Diagnostic accuracy of a novel artificial intelligence system for adenoma detection in daily practice: a prospective nonrandomized comparative study

GI genius endoscopy module: a clinical profile

INTRODUCTION

The identification of early-stage colorectal cancers (CRC) and the resection of pre-cancerous neoplastic lesions through colonoscopy allows to decrease both CRC incidence and mortality. However, colonoscopy miss rates up to 26% for adenomas and 9% for advanced adenomas have been reported. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) systems have been emerging as easy-to-use tools, potentially lowering the risk of missing lesions.

AREAS COVERED

This review paper focuses on GI Genius device (Medtronic Co. Minneapolis, MN, U.S.A.) a computer-assisted tool designed to assist endoscopists during standard white-light colonoscopies in detecting mucosal lesions.

EXPERT OPINION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that GI Genius is a safe and effective tool for improving adenoma detection, especially in CRC screening and surveillance colonoscopies. However, its impact seems to be less significant among experienced endoscopists and in real-world clinical scenarios compared to the controlled conditions of RCTs. Furthermore, it appears that GI Genius mainly enhances the detection of non-advanced, small polyps, but does not significantly impact the identification of advanced and difficult-to-detect adenoma. When using GI Genius, no complications were documented. Only a small number of studies reported an increased in withdrawal time or the removal of non-neoplastic lesions.

Efficacy of artificial intelligence in reducing miss rates of GI adenomas, polyps, and sessile serrated lesions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine if utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) in the course of endoscopic procedures can significantly diminish both the adenoma miss rate (AMR) and the polyp miss rate (PMR) compared with standard endoscopy.

METHODS

We performed an extensive search of various databases, encompassing PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus, until June 2023. The search terms used were artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, transfer machine learning, computer-assisted diagnosis, convolutional neural networks, gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, endoscopic image analysis, polyp, adenoma, and neoplasms. The main study aim was to explore the impact of AI on the AMR, PMR, and sessile serrated lesion miss rate.

RESULTS

A total of 7 randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled AMR was markedly lower in the AI group versus the non-AI group (pooled relative risk [RR], .46; 95% confidence interval [CI], .36-.59; P < .001). PMR was also reduced in the AI group in contrast with the non-AI control (pooled RR, .43; 95% CI, .27-.69; P < .001). The results showed that AI decreased the miss rate of sessile serrated lesions (pooled RR, .43; 95% CI, .20 to .92; P < .05) and diminutive adenomas (pooled RR, .49; 95% CI, .26-.93) during endoscopy, but no significant effect was observed for advanced adenomas (pooled RR, .48; 95% CI, .17-1.37; P = .17). The average number of polyps (Hedges' g = -.486; 95% CI, -.697 to -.274; P = .000) and adenomas (Hedges' g = -.312; 95% CI, -.551 to -.074; P = .01) detected during the second procedure also favored AI. However, AI implementation did not lead to a prolonged withdrawal time (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that AI technology leads to significant reduction of miss rates for GI adenomas, polyps, and sessile serrated lesions during endoscopic surveillance. These results underscore the potential of AI to improve the accuracy and efficiency of GI endoscopic procedures.

Lack of Effectiveness of Computer Aided Detection for Colorectal Neoplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Nonrandomized Studies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Benefits of computer-aided detection (CADe) in detecting colorectal neoplasia were shown in many randomized trials in which endoscopists' behavior was strictly controlled. However, the effect of CADe on endoscopists' performance in less-controlled setting is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analyses were aimed at clarifying benefits and harms of using CADe in real-world colonoscopy.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar from inception to August 20, 2023. We included nonrandomized studies that compared the effectiveness between CADe-assisted and standard colonoscopy. Two investigators independently extracted study data and quality. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed utilizing risk ratio for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Eight studies were included, comprising 9782 patients (4569 with CADe and 5213 without CADe). Regarding benefits, there was a difference in neither adenoma detection rate (44% vs 38%; risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.28) nor mean adenomas per colonoscopy (0.93 vs 0.79; MD, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.32) between CADe-assisted and standard colonoscopy, respectively. Regarding harms, there was no difference in the mean non-neoplastic lesions per colonoscopy (8 studies included for analysis; 0.52 vs 0.47; MD, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.34) and withdrawal time (6 studies included for analysis; 14.3 vs 13.4 minutes; MD, 0.8 minutes; 95% CI, -0.18 to 1.90). There was a substantial heterogeneity, and all outcomes were graded with a very low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSION

CADe in colonoscopies neither improves the detection of colorectal neoplasia nor increases burden of colonoscopy in real-world, nonrandomized studies, questioning the generalizability of the results of randomized trials.

