Real-time, computer-aided, detection-assisted colonoscopy eliminates differences in adenoma detection rate between trainee and experienced endoscopists

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a well-accepted quality indicator of screening colonoscopy. In recent years, the added value of artificial intelligence (AI) has been demonstrated in terms of ADR and adenoma miss rate (AMR). To date, there are no studies evaluating the impact of AI on the performance of trainee endoscopists (TEs). This study aimed to assess whether AI might eliminate any difference in ADR or AMR between TEs and experienced endoscopists (EEs).

Patients and methods We performed a prospective observational study in 45 subjects referred for screening colonoscopy. A same-day tandem examination was carried out for each patient by a TE with the AI assistance and subsequently by an EE unaware of the lesions detected by the TE. Besides ADR and AMR, we also calculated for each subgroup of endoscopists the adenoma per colonoscopy (APC), polyp detection rate (PDR), polyp per colonoscopy (PPC) and polyp miss rate (PMR). Subgroup analyses according to size, morphology, and site were also performed.

Results ADR, APC, PDR, and PPC of AI-supported TEs were 38 %, 0.93, 62 %, 1.93, respectively. The corresponding parameters for EEs were 40 %, 1.07, 58 %, 2.22. No significant difference was found for each analysis between the two groups (P > 0.05). AMR and PMR for AI-assisted TEs were 12.5 % and 13 %, respectively. Sub-analyses did not show any significant difference (P > 0.05) between the two categories of operators.

Conclusions In this single-center prospective study, the possible impact of AI on endoscopist quality training was demonstrated. In the future, this could result in better efficacy of screening colonoscopy by reducing the incidence of interval or missed cancers.

Publication History

Received: 22 July 2021

Accepted after revision: 03 January 2022

Article published online:
13 May 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

• References

• 1 Puig I, Mármol C, Bustamante M. Endoscopic imaging techniques for detecting early colorectal cancer. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2019; 35: 432-439
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Dekker E, Tanis PJ, Vleugels JLA. et al. Colorectal cancer. Lancet 2019; 394: 1467-1480
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Morson B. President's address. The polyp-cancer sequence in the large bowel. Proc R Soc Med 1974; 67: 451-457
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions. esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: S3-S43
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Kudo S, Lambert R, Allen JI. et al. Nonpolypoid neoplastic lesions of the colorectal mucosa. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: S3-S47
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Leggett B, Whitehall V. Role of the serrated pathway in colorectal cancer pathogenesis. Gastroenterology 2010; 138: 2088-2100
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Lambert R, Kudo SE, Vieth M. et al. Pragmatic classification of superficial neoplastic colorectal lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 1182-1199
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Lambert R, Saito H, Saito Y. High-resolution endoscopy and early gastrointestinal cancer…dawn in the East. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 232-237
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Bisschops R, East JE, Hassan C. et al. Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2019. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 1155-1179
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Kamiński MF, Hassan C, Bisschops R. et al. Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 435-449
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 East JE, Vleugels JL, Roelandt P. et al. Advanced endoscopic imaging: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technology Review. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 1029-1045
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Hassan C, Wallace MB, Sharma P. et al. New artificial intelligence system: first validation study versus experienced endoscopists for colorectal polyp detection. Gut 2020; 69: 799-800
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Hassan C, Spadaccini M, Iannone A. et al. Performance of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy for adenoma and polyp detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 77-85.e6
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Lui TKL, Hui CKY, Tsui VWM. et al. New insights on missed colonic lesions during colonoscopy through artificial intelligence-assisted real-time detection (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 193-200.e1
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 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
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Munroe CA, Lee P, Copland A. et al. A tandem colonoscopy study of adenoma miss rates during endoscopic training: a venture into uncharted territory. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 561-567
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Wang P, Liu P, Glissen Brown JR. et al. Lower adenoma miss rate of computer-aided detection-assisted colonoscopy vs routine white-light colonoscopy in a prospective tandem study. Gastroenterology 2020; 159: 1252-1261.e5
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Hayashi N, Tanaka S, Hewett DG. et al. Endoscopic prediction of deep submucosal invasive carcinoma: validation of the narrow-band imaging international colorectal endoscopic (NICE) classification. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 625-632
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 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.e7
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Zorron Cheng Tao Pu L, Singh G, Rana K. et al. Polyp detection rate as a surrogate for adenoma and sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rates. Gastrointest Tumors 2020; 7: 74-82
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Williamson JM, Datta S, Satten GA. Marginal analyses of clustered data when cluster size is informative. Biometrics 2003; 59: 36-42
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Sinagra E, Badalamenti M, Maida M. et al. Use of artificial intelligence in improving adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: Might both endoscopists and pathologists be further helped. World J Gastroenterol 2020; 26: 5911-5918
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Krigel A, Patel A, Kaplan J. et al. Anesthesia assistance in screening colonoscopy and adenoma detection rate among trainees. Dig Dis Sci 2020; 65: 961-968
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Cocomazzi F, Gentile M, Perri F. et al. Interobserver agreement of the Paris and simplified classifications of superficial colonic lesions: a Western study. Endosc Int Open 2021; 9: E388-E394
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Cocomazzi F, Gentile M, Perri F. et al. Accuracy and inter-observer agreement of the nice and kudo classifications of superficial colonic lesions: a comparative study. Int J Colorectal Dis 2021; 36: 1561-1568
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar