for effective screening techniques and early detection of this cancer type. It addresses the problems associated with undetected adenomas and polyps and the subsequent risk of interval CRC following colonoscopy. The incorporation of AI into diagnostics has been studied, specifically the use of CADe systems which are powered by deep learning. The review summarizes the findings from 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (2019-2023), evaluating the impact of CADe on polyp and adenoma detection. The findings from the studies consistently show that CADe is superior to conventional colonoscopy procedures in terms of adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR), particularly with regard to small and flat lesions which are easily overlooked. The review acknowledges certain limitations of the included studies, such as potential performance bias and geographic limitations. The review ultimately concludes that AI-assisted colonoscopy can reduce missed lesion rates and improve CRC diagnosis. Collaboration between experts and clinicians is key for successful implementation. In summary, this review analyzes recent RCTs on AI-assisted colonoscopy for polyp and adenoma detection. It describes the likely benefits, limitations, and future implications of AI in enhancing colonoscopy procedures and lowering the incidence of CRC. More double-blinded trials and studies among diverse populations from different countries must be conducted to substantiate and expand upon the findings of this review.

Real-World Validation of a Computer-Aided Diagnosis System for Prediction of Polyp Histology in Colonoscopy: A Prospective Multicenter Study

INTRODUCTION

Computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) of polyp histology could support endoscopists in clinical decision-making. However, this has not been validated in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, multicenter study comparing CADx and endoscopist predictions of polyp histology in real-time colonoscopy. Optical diagnosis based on visual inspection of polyps was made by experienced endoscopists. After this, the automated output from the CADx support tool was recorded. All imaged polyps were resected for histological assessment. Primary outcome was difference in diagnostic performance between CADx and endoscopist prediction of polyp histology. Subgroup analysis was performed for polyp size, bowel preparation, difficulty of location of the polyps, and endoscopist experience.

RESULTS

A total of 661 eligible polyps were resected in 320 patients aged ≥40 years between March 2021 and July 2022. CADx had an overall accuracy of 71.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 68.0-75.0), compared with 75.2% (95% CI 71.7-78.4) for endoscopists ( P = 0.023). The sensitivity of CADx for neoplastic polyps was 61.8% (95% CI 56.9-66.5), compared with 70.3% (95% CI 65.7-74.7) for endoscopists ( P < 0.001). The interobserver agreement between CADx and endoscopist predictions of polyp histology was moderate (83.1% agreement, κ 0.661). When there was concordance between CADx and endoscopist predictions, the accuracy increased to 78.1%.

DISCUSSION

The overall diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity for neoplastic polyps was higher in experienced endoscopists compared with CADx predictions, with moderate interobserver agreement. Concordance in predictions increased this diagnostic accuracy. Further research is required to improve the performance of CADx and to establish its role in clinical practice.

Prospective study of computer-aided detection of colorectal adenomas in hospitalized patients

BACKGROUND

Adenoma detection with polypectomy during total colonoscopy reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and colorectal cancer-associated mortality. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an established quality indicator, which is associated with a decreased risk for interval cancer. An increase in ADR could be demonstrated for several artificially intelligent, real-time computer-aided detection (CADe) systems in selected patients. Most studies concentrated on outpatient colonoscopies. This sector often lacks funds for applying costly innovations like CADe. Hospitals are more likely to implement CADe and information about the impact of CADe in the distinct patient cohort of hospitalized patients is scarce.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized-controlled study, we compared colonoscopies performed with or without computer-aided detection (CADe) system (GI Genius, Medtronic) performed at University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck. The primary endpoint was ADR.

RESULTS

Overall, 232 patients were randomized with n = 122 patients in the CADe arm and n = 110 patients in the control arm. Median age was 66 years (interquartile range 51-77). Indication for colonoscopy was most often workup for gastrointestinal symptoms (88.4%) followed by screening, post-polypectomy and post-CRC surveillance (each 3.9%). Withdrawal time was significantly prolonged (11 vs. 10 min, p = 0.039), without clinical relevance. Complication rate was not different between the arms (0.8% vs. 4.5%; p = 0.072). The ADR was significantly increased in the CADe arm compared to the control (33.6% vs. 18.1%, p = 0.008). ADR increase was particularly strong for the detection in elderly patients aged ≥50 years (OR 6.3, 95% CI 1.7 - 23.1, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

The use of CADe is safe and increases ADR in hospitalized patients.

Effectiveness and application of artificial intelligence for endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer: the future is now

INTRODUCTION

Artificial intelligence (AI) in gastrointestinal endoscopy includes systems designed to interpret medical images and increase sensitivity during examination. This may be a promising solution to human biases and may provide support during diagnostic endoscopy.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to summarize and evaluate data supporting AI technologies in lower endoscopy, addressing their effectiveness, limitations, and future perspectives.

EXPERT OPINION

Computer-aided detection (CADe) systems have been studied with promising results, allowing for an increase in adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenoma per colonoscopy (APC), and a reduction in adenoma miss rate (AMR). This may lead to an increase in the sensitivity of endoscopic examinations and a reduction in the risk of interval-colorectal cancer. In addition, computer-aided characterization (CADx) has also been implemented, aiming to distinguish adenomatous and non-adenomatous lesions through real-time assessment using advanced endoscopic imaging techniques. Moreover, computer-aided quality (CADq) systems have been developed with the aim of standardizing quality measures in colonoscopy (e.g. withdrawal time and adequacy of bowel cleansing) both to improve the quality of examinations and set a reference standard for randomized controlled trials.

Recent advances in devices and technologies that might prove revolutionary for colonoscopy procedures

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy and second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the world. Adenoma detection rate (ADR), a quality indicator for colonoscopy, has gained prominence as it is inversely related to CRC incidence and mortality. As such, recent efforts have focused on developing novel colonoscopy devices and technologies to improve ADR.

AREAS COVERED

The main objective of this paper is to provide an overview of advancements in the fields of colonoscopy mechanical attachments, artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy, and colonoscopy optical enhancements with respect to ADR. We accomplished this by performing a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases from inception to September 2023. This review is intended to be an introduction to colonoscopy devices and technologies.

EXPERT OPINION

Numerous mechanical attachments and optical enhancements have been developed that have the potential to improve ADR and AI has gone from being an inaccessible concept to a feasible means for improving ADR. While these advances are exciting and portend a change in what will be considered standard colonoscopy, they continue to require refinement. Future studies should focus on combining modalities to further improve ADR and exploring the use of these technologies in other facets of colonoscopy.

Adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy: how can it be improved?

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of widespread colonoscopy screening programs has helped in decreasing the incidence of Colorectal Cancer (CRC). However, 'back-to-back' colonoscopies revealed relevant percentage of missed adenomas. Quality indicators were created to further homogenize detection performances and decrease the incidence of post-colonoscopy CRC. Among them, the Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR), defined as the percentage obtained by dividing the number of endoscopic procedures in which at least one adenoma was resected, by the total number of procedures, was found to be inversely associated with the risks of interval colorectal cancer, advanced-stage interval cancer, and fatal interval cancer.

AREAS COVERED

In this paper, we performed a comprehensive review of the literature focusing on promising new devices and technologies, which are meant to positively affect the endoscopist performance in detecting adenomas, therefore increasing ADR.

EXPERT OPINION

Considering the current knowledge, although several devices and technologies have been proposed with this intent, the recent implementation of AI ranked over all of the other strategies and it is likely to become the new standard within few years. However, the combination of different device/technologies need to be investigated in the future aiming at even further increasing of endoscopist detection performances.

Systematic review of the performance evaluation of clinicians with or without the aid of machine learning clinical decision support system

Background

For the adoption of machine learning clinical decision support systems (ML-CDSS) it is critical to understand the performance aid of the ML-CDSS. However, it is not trivial, how the performance aid should be evaluated. To design reliable performance evaluation study, both the knowledge from the practical framework of experimental study design and the understanding of domain specific design factors are required.

Objective

The aim of this review study was to form a practical framework and identify key design factors for experimental design in evaluating the performance of clinicians with or without the aid of ML-CDSS.

Methods

The study was based on published ML-CDSS performance evaluation studies. We systematically searched articles published between January 2016 and December 2022. From the articles we collected a set of design factors. Only the articles comparing the performance of clinicians with or without the aid of ML-CDSS using experimental study methods were considered.

Results

The identified key design factors for the practical framework of ML-CDSS experimental study design were performance measures, user interface, ground truth data and the selection of samples and participants. In addition, we identified the importance of randomization, crossover design and training and practice rounds. Previous studies had shortcomings in the rationale and documentation of choices regarding the number of participants and the duration of the experiment.

Conclusion

The design factors of ML-CDSS experimental study are interdependent and all factors must be considered in individual choices.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12553-023-00763-1.

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.

Artificial Intelligence in Colonoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly growing field in gastrointestinal endoscopy, and its potential applications are virtually endless, with studies demonstrating use of AI for early gastric cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, Barrett's esophagus, capsule endoscopy, as well as other areas in gastroenterology. Much of the early studies and applications of AI in gastroenterology have revolved around colonoscopy, particularly with regards to real-time polyp detection and characterization. This review will cover much of the existing data on computer-aided detection (CADe), computer-aided diagnosis (CADx), and briefly discuss some other interesting applications of AI for colonoscopy, while also considering some of the challenges and limitations that exist around the use of AI for colonoscopy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple randomized controlled trials have now been published which show a statistically significant improvement when using AI to improve adenoma detection and reduce adenoma miss rates during colonoscopy. There is also a growing pool of literature showing that AI can be helpful for characterizing/diagnosing colorectal polyps in real time. AI has also shown promise in other areas of colonoscopy, including polyp sizing and automated measurement and monitoring of quality metrics during colonoscopy. AI is a promising tool that has the ability to shape the future of gastrointestinal endoscopy, with much of the early data showing significant benefits to use of AI during colonoscopy. However, there remain several challenges that may delay or hamper the widespread use of AI in the field.

Effect of real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal adenoma in routine colonoscopy (COLO-GENIUS): a single-centre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence systems have been developed to improve polyp detection. We aimed to evaluate the effect of real-time computer-aided detection (CADe) on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in routine colonoscopy.

METHODS

This single-centre randomised controlled trial (COLO-GENIUS) was done at the Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Pôle Digestif Paris-Bercy, Clinique Paris-Bercy, Charenton-le-Pont, France. All consecutive individuals aged 18 years or older who were scheduled for a total colonoscopy and had an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 1-3 were screened for inclusion. After the caecum was reached and the colonic preparation was appropriate, eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1; computer-generated random numbers list) to either standard colonoscopy or CADe-assisted colonoscopy (GI Genius 2.0.2; Medtronic). Participants and cytopathologists were masked to study assignment, whereas endoscopists were not. The primary outcome was ADR, which was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned participants except those with misplaced consent forms). Safety was analysed in all included patients. According to statistical calculations, 20 endoscopists from the Clinique Paris-Bercy had to include approximately 2100 participants with 1:1 randomisation. The trial is complete and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04440865.

FINDINGS

Between May 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022, 2592 participants were assessed for eligibility, of whom 2039 were randomly assigned to standard colonoscopy (n=1026) or CADe-assisted colonoscopy (n=1013). 14 participants in the standard group and ten participants in the CADe group were then excluded due to misplaced consent forms, leaving 2015 participants (979 [48·6%] men and 1036 [51·4%] women) in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. ADR was 33·7% (341 of 1012 colonoscopies) in the standard group and 37·5% (376 of 1003 colonoscopies) in the CADe group (estimated mean absolute difference 4·1 percentage points [95% CI 0·0-8·1]; p=0·051). One bleeding event without deglobulisation occurred in the CADe group after a large (>2 cm) polyp resection and resolved after a haemostasis clip was placed during a second colonoscopy.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings support the benefits of CADe, even in a non-academic centre. Systematic use of CADe in routine colonoscopy should be considered.

FUNDING

None.

Artificial intelligence in intestinal polyp and colorectal cancer prediction

Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms and their application to disease detection and decision support for healthcare professions have greatly evolved in the recent decade. AI has been widely applied and explored in gastroenterology for endoscopic analysis to diagnose intestinal cancers, premalignant polyps, gastrointestinal inflammatory lesions, and bleeding. Patients' responses to treatments and prognoses have both been predicted using AI by combining multiple algorithms. In this review, we explored the recent applications of AI algorithms in the identification and characterization of intestinal polyps and colorectal cancer predictions. AI-based prediction models have the potential to help medical practitioners diagnose, establish prognoses, and find accurate conclusions for the treatment of patients. With the understanding that rigorous validation of AI approaches using randomized controlled studies is solicited before widespread clinical use by health authorities, the article also discusses the limitations and challenges associated with deploying AI systems to diagnose intestinal malignancies and premalignant lesions.

Increasing the accuracy of colorectal cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health issue, being responsible for nearly 10% of all cancer-related deaths. Since CRC is often an asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic disease until it reaches advanced stages, screening is crucial for the diagnosis of preneoplastic lesions or early CRC.

AREAS COVERED

The aim of this review is to summarize the literature evidence on currently available CRC screening tools, with their pros and cons, focusing on the level of accuracy reached by each test over time. We also provide an overview of novel technologies and scientific advances that are currently being investigated and that in the future may represent real game-changers in the field of CRC screening.

EXPERT OPINION

We suggest that best screening modalities are annual or biennial FIT and colonoscopy every 10 years. We believe that the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI)-tools in the CRC screening field could lead to a significant improvement of the screening efficacy in reducing CRC incidence and mortality in the future. More resources should be put into implementing CRC programmes and support research project to further increase accuracy of CRC screening tests and strategies.

Deep Learning Empowers Endoscopic Detection and Polyps Classification: A Multiple-Hospital Study

The present study aimed to develop an AI-based system for the detection and classification of polyps using colonoscopy images. A total of about 256,220 colonoscopy images from 5000 colorectal cancer patients were collected and processed. We used the CNN model for polyp detection and the EfficientNet-b0 model for polyp classification. Data were partitioned into training, validation and testing sets, with a 70%, 15% and 15% ratio, respectively. After the model was trained/validated/tested, to evaluate its performance rigorously, we conducted a further external validation using both prospective (n = 150) and retrospective (n = 385) approaches for data collection from 3 hospitals. The deep learning model performance with the testing set reached a state-of-the-art sensitivity and specificity of 0.9709 (95% CI: 0.9646-0.9757) and 0.9701 (95% CI: 0.9663-0.9749), respectively, for polyp detection. The polyp classification model attained an AUC of 0.9989 (95% CI: 0.9954-1.00). The external validation from 3 hospital results achieved 0.9516 (95% CI: 0.9295-0.9670) with the lesion-based sensitivity and a frame-based specificity of 0.9720 (95% CI: 0.9713-0.9726) for polyp detection. The model achieved an AUC of 0.9521 (95% CI: 0.9308-0.9734) for polyp classification. The high-performance, deep-learning-based system could be used in clinical practice to facilitate rapid, efficient and reliable decisions by physicians and endoscopists.

Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Colonoscopy Surveillance After Polyp Removal: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools aimed at improving polyp detection have been shown to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. However, it is unknown how increased polyp detection rates by AI affect the burden of patient surveillance after polyp removal.

METHODS

We conducted a pooled analysis of 9 randomized controlled trials (5 in China, 2 in Italy, 1 in Japan, and 1 in the United States) comparing colonoscopy with or without AI detection aids. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients recommended to undergo intensive surveillance (ie, 3-year interval). We analyzed intervals for AI and non-AI colonoscopies for the U.S. and European recommendations separately. We estimated proportions by calculating relative risks using the Mantel-Haenszel method.

RESULTS

A total of 5796 patients (51% male, mean 53 years of age) were included; 2894 underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy and 2902 non-AI colonoscopy. When following U.S. guidelines, the proportion of patients recommended intensive surveillance increased from 8.4% (95% CI, 7.4%-9.5%) in the non-AI group to 11.3% (95% CI, 10.2%-12.6%) in the AI group (absolute difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 1.4%-4.4%]; risk ratio, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.57]). When following European guidelines, it increased from 6.1% (95% CI, 5.3%-7.0%) to 7.4% (95% CI, 6.5%-8.4%) (absolute difference, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.01%-2.6%]; risk ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.01-1.47]).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of AI during colonoscopy increased the proportion of patients requiring intensive colonoscopy surveillance by approximately 35% in the United States and 20% in Europe (absolute increases of 2.9% and 1.3%, respectively). While this may contribute to improved cancer prevention, it significantly adds patient burden and healthcare costs.

