Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy

OPEN ACCESS

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Clin Endosc > Ahead-of print articles > Article
Original Article Effectiveness of a novel artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy system for adenoma detection: a prospective, propensity score-matched, non-randomized controlled study in Korea
Jung-Bin Park1orcid, Jung Ho Bae2,orcid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.168
Published online: August 5, 2024

1Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

2Department of Internal Medicine and Healthcare Research Institute, Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Jung Ho Bae Department of Internal Medicine and Healthcare Research Institute, Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul National University Hospital, 39 FL Gangnam Finance Center, 152 Teheran-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06236, Korea E-mail: bjh@snuh.org
• Received: June 24, 2024   • Revised: July 18, 2024   • Accepted: July 21, 2024

© 2024 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 1,458 Views
  • 149 Download
  • Background/Aims
    The real-world effectiveness of computer-aided detection (CADe) systems during colonoscopies remains uncertain. We assessed the effectiveness of the novel CADe system, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device (ENAD), in enhancing the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and other quality indicators in real-world clinical practice.
  • Methods
    We enrolled patients who underwent elective colonoscopies between May 2022 and October 2022 at a tertiary healthcare center. Standard colonoscopy (SC) was compared to ENAD-assisted colonoscopy. Eight experienced endoscopists performed the procedures in randomly assigned CADe- and non-CADe-assisted rooms. The primary outcome was a comparison of ADR between the ENAD and SC groups.
  • Results
    A total of 1,758 sex- and age-matched patients were included and evenly distributed into two groups. The ENAD group had a significantly higher ADR (45.1% vs. 38.8%, p=0.010), higher sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR) (5.7% vs. 2.5%, p=0.001), higher mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) (0.78±1.17 vs. 0.61±0.99; incidence risk ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.13–1.42), and longer withdrawal time (9.0±3.4 vs. 8.3±3.1, p<0.001) than the SC group. However, the mean withdrawal times were not significantly different between the two groups in cases where no polyps were detected (6.9±1.7 vs. 6.7±1.7, p=0.058).
  • Conclusions
    ENAD-assisted colonoscopy significantly improved the ADR, APC, and SSLDR in real-world clinical practice, particularly for smaller and nonpolypoid adenomas.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide.1 Detecting and resecting precancerous polyps using endoscopic methods are crucial for CRC risk reduction.2 Hence, colonoscopy has become the standard procedure for diagnosing and preventing CRC.3,4 However, 24% to 26% of adenomas may be missed during colonoscopy, significantly contributing to the occurrence of interval CRC.5,6 To standardize colonoscopy screening and enhance its efficacy, various quality metrics have been established, with the adenoma detection rate (ADR) being the most critical.7,8 An inverse relationship has been established between the ADR calculated by endoscopists and the incidence and mortality of interval CRC.9,10 Various approaches and advancements in colonoscopy techniques have been developed to increase ADR, including improvements in bowel preparation, enhanced imaging techniques, and the use of additional endoscopic devices.11-14
Recently, in many randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the implementation of computer-aided detection (CADe) systems based on artificial intelligence (AI) technology during real-time colonoscopy showed promise in increasing adenoma detection.15-19 This new technique, CADe-assisted colonoscopy, has been recognized to be more effective in improving ADR than traditional techniques.20 However, it lacks substantial advantages in adenoma detection in real-world settings, raising concerns regarding its applicability in routine clinical practice.21-24 This variability in the effectiveness of CADe-assisted colonoscopy in real-world clinical practice may be attributed to integration and workflow challenges, differences in patient populations, and the risk of ascertainment bias.24 Additionally, systems and versions of CADe exhibiting incomplete performance, including high false-positive rates, might contribute to discrepancies in the effectiveness of CADe-assisted colonoscopy between RCTs and real-world clinical practice.23,25-27 Therefore, the limited generalizability of RCTs necessitates conducting additional studies using more recent CADe systems in a pragmatic setting.24 In our study, we utilized the ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device (ENAD system; AINEX Corporation), a novel CADe software aimed at reducing false-positive rates and increasing per-frame sensitivity while also implementing less stringent exclusion criteria and providing autonomy for endoscopists. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of this novel AI-assisted detection system in enhancing ADR and other quality indicators in real-world clinical practice.
Study design and population
This prospective, propensity score-matched, non-randomized controlled study was conducted at the Gangnam Healthcare System, a tertiary healthcare center of Seoul National University Hospital (SNUH), between May 2022 and October 2022. The institution provides comprehensive medical check-ups and conducts approximately 10,000 screening and surveillance colonoscopies annually.
