Improvement of adenoma detection rate by two computer-aided colonic polyp detection systems in high adenoma detectors: a randomized multicenter trial

Abstract

Background This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of a self-developed computer-aided polyp detection system (SD-CADe) and a commercial system (CM-CADe) for high adenoma detectors compared with white-light endoscopy (WLE) as a control.

Methods Average-risk 50–75-year-old individuals who underwent screening colonoscopy at five referral centers were randomized to SD-CADe, CM-CADe, or WLE groups (1:1:1 ratio). Trainees and staff with an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of ≥35% were recruited. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were the proximal adenoma detection rate (pADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and the number of adenomas, proximal adenomas, and advanced adenomas per colonoscopy (APC, pAPC, and AAPC, respectively).

Results The study enrolled 1200 participants. The ADR in the control, CM-CADe, and SD-CADe groups was 38.3%, 50.0%, and 54.8%, respectively. The pADR was 23.0%, 32.3%, and 38.8%, respectively. AADR was 6.0%, 10.3%, and 9.5%, respectively. After adjustment, the ADR and pADR in both intervention groups were significantly higher than in controls (all P<0.05). The APC in the control, CM-CADe, and SD-CADe groups was 0.66, 1.04, and 1.16, respectively. The pAPC was 0.33, 0.53, and 0.64, respectively, and the AAPC was 0.07, 0.12, and 0.10, respectively. Both CADe systems showed significantly higher APC and pAPC than WLE. AADR and AAPC were improved in both CADe groups versus control, although the differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusion Even in high adenoma detectors, CADe significantly improved ADR and APC. The AADR tended to be higher with both systems, and this may enhance colorectal cancer prevention.

Publication History

Received: 03 September 2023

Accepted after revision: 14 November 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
14 November 2023