Computer-aided automated diminutive colonic polyp detection in colonoscopy by using deep machine learning system; first indigenous algorithm developed in India

BACKGROUND

Colonic polyps can be detected and resected during a colonoscopy before cancer development. However, about 1/4th of the polyps could be missed due to their small size, location or human errors. An artificial intelligence (AI) system can improve polyp detection and reduce colorectal cancer incidence. We are developing an indigenous AI system to detect diminutive polyps in real-life scenarios that can be compatible with any high-definition colonoscopy and endoscopic video- capture software.

METHODS

We trained a masked region-based convolutional neural network model to detect and localize colonic polyps. Three independent datasets of colonoscopy videos comprising 1,039 image frames were used and divided into a training dataset of 688 frames and a testing dataset of 351 frames. Of 1,039 image frames, 231 were from real-life colonoscopy videos from our centre. The rest were from publicly available image frames already modified to be directly utilizable for developing the AI system. The image frames of the testing dataset were also augmented by rotating and zooming the images to replicate real-life distortions of images seen during colonoscopy. The AI system was trained to localize the polyp by creating a 'bounding box'. It was then applied to the testing dataset to test its accuracy in detecting polyps automatically.

RESULTS

The AI system achieved a mean average precision (equivalent to specificity) of 88.63% for automatic polyp detection. All polyps in the testing were identified by AI, i.e., no false-negative result in the testing dataset (sensitivity of 100%). The mean polyp size in the study was 5 (± 4) mm. The mean processing time per image frame was 96.4 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

This AI system, when applied to real-life colonoscopy images, having wide variations in bowel preparation and small polyp size, can detect colonic polyps with a high degree of accuracy.

Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Endoscopy: Current Status and Future Applications

The application of artificial intelligence (AI) has great promise for improving pediatric endoscopy. The majority of preclinical studies have been undertaken in adults, with the greatest progress being made in the context of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. This development has only been possible with advances in deep learning, like the convolutional neural network model, which has enabled real-time detection of pathology. Comparatively, the majority of deep learning systems developed in inflammatory bowel disease have focused on predicting disease severity and were developed using still images rather than videos. The application of AI to pediatric endoscopy is in its infancy, thus providing an opportunity to develop clinically meaningful and fair systems that do not perpetuate societal biases. In this review, we provide an overview of AI, summarize the advances of AI in endoscopy, and describe its potential application to pediatric endoscopic practice and education.

A Review of Colonoscopy in Intestinal Diseases

Since the development of the fiberoptic colonoscope in the late 1960s, colonoscopy has been a useful tool to diagnose and treat various intestinal diseases. This article reviews the clinical use of colonoscopy for various intestinal diseases based on present and future perspectives. Intestinal diseases include infectious diseases, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), neoplasms, functional bowel disorders, and others. In cases of infectious diseases, colonoscopy is helpful in making the differential diagnosis, revealing endoscopic gross findings, and obtaining the specimens for pathology. Additionally, colonoscopy provides clues for distinguishing between infectious disease and IBD, and aids in the post-treatment monitoring of IBD. Colonoscopy is essential for the diagnosis of neoplasms that are diagnosed through only pathological confirmation. At present, malignant tumors are commonly being treated using endoscopy because of the advancement of endoscopic resection procedures. Moreover, the characteristics of tumors can be described in more detail by image-enhanced endoscopy and magnifying endoscopy. Colonoscopy can be helpful for the endoscopic decompression of colonic volvulus in large bowel obstruction, balloon dilatation as a treatment for benign stricture, and colon stenting as a treatment for malignant obstruction. In the diagnosis of functional bowel disorder, colonoscopy is used to investigate other organic causes of the symptom.

Quality of bowel preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing colonoscopy: What factors to consider?

An adequate bowel preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a prerequisite for successful colonoscopy for screening, diagnosis, and surveillance. Several bowel preparation formulations are available, both high- and low-volume based on polyethylene glycol. Generally, low-volume formulations are also based on several compounds such as magnesium citrate preparations with sodium picosulphate, oral sulphate solution, and oral sodium phosphate-based solutions. Targeted studies on the quality of bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy in the IBD population are still required, with current evidence from existing studies being inconclusive. New frontiers are also moving towards the use of alternatives to anterograde ones, using preparations based on retrograde colonic lavage.