This study enrolled patients aged ≥20 years who underwent elective colonoscopy for CRC screening, surveillance, or symptom diagnosis. Individuals aged <45 years generally visit for screening purposes due to concerns such as a family history or for diagnostic colonoscopy due to symptoms such as diarrhea and abdominal discomfort. Patients were excluded from the propensity score-matching analysis if they had a history of inflammatory bowel disease, CRC, colorectal resection, failed total colonoscopy, or declined to participate in the study.
CADe system
We utilized the ENAD system, an updated version of previously reported software (SCAI System) developed collaboratively by the Division of Bioengineering at SNUH and AINEX Corporation.28,29 This system, based on a convolutional neural network-based CADe platform, was trained on the same database as the prototype, which comprised 197,673 images from 3,121 polyps sourced from the AI database of the SNUH Gangnam Center. Additionally, it included a different dataset containing 66,397 images of 8,756 polyps. The CADe system employs an advanced deep learning-based object detection algorithm (YOLOv4) that identifies objects by localizing them with green boxes on the screen for polyp detection. The novel updated system was trained using only high-quality, well-focused frames and post-processed using the Kalman filter algorithm. The validation process involved 15,863 images from 80 polyp video clips and 90,144 images from 50 non-polyp clips during the withdrawal times. This version achieved a lower false-positive rate, decreasing from 3.2% to 0.6% and reducing the number of false alarms while increasing the per-frame sensitivity from 86.4% to 87.1%.
Colonoscopy
Colonoscopies were conducted by eight board-certified experienced gastrointestinal endoscopists, who had each performed >2,000 colonoscopies, using high-definition equipment (CF-HQ260 or CF-HQ290; Olympus Co., Ltd.). In our institution, six of the 12 colonoscopy rooms were equipped with the CADe system. Patients who underwent colonoscopy in these rooms were classified into the ENAD group in which the CADe system assisted endoscopists. Patients who underwent colonoscopy in the non-CADe-equipped rooms were classified into the standard colonoscopy (SC) group. Endoscopists were randomly assigned to rooms by the scheduling nurse and performed the procedures in both the CADe-equipped and non-CADe-equipped rooms. The participating endoscopists received thorough training on the CADe system and used it in clinical practice for 8 months prior to the study. All endoscopists were informed of the study and were aware that their performance would be evaluated.
Details of each detected polyp, including size, location, and morphology according to the Paris classification,30 as well as withdrawal time and bowel preparation quality using the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS),31 were recorded. All the polyps were histologically diagnosed. Small polyps were resected at the discretion of the endoscopist. Unresected large polyps that required endoscopic submucosal dissection or piecemeal mucosal resection were biopsied. All specimens were sent to the pathology department and histopathologically evaluated by an experienced pathologist at SNUH.
Outcome measures
The primary outcome was a comparison of ADR between the SC and ENAD groups. ADR was defined as the proportion of patients with one or more histologically confirmed adenomas. The secondary outcomes included the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), defined as the total number of adenomas divided by the number of colonoscopies performed. Other secondary outcomes included advanced ADR (AADR), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR), advanced SSLDR (ASSLDR), non-neoplastic lesion detection rate (no clinically significant histology, including hyperplastic or other benign polyps), and withdrawal time. Advanced adenoma was defined as the presence of any of the following factors: high-grade adenoma (intramucosal carcinoma), adenomatous lesions with a villous component, adenomatous lesions >10 mm in size, or invasive cancer. Advanced sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) included those with dysplasia or >10 mm. Each detection rate was calculated by dividing the number of patients with pathologically confirmed lesions by the total number of patients who underwent colonoscopy. Additional exploratory endpoints included the evaluation of ADR and APC based on polyp size, morphology, and location (defined as proximal if the polyp was located from the cecum to the transverse colon and distal if it was located from the splenic flexure to the rectum).
Statistical analysis
Propensity scores were matched using age and sex as independent variables in a logistic regression model to minimize the bias between the SC and ENAD groups. Patients in the SC group were matched with those in the ENAD group at a 1:1 ratio without replacement using the nearest neighbor matching method with calipers of width equal to 0.2 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score. The balance of the covariates was then assessed using standardized mean differences, of which all were <0.2 for the baseline variables, indicating an adequate balance between the groups. After extracting the matched pairs, outcome measurements were calculated. Categorical variables were described as frequency counts and percentages, whereas continuous variables were described as means and standard deviations. The Mann-Whitney U-test and Student t-test were used for nonparametric and parametric continuous variables, respectively. Fisher exact test or chi-square test was used for categorical data. Differences were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A two-sided p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using R software ver. 4.3.1 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing).
Ethical statements
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of SNUH (No. H-2107-235-1240) and complied with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all patients before their inclusion in the study.
In total, 2,105 patients underwent colonoscopy. After excluding 254 patients who did not meet the inclusion criteria, 1,851 patients were enrolled. Propensity scores were matched based on sex and age, which could influence ADR. Finally, 1,758 patients were included in the analysis and evenly distributed into the ENAD and SC groups (Fig. 1). The baseline characteristics of the enrolled patients are shown in Table 1. Table 2 outlines the clinical outcomes of colonoscopies in each group. No significant differences in age or sex were observed between both groups. BBPS scores were adequate in 98.6% (867/879) of patients in the ENAD group and 99.2% (872/879) in the SC group, with no significant differences between the two groups. The ENAD group had a longer mean total withdrawal time, including polypectomy time (9.0±3.4 vs. 8.3±3.1 min, p<0.001) and mean inspection time (total withdrawal time minus total polypectomy time) (7.5±2.3 vs. 7.1±2.1 min, p<0.001) than the SC group. No significant differences in the mean withdrawal times were observed between the two groups in cases where no polyps were detected (6.9±1.7 vs. 6.7±1.7 min, p=0.058).
The ENAD group had significantly higher ADR (45.1% vs. 38.8%, p=0.010) and SSLDR (5.7% vs. 2.5%, p=0.001) than the SC group. However, no significant differences were observed between the groups in the AADR and ASSLDR. Moreover, the ENAD group demonstrated a higher ADR for adenomas <10 mm, nonpolypoid lesions, and proximal and distal colon lesions than the SC group (Table 3, Fig. 2).
The APC was significantly higher in the ENAD group (0.78±1.17) than in the SC group (0.61±0.99) (incidence risk ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.13–1.42). Regarding APCs stratified by morphology, size, and location, the mean number of APCs was higher in the ENAD group for nonpolypoid lesions and for both proximal and distal colon lesions. APC improved for adenomas ≥10 mm and <10 mm in diameter (Table 4).
The implementation of the novel CADe system, ENAD, during colonoscopy enhanced the ADR by 6.3% (RR, 1.17). Similarly, APC and SSLDR increased significantly in the ENAD group compared to the SC group. Moreover, compared to the SC group, the ENAD group demonstrated a significantly increased ADR in polyps <10 mm and nonpolypoid lesions and a higher mean number of APCs for nonpolypoid lesions across all sizes.
Several previous prospective RCTs have reported an increased ADR performance when comparing CADe with routine colonoscopy.15,16,32 Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis of 21 RCTs revealed that the use of CADe during colonoscopy increased the ADR compared with the control.18 However, most studies involved non-commercially available AI systems, and considering the inherent limitations of RCTs regarding internal and external validity, the results may not be directly applicable in clinical practice. Therefore, non-randomized observational studies that assess the effectiveness rather than the efficacy of CADe in real-world clinical practice, without an immediate and direct comparison between CADe-assisted colonoscopy and SC, are essential.18,21-23,33,34 However, the conclusions of previous studies are controversial. In a pragmatic implementation study, Ladabaum et al.22 used a minimalist deployment strategy without additional measures that could affect endoscopic behavior, leaving CADe use at the discretion of each endoscopist for every colonoscopy performed. In real-world clinical practice, CADe implementation without considering the endoscopist’s inclination and behavior may not lead to an improvement in the ADR (CADe vs. control: 40.1% vs. 41.8%, p=0.44). Levy et al.21 conducted a retrospective observational study and reported that AI-assisted colonoscopy did not improve performance; in fact, the ADR in the CADe group was lower than that in the non-CADe group (CADe vs. control: 30.3% vs. 35.2%; p=0.001). However, our study, which used real-world data with a concurrent comparator, demonstrated an increased ADR and mean number of APCs in the ENAD group. We employed relatively less stringent exclusion criteria and a non-randomized study design to include all patients to confirm the effectiveness of CADe-assisted colonoscopy in a setting similar to routine clinical practice. All eight endoscopists in our study were experts with approximately 8 months of experience with CADe prior to study initiation, allowing them to integrate seamlessly and comfortably into the workflow. The novel CADe system, with its improved performance, likely contributed to the increased ADR in a real-world environment, contrary to the results of other non-randomized studies.21-23
In a study by Levy et al.,21 the decrease in the ADR in the CADe group was attributed to diminished procedure time, potentially implying a false sense of confidence and overreliance on AI technology, resulting in less scrupulous performance. In contrast, our study observed that the total withdrawal time, including polypectomy time, was longer in the ENAD group than in the SC group, which may be naturally attributed to the detection of more adenomas. The withdrawal time in cases in which no polyps were detected was not significantly different between the two groups. Thus, the use of the CADe system did not result in longer observation times. Instead, with sufficient observation time, similar to colonoscopies without AI assistance, ADR improvement is achievable even with CADe systems. Another hypothesis is that the updated ENAD system used in this study, by reducing the false-positive rate, might reduce distractions for the endoscopist, decrease fatigue, and lessen the overlooking of alarms, potentially increasing the ADR. This could be a distinguishing feature compared with other CADe systems. Nonetheless, there was a slight tendency of minimal prolongation of withdrawal time in the CADe group even in the absence of polyps (p=0.058); however, the actual difference was only 0.2 minutes (6.7 vs. 6.9 minutes). Therefore, CADe systems should be improved to minimize false positives as much as possible. Further research on the interaction between AI and human endoscopists and the clinical impact of reducing false-positive rates is also needed.