Article published online:
21 December 2023

• References

• 1 Keswani RN, Crockett SD, Calderwood AH. AGA Clinical Practice Update on strategies to improve quality of screening and surveillance colonoscopy: expert review. Gastroenterology 2021; 161: 701-711 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.05.041. (PMID: 34334168)
• 2 Pilonis ND, Bugajski M, Wieszczy P. et al. Long-term colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after a single negative screening colonoscopy. Ann Intern Med 2020; 173: 81-91 DOI: 10.7326/M19-2477. (PMID: 32449884)
• 3 Zhao S, Wang S, Pan P. et al. Magnitude, risk factors, and factors associated with adenoma miss rate of tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 1661-1674
• 4 le Clercq CM, Bouwens MW, Rondagh EJ. et al. Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers are preventable: a population-based study. Gut 2014; 63: 957-963 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-304880. (PMID: 23744612)
• 5 Jiang W, Xin L, Zhu S. et al. Risk factors related to polyp miss rate of short-term repeated colonoscopy. Dig Dis Sci 2023; 68: 2040-2049 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-023-07848-x. (PMID: 37017819)
• 6 Pan H, Cai M, Liao Q. et al. Artificial intelligence-aid colonoscopy vs. conventional colonoscopy for polyp and adenoma detection: a systematic review of 7 discordant meta-analyses. Front Med (Lausanne) 2021; 8: 775604 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.775604. (PMID: 35096870)
• 7 Huang D, Shen J, Hong J. et al. Effect of artificial intelligence-aided colonoscopy for adenoma and polyp detection: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Int J Colorectal Dis 2022; 37: 495-506 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-021-04062-x. (PMID: 34762157)
• 8 Barua I, Vinsard DG, Jodal HC. et al. Artificial intelligence for polyp detection during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 277-284
• 9 Shao L, Yan X, Liu C. et al. Effects of AI-assisted colonoscopy on adenoma miss rate/adenoma detection rate: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2022; 101: e31945 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000031945. (PMID: 36401456)
• 10 Shah S, Park N, Chehade NEH. et al. Effect of computer-aided colonoscopy on adenoma miss rates and polyp detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 38: 162-176 DOI: 10.1111/jgh.16059. (PMID: 36350048)
• 11 Ashat M, Klair JS, Singh D. et al. Impact of real-time use of artificial intelligence in improving adenoma detection during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2021; 9: E513-e21
• 12 Aziz M, Fatima R, Dong C. et al. The impact of deep convolutional neural network-based artificial intelligence on colonoscopy outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 35: 1676-1683
• 13 Tiankanon K, Aniwan S, Mekritthikrai K. et al. The improvement on adenoma detection rate and other secondary indicators of the two real-time artificial intelligences in high adenoma detectors: a randomized multi-center trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2023; 97 (Suppl. 06) AB733
• 14 Repici A, Badalamenti M, Maselli R. et al. Efficacy of real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal neoplasia in a randomized trial. Gastroenterology 2020; 159: 512-520 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.062. (PMID: 32371116)
• 15 Gimeno-García AZ, Hernández Negrin D, Hernández A. et al. Usefulness of a novel computer-aided detection system for colorectal neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2023; 97: 528-536
• 16 Glissen Brown JR, Mansour NM, Wang P. et al. Deep learning computer-aided polyp detection reduces adenoma miss rate: a United States multi-center randomized tandem colonoscopy study (CADeT-CS Trial). Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 20: 1499-1507
• 17 Vleugels JLA, Hazewinkel Y, Fockens P. et al. Natural history of diminutive and small colorectal polyps: a systematic literature review. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 1169-1176 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.12.014. (PMID: 28024986)
• 18 Click B, Pinsky PF, Hickey T. et al. Association of colonoscopy adenoma findings with long-term colorectal cancer incidence. JAMA 2018; 319: 2021-2031
• 19 Duvvuri A, Chandrasekar VT, Srinivasan S. et al. Risk of colorectal cancer and cancer related mortality after detection of low-risk or high-risk adenomas, compared with no adenoma, at index colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2021; 160: 1986-1996 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.01.214. (PMID: 33524401)
• 20 Li G, Walter SD, Thabane L. Shifting the focus away from binary thinking of statistical significance and towards education for key stakeholders: revisiting the debate on whether it’s time to de-emphasize or get rid of statistical significance. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 137: 104-112 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.033. (PMID: 33839240)
• 21 Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B. Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature 2019; 567: 305-307 DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9. (PMID: 30894741)
• 22 Xu H, Tang RSY, Lam TYT. et al. Artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 21: 337-346 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.07.006. (PMID: 35863686)
• 23 Levy I, Bruckmayer L, Klang E. et al. Artificial intelligence-aided colonoscopy does not increase adenoma detection rate in routine clinical practice. Am J Gastroenterol 2022; 117: 1871-1873
• 24 Ladabaum U, Shepard J, Weng Y. et al. Computer-aided detection of polyps does not improve colonoscopist performance in a pragmatic implementation trial. Gastroenterology 2023; 164: 481-483
• 25 Ford I, Norrie J. Pragmatic trials. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 454-463 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1510059. (PMID: 27518663)
• 26 Brownson RC, Shelton RC, Geng EH. et al. Revisiting concepts of evidence in implementation science. Implement Sci 2022; 17: 26 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-022-01201-y. (PMID: 35413917)
• 27 Zhan W, Sun C, Wang M. et al. An improved Yolov5 real-time detection method for small objects captured by UAV. Soft Computing 2022; 26: 1-13
• 28 Lui TKL, Hang DV, Tsao SKK. et al. Computer-assisted detection versus conventional colonoscopy for proximal colonic lesions: a multicenter, randomized, tandem-colonoscopy study. Gastrointest Endosc 2023; 97: 325-334 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.09.020. (PMID: 36208795)
• 29 Boroff ES, Gurudu SR, Hentz JG. et al. Polyp and adenoma detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 993-999 DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2013.68. (PMID: 23567353)
• 30 Laiyemo AO, Doubeni C, Sanderson AK. et al. Likelihood of missed and recurrent adenomas in the proximal versus the distal colon. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 253-261 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.02.023. (PMID: 21549375)
• 31 Hassan C, Badalamenti M, Maselli R. et al. Computer-aided detection-assisted colonoscopy: classification and relevance of false positives. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 900-904 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.021. (PMID: 32561410)
• 32 Mohan BP, Facciorusso A, Khan SR. et al. Real-time computer aided colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy for improving adenoma detection rate: a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials. EClinicalMedicine 2020; 29–30: 100622
• 33 Holzwanger EA, Bilal M, Glissen Brown JR. et al. Benchmarking definitions of false-positive alerts during computer-aided polyp detection in colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 937-940
• 34 Mori Y, Bretthauer M. Addressing false-positive findings with artificial intelligence for polyp detection. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 941-942 DOI: 10.1055/a-1381-7849. (PMID: 34438457)
• 35 Bhurwal A, Rattan P, Sarkar A. et al. A comparison of 9-min colonoscopy withdrawal time and 6-min colonoscopy withdrawal time: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 36: 3260-3267 DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15701. (PMID: 34617312)
• 36 Lui RN, Kyaw MH, Lam TYT. et al. Prevalence and risk factors for sessile serrated lesions in an average risk colorectal cancer screening population. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 36: 1656-1662 DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15368. (PMID: 33617148)