Artificial Intelligence-Aided Endoscopy and Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide, with the highest incidence reported in high-income countries. However, because of the slow progression of neoplastic precursors, along with the opportunity for their endoscopic detection and resection, a well-designed endoscopic screening program is expected to strongly decrease colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. In this regard, quality of colonoscopy has been clearly related with the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Recently, the development of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in the medical field has been growing in interest. Through machine learning processes, and, more recently, deep learning, if a very high numbers of learning samples are available, AI systems may automatically extract specific features from endoscopic images/videos without human intervention, helping the endoscopists in different aspects of their daily practice. The aim of this review is to summarize the current knowledge on AI-aided endoscopy, and to outline its potential role in colorectal cancer prevention.

Negative Samples for Improving Object Detection-A Case Study in AI-Assisted Colonoscopy for Polyp Detection

Deep learning object-detection models are being successfully applied to develop computer-aided diagnosis systems for aiding polyp detection during colonoscopies. Here, we evidence the need to include negative samples for both (i) reducing false positives during the polyp-finding phase, by including images with artifacts that may confuse the detection models (e.g., medical instruments, water jets, feces, blood, excessive proximity of the camera to the colon wall, blurred images, etc.) that are usually not included in model development datasets, and (ii) correctly estimating a more realistic performance of the models. By retraining our previously developed YOLOv3-based detection model with a dataset that includes 15% of additional not-polyp images with a variety of artifacts, we were able to generally improve its F1 performance in our internal test datasets (from an average F1 of 0.869 to 0.893), which now include such type of images, as well as in four public datasets that include not-polyp images (from an average F1 of 0.695 to 0.722).

The application of artificial intelligence in improving colonoscopic adenoma detection rate: Where are we and where are we going

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the common malignant tumors in the world. Colonoscopy is the crucial examination technique in CRC screening programs for the early detection of precursor lesions, and treatment of early colorectal cancer, which can reduce the morbidity and mortality of CRC significantly. However, pooled polyp miss rates during colonoscopic examination are as high as 22%. Artificial intelligence (AI) provides a promising way to improve the colonoscopic adenoma detection rate (ADR). It might assist endoscopists in avoiding missing polyps and offer an accurate optical diagnosis of suspected lesions. Herein, we described some of the milestone studies in using AI for colonoscopy, and the future application directions of AI in improving colonoscopic ADR.

Usefulness of a novel computer-aided detection system for colorectal neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Artificial intelligence-based computer-aid detection (CADe) devices have been recently tested in colonoscopies, increasing the adenoma detection rate (ADR), mainly in Asian populations. However, evidence for the benefit of these devices in the occidental population is still low. We tested a new CADe device, namely, ENDO-AID (OIP-1) (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), in clinical practice.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial included 370 consecutive patients who were randomized 1:1 to CADe (n = 185) versus standard exploration (n = 185) from November 2021 to January 2022. The primary endpoint was the ADR. Advanced adenoma was defined as ≥10 mm, harboring high-grade dysplasia, or with a villous pattern. Otherwise, the adenoma was nonadvanced. ADR was assessed in both groups stratified by endoscopist ADR and colon cleansing.

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat analysis, the ADR was 55.1% (102/185) in the CADe group and 43.8% (81/185) in the control group (P = .029). Nonadvanced ADRs (54.8% vs 40.8%, P = .01) and flat ADRs (39.4 vs 24.8, P = .006), polyp detection rate (67.1% vs 51%; P = .004), and number of adenomas per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CADe group than in the control group (median [25th-75th percentile], 1 [0-2] vs 0 [0-1.5], respectively; P = .014). No significant differences were found in serrated ADR. After stratification by endoscopist and bowel cleansing, no statistically significant differences in ADR were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy assisted by ENDO-AID (OIP-1) increases ADR and number of adenomas per colonoscopy, suggesting it may aid in the detection of colorectal neoplastic lesions, especially because of its detection of diminutive and flat adenomas. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04945044.).

The Role of an Artificial Intelligence Method of Improving the Diagnosis of Neoplasms by Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide. Colonoscopy is the gold standard examination that reduces the morbidity and mortality of CRC. Artificial intelligence (AI) could be useful in reducing the errors of the specialist and in drawing attention to the suspicious area.

METHODS

A prospective single-center randomized controlled study was conducted in an outpatient endoscopy unit with the aim of evaluating the usefulness of AI-assisted colonoscopy in PDR and ADR during the day time. It is important to understand how already available CADe systems improve the detection of polyps and adenomas in order to make a decision about their routine use in practice. In the period from October 2021 to February 2022, 400 examinations (patients) were included in the study. One hundred and ninety-four patients were examined using the ENDO-AID CADe artificial intelligence device (study group), and 206 patients were examined without the artificial intelligence (control group).

RESULTS

None of the analyzed indicators (PDR and ADR during morning and afternoon colonoscopies) showed differences between the study and control groups. There was an increase in PDR during afternoon colonoscopies, as well as ADR during morning and afternoon colonoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our results, the use of AI systems in colonoscopies is recommended, especially in circumstances of an increase of examinations. Additional studies with larger groups of patients at night are needed to confirm the already available data.

[Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI extensionDiretrizes para relatórios de ensaios clínicos com intervenções que utilizam inteligência artificial: a extensão CONSORT-AI]

The CONSORT 2010 statement provides minimum guidelines for reporting randomized trials. Its widespread use has been instrumental in ensuring transparency in the evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate impact on health outcomes. The CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 29 candidate items, which were assessed by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a two-day consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The CONSORT-AI extension includes 14 new items that were considered sufficiently important for AI interventions that they should be routinely reported in addition to the core CONSORT 2010 items. CONSORT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention is integrated, the handling of inputs and outputs of the AI intervention, the human-AI interaction and provision of an analysis of error cases. CONSORT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness in reporting clinical trials for AI interventions. It will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically appraise the quality of clinical trial design and risk of bias in the reported outcomes.

The Impacts of Computer-Aided Detection of Colorectal Polyps on Subsequent Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals: Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

Computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal polyps has been shown to increase adenoma detection rates, which would potentially shorten subsequent surveillance intervals.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to simulate the potential changes in subsequent colonoscopy surveillance intervals after the application of CADe in a large cohort of patients.

METHODS

We simulated the projected increase in polyp and adenoma detection by universal CADe application in our patients who had undergone colonoscopy with complete endoscopic and histological findings between 2016 and 2020. The simulation was based on bootstrapping the published performance of CADe. The corresponding changes in surveillance intervals for each patient, as recommended by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) or the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), were determined after the CADe was determined.

RESULTS

A total of 3735 patients who had undergone colonoscopy were included. Based on the simulated CADe effect, the application of CADe would result in 19.1% (n=714) and 1.9% (n=71) of patients having shorter surveillance intervals, according to the USMSTF and ESGE guidelines, respectively. In particular, all (or 2.7% (n=101) of the total) patients who were originally scheduled to have 3-5 years of surveillance would have their surveillance intervals shortened to 3 years, following the USMSTF guidelines. The changes in this group of patients were largely attributed to an increase in the number of adenomas (n=75, 74%) rather than serrated lesions being detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Widespread adoption of CADe would inevitably increase the demand for surveillance colonoscopies with the shortening of original surveillance intervals, particularly following the current USMSTF guideline.

An Evaluation of Critical Factors for the Cost-Effectiveness of Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection: Sensitivity and Threshold Analyses Using a Microsimulation Model

BACKGROUND

The use of computer-aided detection (CAD) increases the adenoma detection rates (ADRs) during colorectal cancer (CRC) screening/surveillance. This study aimed to evaluate the requirements for CAD to be cost-effective and the impact of CAD on adenoma detection by endoscopists with different ADRs.

METHODS

We developed a semi-Markov microsimulation model to compare the effectiveness of traditional colonoscopy (mean ADR, 26%) to colonoscopy with CAD (mean ADR, 37%). CAD was modeled as having a $75 per-procedure cost. Extensive 1-way sensitivity and threshold analysis were performed to vary cost and ADR of CAD. Multiple scenarios evaluated the potential effect of CAD on endoscopists' ADRs. Outcome measures were reported in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year.