In this study, the detection rates of SSLs and nonpolypoid adenomas were significantly higher in the ENAD group than in the SC group. In the initial RCT, the detection rate of SSLs did not increase.16,17 However, Shah et al.35 reported a 78% reduction in the SSL miss rate with CADe. Many post-colonoscopy CRCs may originate from serrated polyps, in accordance with the serrated pathway of carcinogenesis, likely because SSLs are often difficult to detect and have a high risk of incomplete removal during colonoscopy. This difficulty arises from their flat shape, indistinct margins, and color similar to that of the surrounding mucosa.36 Thus, the higher SSLDR observed in the ENAD group in our study is considered significant and encouraging, as it may help reduce the risk of interval cancer.
Although the ENAD group demonstrated APC improvement for adenomas with diameters <10 mm and ≥10 mm, it did not show a higher AADR, ASSLDR, or ADR for polyps >10 mm. Other studies have also indicated that AI fails to improve the detection rate of advanced adenomas.16,32,34,37 The lack of an increase in the AADR or ASSLDR may be attributed to the proficiency of AI in detecting lesions within the observed mucosa while potentially missing those in blind spots not exposed by the endoscopist or due to poor bowel preparation. Therefore, endoscopists’ observational skills remain crucial, particularly during mucosal exposure. Some studies have addressed this limitation by introducing a blind spot monitoring technology based on deep learning.38,39 Combining CADe systems with this technology enhances the detection rate of advanced lesions. Furthermore, automatic monitoring of bowel cleanliness and providing feedback on colonoscopy quality through AI could improve the overall quality of the procedure, reduce the need for bowel preparation recordings, and decrease the physician’s workload.40,41 This, in turn, might increase the detection rate of advanced and other lesion types. Since the prevalence of advanced lesions is relatively low,42 large-scale studies are required to statistically confirm the effect of CADe on increasing AADR/ASSLDR among high-performing expert groups.
We calculated the ADR and APC according to location and compared them between the ENAD and SC groups. ADR and APC for proximal and distal colon lesions were higher in the ENAD group than in the SC group. Wang et al.43 have reported significantly lower miss rates for right-sided colon cancer in a CADe group than in a conventional group. However, a recent meta-analysis has demonstrated that CADe systems significantly improve APC regardless of adenoma location, a finding that is consistent with ours.18 We hypothesized that over time, the performance of CADe systems has improved, or the awareness of the need to better expose the mucosa in the distal colon for effective AI recognition has increased. CADe may improve ADR and APC, regardless of the location.
This study had some limitations. As this was a propensity score-matched, prospective, non-blinded study, potential selection and observer biases among endoscopists who were aware of ENAD use may have been present. Additionally, the study was conducted at a single tertiary center by experienced endoscopists, which could limit the generalizability of our results. Future studies should focus on external validation, including diverse centers of various sizes and less-experienced endoscopists, to establish the effectiveness of AI in daily clinical settings. Finally, although this study confirmed an overall increase in the mean ADR among endoscopists, we did not examine the increase in ADR for each endoscopist. Future research should analyze the inter-observer reliability among endoscopists to identify practitioners experiencing a decrease in ADR. By understanding the characteristics of these practitioners, we can develop strategies to improve ADR using CADe. This approach would help ensure consistency in the effectiveness of the system across practitioners. Nevertheless, our study effectively demonstrated that the novel CADe-assisted colonoscopy was superior to SC in a setting that mirrored real-world clinical practice through propensity score matching to mitigate sex- and age-related biases that can affect ADR.
In conclusion, the use of the novel ENAD system during colonoscopy increased the ADR, APC, and SSLDR compared with SC in patients who underwent screening and surveillance colonoscopy. With the validation of these findings in more extensive studies involving various endoscopists, CADe-assisted colonoscopy could become the norm, thereby elevating colonoscopy quality and subsequently improving CRC prevention outcomes.
Fig. 1.
Flowchart showing participant selection. SC, standard colonoscopy; ENAD, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device.
ce-2024-168f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Comparison of polyp detection rates (per-patient analysis) between the SC and ENAD groups. SC, standard colonoscopy; ENAD, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device; SSL, sessile serrated lesion.
ce-2024-168f2.jpg
ce-2024-168f3.jpg
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of the patients
Characteristic SC group (n=879) ENAD group (n=879) p-value
Sex 0.210
 Male 493 (56.1) 520 (59.2)
 Female 386 (43.9) 359 (40.8)
Age (yr) 53.9±10.0 53.4±10.1 0.357
Age range (yr) 0.792
 ≤39 67 (7.6) 73 (8.3)
 40–49 203 (23.1) 206 (23.4)
 50–59 336 (38.2) 354 (40.3)
 60–69 219 (24.9) 201 (22.9)
 ≥70 54 (6.1) 45 (5.1)
No. of endoscopists 8 8