Third Eye? The Assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Endoscopy of Gastrointestinal Neoplasms

Gastrointestinal cancers are characterized by high incidence and mortality. However, there are well-established methods of screening. The endoscopy exam provides the macroscopical image and enables harvesting the tissue samples for further histopathological diagnosis. The efficiency of endoscopies relies not only on proper patient preparation, but also on the skills of the personnel conducting the exam. In recent years, a number of reports concerning the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine have arisen. Numerous studies aimed to assess the utility of deep learning/ neural network systems supporting endoscopies. In this review, we summarized the most recent reports and randomized clinical trials regarding the application of AI in screening and surveillance of gastrointestinal cancers among patients suffering from esophageal, gastric, and colorectal cancer, along with the advantages, limitations, and controversies of those novel solutions.

Accuracy of polyp characterization by artificial intelligence and endoscopists: a prospective, non-randomized study in a tertiary endoscopy center

Background and study aims Artificial intelligence (AI) in gastrointestinal endoscopy is developing very fast. Computer-aided detection of polyps and computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) for polyp characterization are available now. This study was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a new commercially available CADx system in clinical practice. Patients and methods This prospective, non-randomized study was performed at a tertiary academic endoscopy center from March to August 2022. We included patients receiving a colonoscopy. Polypectomy had to be performed in all polyps. Every patient was examined concurrently by an endoscopist and AI using two opposing screens. The AI system, overseen by a second observer, was not visible to the endoscopist. The primary outcome was accuracy of the AI classifying the polyps into "neoplastic" and "non-neoplastic." The secondary outcome was accuracy of the classification by the endoscopists. Sessile serrated lesions were classified as neoplastic. Results We included 156 patients (mean age 65; 57 women) with 262 polyps ≤10 mm. Eighty-four were hyperplastic polyps (32.1%), 158 adenomas (60.3%), seven sessile serrated lesions (2.7%) and 13 other entities (normal/inflammatory colonmucosa, lymphoidic polyp) (4.9%) on histological diagnosis. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of AI were 89.70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 84.02%-93.88%), 75.26% (95% CI: 65.46%-83.46%) and 84.35% (95% CI:79.38%-88.53%), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for less experienced endoscopists (2-5 years of endoscopy) were 95.56% (95% CI: 84.85%-99.46%), 61.54% (95% CI: 40.57%-79.77%) and 83.10% (95% CI: 72.34%-90.95%) and for experienced endoscopists 90.83% (95% CI: 84.19%-95.33%), 71.83% (95% CI: 59.90%-81.87%) and 83.77% (95% CI: 77.76%-88.70%), respectively. Conclusion Accuracy for polyp characterization by a new commercially available AI system is high, but does not fulfill the criteria for a "resect-and-discard" strategy.

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.

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.

Performance and attitudes toward real-time computer-aided polyp detection during colonoscopy in a large tertiary referral center in the United States

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Computer-aided detection (CADe) has been shown to improve polyp detection in clinical trials. Limited data exist on the impact, utilization, and attitudes toward artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy in daily clinical practice. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved CADe device for polyp detection in the United States and the attitudes toward its implementation.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing colonoscopy at a tertiary center in the United States before and after a real-time CADe system was made available. The decision to activate the CADe system was at the discretion of the endoscopist. An anonymous survey was circulated among endoscopy physicians and staff at the beginning and conclusion of the study period regarding their attitudes toward AI-assisted colonoscopy.

RESULTS

CADe was activated in 52.1% of cases. Compared with historical control subjects, there was no statistically significant difference in adenomas detected per colonoscopy (1.08 vs 1.04, P = .65), even after excluding diagnostic and therapeutic indications and cases where CADe was not activated (1.27 vs 1.17, P = .45). In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in adenoma detection rate (ADR), median procedure, and withdrawal times. Survey results demonstrated mixed attitudes toward AI-assisted colonoscopy, of which main concerns were high number of false-positive signals (82.4%), high level of distraction (58.8%), and impression it prolonged procedure time (47.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

CADe did not improve adenoma detection in daily practice among endoscopists with high baseline ADRs. Despite its availability, AI-assisted colonoscopy was only activated in half of the cases, and multiple concerns were raised by staff and endoscopists. Future studies will help elucidate the patients and endoscopists that would benefit most from AI-assisted colonoscopy.

Artificial intelligence in gastroenterology: A narrative review

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a complex concept, broadly defined in medicine as the development of computer systems to perform tasks that require human intelligence. It has the capacity to revolutionize medicine by increasing efficiency, expediting data and image analysis and identifying patterns, trends and associations in large datasets. Within gastroenterology, recent research efforts have focused on using AI in esophagogastroduodenoscopy, wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) and colonoscopy to assist in diagnosis, disease monitoring, lesion detection and therapeutic intervention. The main objective of this narrative review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the research being performed within gastroenterology on AI in esophagogastroduodenoscopy, WCE and colonoscopy.

Artificial intelligence for diagnosing gastric lesions under white-light endoscopy

BACKGROUND

The ability of endoscopists to identify gastric lesions is uneven. Even experienced endoscopists may miss or misdiagnose lesions due to heavy workload or fatigue or subtle changes in lesions under white-light endoscopy (WLE). This study aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) system that could diagnose six common gastric lesions under WLE and to explore its role in assisting endoscopists in diagnosis.

METHODS

Images of early gastric cancer, advanced gastric cancer, submucosal tumor, polyp, peptic ulcer, erosion, and lesion-free gastric mucosa were retrospectively collected to train and test the system. The performance of the system was compared with that of 12 endoscopists. The performance of endoscopists with or without referring to the system was also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 29,809 images from 8947 patients and 1579 images from 496 patients were used to train and test the system, respectively. For per-lesion analysis, the overall accuracy of the system was 85.7%, which was comparable to that of senior endoscopists (85.1%, P = 0.729) and significantly higher than that of junior endoscopists (78.8%, P < 0.001). With system assistance, the overall accuracies of senior and junior endoscopists increased to 89.3% (4.2%, P < 0.001) and 86.2% (7.4%, P < 0.001), respectively. Senior and junior endoscopists achieved varying degrees of improvement in the diagnostic performance of other types of lesions except for polyp. The diagnostic times of senior (3.8 vs 3.2 s per image, P = 0.500) and junior endoscopists (6.2 vs 4.6 s per image, P = 0.144) assisted by the system were both slightly shortened, despite no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed AI system could be applied as an auxiliary tool to reduce the workload of endoscopists and improve the diagnostic accuracy of gastric lesions.

Reduced detection rate of artificial intelligence in images obtained from untrained endoscope models and improvement using domain adaptation algorithm

A training dataset that is limited to a specific endoscope model can overfit artificial intelligence (AI) to its unique image characteristics. The performance of the AI may degrade in images of different endoscope model. The domain adaptation algorithm, i.e., the cycle-consistent adversarial network (cycleGAN), can transform the image characteristics into AI-friendly styles. We attempted to confirm the performance degradation of AIs in images of various endoscope models and aimed to improve them using cycleGAN transformation. Two AI models were developed from data of esophagogastroduodenoscopies collected retrospectively over 5 years: one for identifying the endoscope models, Olympus CV-260SL, CV-290 (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), and PENTAX EPK-i (PENTAX Medical, Tokyo, Japan), and the other for recognizing the esophagogastric junction (EGJ). The AIs were trained using 45,683 standardized images from 1,498 cases and validated on 624 separate cases. Between the two endoscope manufacturers, there was a difference in image characteristics that could be distinguished without error by AI. The accuracy of the AI in recognizing gastroesophageal junction was >0.979 in the same endoscope-examined validation dataset as the training dataset. However, they deteriorated in datasets from different endoscopes. Cycle-consistent adversarial network can successfully convert image characteristics to ameliorate the AI performance. The improvements were statistically significant and greater in datasets from different endoscope manufacturers [original → AI-trained style, increased area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, P-value: CV-260SL → CV-290, 0.0056, P = 0.0106; CV-260SL → EPK-i, 0.0182, P = 0.0158; CV-290 → CV-260SL, 0.0134, P < 0.0001; CV-290 → EPK-i, 0.0299, P = 0.0001; EPK-i → CV-260SL, 0.0215, P = 0.0024; and EPK-i → CV-290, 0.0616, P < 0.0001]. In conclusion, cycleGAN can transform the diverse image characteristics of endoscope models into an AI-trained style to improve the detection performance of AI.

Effect of artificial intelligence-aided colonoscopy for adenoma and polyp detection: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to determine whether artificial intelligence (AI) improves colonoscopy outcome metrics i.e. adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR).

METHODS

Two authors independently searched Web of Science, PubMed, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library to find all published research before July 2021 that has compared AI-aided colonoscopy with routine colonoscopy (RC) for detection of adenoma and polyp.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 10 RCTs with 6629 individuals in AI-aided (n = 3300) and routine (n = 3329) groups. The results showed that both ADR (RR, 1.43; P < 0.001) and PDR (RR, 1.44; P < 0.001) using AI-aided endoscopy were significantly greater when compared with RC. The adenomas detected per colonoscopy (APC) (WMD, 0.25; P = 0.009), polyps detected per colonoscopy (PPC) (WMD, 0.52; P < 0.001), and sessile serrated lesions detected per colonoscopy (SSLPC) (RR, 1.53; P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the AI-aided group compared with the RC group. Subgroup analysis based on size, location, and shape of adenomas and polyps demonstrated that, except for in the cecum and pedunculated adenomas or polyps, the AI-aided groups of the other subgroups are more advantageous. Withdrawal time was longer in the AI-aided group when biopsies were included, while withdrawal time excluding biopsy time showed no significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

AI-aided polyp detection system significantly increases lesion detection rate. In addition, lesion detection by AI is hardly affected by factors such as size, location, and shape.