RESULTS

When modeling CAD improved ADR for all endoscopists, the CAD cohort had 79 and 34 fewer lifetime CRC cases and deaths, respectively, per 10,000 persons. This scenario was dominant with a cost savings of $143 and incremental effectiveness of 0.01 quality-adjusted life years. Threshold analysis demonstrated that CAD would be cost-effective up to an additional cost of $579 per colonoscopy, or if it increases ADR from 26% to at least 30%. CAD reduced CRC incidence and mortality when limited to improving ADRs for low-ADR endoscopists (ADR <25%), with 67 fewer CRC cases and 28 CRC deaths per 10,000 persons compared with traditional colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

As CAD is implemented clinically, it needs to improve mean ADR from 26% to at least 30% or cost less than $579 per colonoscopy to be cost-effective when compared with traditional colonoscopy. Further studies are needed to understand the impact of CAD on community practice.

Computer-assisted detection versus conventional colonoscopy for proximal colonic lesions: a multicenter, randomized, tandem-colonoscopy study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Computer-assisted detection (CADe) is a promising technologic advance that enhances adenoma detection during colonoscopy. However, the role of CADe in reducing missed colonic lesions is uncertain. The aim of this study was to determine the miss rates of proximal colonic lesions by CADe and conventional colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, tandem-colonoscopy study conducted in 3 Asian centers. Patients were randomized to receive CADe or conventional white-light colonoscopy during the first withdrawal of the proximal colon (cecum to splenic flexure), immediately followed by tandem examination of the proximal colon with white light in both groups. The primary outcome was adenoma/polyp miss rate, which was defined as any adenoma/polyp detected during the second examination.

RESULTS

Of 223 patients (48.6% men; median age, 63 years) enrolled, 7 patients did not have tandem examination, leaving 108 patients in each group. There was no difference in the miss rate for proximal adenomas (CADe vs conventional: 20.0% vs 14.0%, P = .07) and polyps (26.7% vs 19.6%, P = .06). The CADe group, however, had significantly higher proximal polyp (58.0% vs 46.7%, P = .03) and adenoma (44.7% vs 34.6%, P = .04) detection rates than the conventional group. The mean number of proximal polyps and adenomas detected per patient during the first examination was also significantly higher in the CADe group (polyp: 1.20 vs .86, P = .03; adenoma, .91 vs .61, P = .03). Subgroup analysis showed that CADe enhanced proximal adenoma detection in patients with fair bowel preparation, shorter withdrawal time, and endoscopists with lower adenoma detection rate.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicenter trial from Asia confirmed that CADe can further enhance proximal adenoma and polyp detection but may not be able to reduce the number of missed proximal colonic lesions. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04294355.).

Effect of computer-aided colonoscopy on adenoma miss rates and polyp detection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Multiple computer-aided techniques utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) have been created to improve the detection of polyps during colonoscopy and thereby reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer. While adenoma detection rates (ADR) and polyp detection rates (PDR) are important colonoscopy quality indicators, adenoma miss rates (AMR) may better quantify missed lesions, which can ultimately lead to interval colorectal cancer. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of computer-aided colonoscopy (CAC) with respect to AMR, ADR, and PDR in randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

A comprehensive, systematic literature search was performed across multiple databases in September of 2022 to identify randomized, controlled trials that compared CAC with traditional colonoscopy. Primary outcomes were AMR, ADR, and PDR.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies totaling 10 928 patients were included in the final analysis. There was a 65% reduction in the adenoma miss rate with CAC (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.49, P < 0.001, I²  = 50%). There was a 78% reduction in the sessile serrated lesion miss rate with CAC (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.65, P < 0.01, I²  = 0%). There was a 52% increase in ADR in the CAC group compared with the control group (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.39-1.67, P = 0.04, I²  = 47%). There was 93% increase in the number of adenomas > 10 mm detected per colonoscopy with CAC (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.18-3.16, P < 0.01, I²  = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study demonstrate the promise of CAC in improving AMR, ADR, PDR across a spectrum of size and morphological lesion characteristics.