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation unless otherwise defined.

SC, standard colonoscopy; ENAD, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device.

Table 2.
Clinical outcomes of colonoscopies
Outcomes SC group (n=879) ENAD group (n=879) p-value
Mean BBPS score 8.5±1.0 8.6±0.9 0.113
Adequate preparation (BBPS≥2 in all segments) 872 (99.2) 867 (98.6) 0.356
Mean procedure times (min)
 Total withdrawal time 8.3±3.1 9.0±3.4 <0.001
 Inspection timea) 7.1±2.1 7.5±2.3 <0.001
 Withdrawal time in cases without polyps 6.7±1.7 6.9±1.7 0.058
 Total polypectomy time when polyp is removed 2.2±1.8 2.4±2.0 0.165

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%) unless otherwise defined.

SC, standard colonoscopy; ENAD, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device; BBPS, Boston bowel preparation scale.

a)Total withdrawal time minus total polypectomy time.

Table 3.
Comparison of polyp detection rates (per-patient analysis)
Detection rates SC group (n=879) ENAD group (n=879) RR (95% CI) p-value
Adenoma detection rate 341 (38.8) 396 (45.1) 1.17 (1.01–1.40) 0.010
Advanced adenoma detection rate 16 (1.8) 25 (2.8) 1.56 (0.83–2.95) 0.206
SSL detection rate 22 (2.5) 50 (5.7) 2.27 (1.36–3.78) 0.001
Advanced SSL detection rate 1 (0.1) 3 (0.3) 3.0 (0.31–28.89) 0.617
Non-neoplastic lesion detection rate 160 (18.2) 185 (21.0) 1.16 (0.91–1.46) 0.150
Adenoma size (mm)
 ≤5 277 (31.5) 322 (36.6) 1.16 (1.01–1.41) 0.027
 6–9 126 (14.3) 168 (19.1) 1.33 (1.04–1.71) 0.009
 ≥10 15 (1.7) 24 (2.7) 1.60 (0.83–3.07) 0.195
Morphology
 Polypoid adenomas 162 (18.4) 168 (19.1) 1.04 (0.82–1.32) 0.760
 Nonpolypoid adenomas 249 (28.3) 319 (36.3) 1.28 (1.05–1.57) 0.001
Location
 Proximal colon adenomas 247 (28.1) 294 (33.4) 1.19 (1.02–1.46) 0.017
 Distal colon adenomas 200 (22.8) 237 (27.0) 1.18 (1.01–1.47) 0.047

Values are presented as number (%) unless otherwise defined.

SC, standard colonoscopy; ENAD, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device; RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval; SSL, sessile serrated lesion.

Table 4.
Comparison of adenomas per colonoscopy (per-polyp analysis)
APC SC group ENAD group IRR (95% CI)
Mean no. of APCs 0.61±0.99 0.78±1.17 1.27 (1.13–1.42)
APC per size
 ≤5 mm adenomas 0.45±0.82 0.52±0.89 1.17 (1.03–1.33)
 6–9 mm adenomas 0.15±0.41 0.22±0.56 1.50 (1.24–1.83)
 ≥10 mm adenomas 0.01±0.13 0.03±0.21 1.80 (1.06–3.06)
APC per morphology
 Polypoid adenomas 0.23±0.57 0.24±0.62 1.07 (0.89–1.29)
 Nonpolypoid adenomas 0.38±0.77 0.53±0.95 1.39 (1.20–1.59)
APC per location
 Proximal colona) adenomas 0.38±0.74 0.48±0.87 1.26 (1.10–1.45)
 Distal colonb) adenomas 0.23±0.52 0.30±0.62 1.28 (1.09–1.50)

Values are described as mean±standard deviation unless otherwise defined.

APC, adenomas per colonoscopy; SC, standard colonoscopy; ENAD, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device; IRR, incidence risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.

a)Cecum, ascending, and transverse colon. b)Descending, sigmoid colon, and rectum.

  • 1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71:209–249.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 2. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012;366:687–696.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 3. Schreuders EH, Ruco A, Rabeneck L, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes. Gut 2015;64:1637–1649.ArticlePubMed
  • 4. Bevan R, Rutter MD. Colorectal cancer screening: who, how, and when? Clin Endosc 2018;51:37–49.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 5. Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997;112:24–28.ArticlePubMed
  • 6. 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.ArticlePubMed
  • 7. Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2017;112:1016–1030.ArticlePubMed
  • 8. Park SB, Cha JM. Quality indicators in colonoscopy: the chasm between ideal and reality. Clin Endosc 2022;55:332–338.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 9. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1298–1306.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 10. Sanduleanu S, le Clercq CM, Dekker E, et al. Definition and taxonomy of interval colorectal cancers: a proposal for standardising nomenclature. Gut 2015;64:1257–1267.ArticlePubMed
  • 11. Gurudu SR, Ramirez FC, Harrison ME, et al. Increased adenoma detection rate with system-wide implementation of a split-dose preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:603–608.ArticlePubMed
  • 12. Matsuda T, Ono A, Sekiguchi M, et al. Advances in image enhancement in colonoscopy for detection of adenomas. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;14:305–314.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 13. Facciorusso A, Del Prete V, Buccino RV, et al. Comparative efficacy of colonoscope distal attachment devices in increasing rates of adenoma detection: a network meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;16:1209–1219.ArticlePubMed
  • 14. Patil R, Ona MA, Ofori E, et al. Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy-a novel accessory in improving adenoma detection rate: a review of the literature. Clin Endosc 2016;49:533–538.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 15. Gong D, Wu L, Zhang J, et al. Detection of colorectal adenomas with a real-time computer-aided system (ENDOANGEL): a randomised controlled study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;5:352–361.ArticlePubMed
  • 16. 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.ArticlePubMed
  • 17. Wang P, Liu X, Berzin TM, et al. Effect of a deep-learning computer-aided detection system on adenoma detection during colonoscopy (CADe-DB trial): a double-blind randomised study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;5:343–351.ArticlePubMed
  • 18. Hassan C, Spadaccini M, Mori Y, et al. Real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2023;176:1209–1220.ArticlePubMed
  • 19. Sivananthan A, Nazarian S, Ayaru L, et al. Does computer-aided diagnostic endoscopy improve the detection of commonly missed polyps? A meta-analysis. Clin Endosc 2022;55:355–364.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 20. Spadaccini M, Iannone A, Maselli R, et al. Computer-aided detection versus advanced imaging for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;6:793–802.ArticlePubMed
  • 21. 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.ArticlePubMed
  • 22. 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.ArticlePubMed
  • 23. Nehme F, Coronel E, Barringer DA, et al. Performance and attitudes toward real-time computer-aided polyp detection during colonoscopy in a large tertiary referral center in the United States. Gastrointest Endosc 2023;98:100–109.ArticlePubMed
  • 24. Patel HK, Mori Y, Hassan C, et al. Lack of effectiveness of computer aided detection for colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024;22:971–980.ArticlePubMed
  • 25. Ahmad OF, Mori Y, Misawa M, et al. Establishing key research questions for the implementation of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: a modified Delphi method. Endoscopy 2021;53:893–901.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 26. 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.ArticlePubMed
  • 27. Tiankanon K, Karuehardsuwan J, Aniwan S, et al. Performance comparison between two computer-aided detection colonoscopy models by trainees using different false positive thresholds: a cross-sectional study in Thailand. Clin Endosc 2024;57:217–225.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 28. Yoon D, Kong HJ, Kim BS, et al. Colonoscopic image synthesis with generative adversarial network for enhanced detection of sessile serrated lesions using convolutional neural network. Sci Rep 2022;12:261.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 29. Lee J, Cho WS, Kim BS, et al. Impact of user's background knowledge and polyp characteristics in colonoscopy with computer-aided detection. Gut Liver 2024 Jul 26 [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl240068.ArticlePubMed
  • 30. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon. November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58(6 Suppl):S3–S43.ArticlePubMed
  • 31. Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G, et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69:620–625.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 32. Wang P, Berzin TM, Glissen Brown JR, et al. Real-time automatic detection system increases colonoscopic polyp and adenoma detection rates: a prospective randomised controlled study. Gut 2019;68:1813–1819.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 33. Shaukat A, Colucci D, Erisson L, et al. Improvement in adenoma detection using a novel artificial intelligence-aided polyp detection device. Endosc Int Open 2021;9:E263–E270.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 34. Ishiyama M, Kudo SE, Misawa M, et al. Impact of the clinical use of artificial intelligence-assisted neoplasia detection for colonoscopy: a large-scale prospective, propensity score-matched study (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95:155–163.ArticlePubMed
  • 35. Shah S, Park N, Chehade NE, 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.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 36. IJspeert JE, Vermeulen L, Meijer GA, et al. Serrated neoplasia-role in colorectal carcinogenesis and clinical implications. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;12:401–409.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 37. Wang P, Xiao X, Glissen Brown JR, et al. Development and validation of a deep-learning algorithm for the detection of polyps during colonoscopy. Nat Biomed Eng 2018;2:741–748.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 38. McGill SK, Rosenman J, Wang R, et al. Artificial intelligence identifies and quantifies colonoscopy blind spots. Endoscopy 2021;53:1284–1286.ArticlePubMed
  • 39. Freedman D, Blau Y, Katzir L, et al. Detecting deficient coverage in colonoscopies. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2020;39:3451–3462.ArticlePubMed
  • 40. Lee JY, Park J, Lee HJ, et al. Automatic assessment of bowel preparation by an artificial intelligence model and its clinical applicability. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024 May 20 [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.16618.ArticlePubMed
  • 41. Rey JF. As how artificial intelligence is revolutionizing endoscopy. Clin Endosc 2024;57:302–308.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 42. Imperiale TF, Abhyankar PR, Stump TE, et al. Prevalence of advanced, precancerous colorectal neoplasms in black and white populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2018;155:1776–1786.ArticlePubMed
  • 43. 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.ArticlePubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      • PubReader PubReader
      • ePub LinkePub Link
      • Cite
        CITE
        export Copy Download
        Close
        Download Citation
        Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

        Format:
        • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
        • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
        Include:
        • Citation for the content below
        Effectiveness of a novel artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy system for adenoma detection: a prospective, propensity score-matched, non-randomized controlled study in Korea
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Figure
      • 0
      • 1
      • 2
      Effectiveness of a novel artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy system for adenoma detection: a prospective, propensity score-matched, non-randomized controlled study in Korea
      Image Image Image
      Fig. 1. Flowchart showing participant selection. SC, standard colonoscopy; ENAD, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device.
      Fig. 2. Comparison of polyp detection rates (per-patient analysis) between the SC and ENAD groups. SC, standard colonoscopy; ENAD, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device; SSL, sessile serrated lesion.
      Graphical abstract
      Effectiveness of a novel artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy system for adenoma detection: a prospective, propensity score-matched, non-randomized controlled study in Korea
      Characteristic SC group (n=879) ENAD group (n=879) p-value
      Sex 0.210
       Male 493 (56.1) 520 (59.2)
       Female 386 (43.9) 359 (40.8)
      Age (yr) 53.9±10.0 53.4±10.1 0.357
      Age range (yr) 0.792
       ≤39 67 (7.6) 73 (8.3)
       40–49 203 (23.1) 206 (23.4)
       50–59 336 (38.2) 354 (40.3)
       60–69 219 (24.9) 201 (22.9)
       ≥70 54 (6.1) 45 (5.1)
      No. of endoscopists 8 8
      Outcomes SC group (n=879) ENAD group (n=879) p-value
      Mean BBPS score 8.5±1.0 8.6±0.9 0.113
      Adequate preparation (BBPS≥2 in all segments) 872 (99.2) 867 (98.6) 0.356
      Mean procedure times (min)
       Total withdrawal time 8.3±3.1 9.0±3.4 <0.001
       Inspection timea) 7.1±2.1 7.5±2.3 <0.001
       Withdrawal time in cases without polyps 6.7±1.7 6.9±1.7 0.058
       Total polypectomy time when polyp is removed 2.2±1.8 2.4±2.0 0.165
      Detection rates SC group (n=879) ENAD group (n=879) RR (95% CI) p-value
      Adenoma detection rate 341 (38.8) 396 (45.1) 1.17 (1.01–1.40) 0.010
      Advanced adenoma detection rate 16 (1.8) 25 (2.8) 1.56 (0.83–2.95) 0.206
      SSL detection rate 22 (2.5) 50 (5.7) 2.27 (1.36–3.78) 0.001
      Advanced SSL detection rate 1 (0.1) 3 (0.3) 3.0 (0.31–28.89) 0.617
      Non-neoplastic lesion detection rate 160 (18.2) 185 (21.0) 1.16 (0.91–1.46) 0.150
      Adenoma size (mm)
       ≤5 277 (31.5) 322 (36.6) 1.16 (1.01–1.41) 0.027
       6–9 126 (14.3) 168 (19.1) 1.33 (1.04–1.71) 0.009
       ≥10 15 (1.7) 24 (2.7) 1.60 (0.83–3.07) 0.195
      Morphology
       Polypoid adenomas 162 (18.4) 168 (19.1) 1.04 (0.82–1.32) 0.760
       Nonpolypoid adenomas 249 (28.3) 319 (36.3) 1.28 (1.05–1.57) 0.001
      Location
       Proximal colon adenomas 247 (28.1) 294 (33.4) 1.19 (1.02–1.46) 0.017
       Distal colon adenomas 200 (22.8) 237 (27.0) 1.18 (1.01–1.47) 0.047
      APC SC group ENAD group IRR (95% CI)
      Mean no. of APCs 0.61±0.99 0.78±1.17 1.27 (1.13–1.42)
      APC per size
       ≤5 mm adenomas 0.45±0.82 0.52±0.89 1.17 (1.03–1.33)
       6–9 mm adenomas 0.15±0.41 0.22±0.56 1.50 (1.24–1.83)
       ≥10 mm adenomas 0.01±0.13 0.03±0.21 1.80 (1.06–3.06)
      APC per morphology
       Polypoid adenomas 0.23±0.57 0.24±0.62 1.07 (0.89–1.29)
       Nonpolypoid adenomas 0.38±0.77 0.53±0.95 1.39 (1.20–1.59)
      APC per location
       Proximal colona) adenomas 0.38±0.74 0.48±0.87 1.26 (1.10–1.45)
       Distal colonb) adenomas 0.23±0.52 0.30±0.62 1.28 (1.09–1.50)
      Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the patients

      Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation unless otherwise defined.

      SC, standard colonoscopy; ENAD, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device.

      Table 2. Clinical outcomes of colonoscopies

      Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%) unless otherwise defined.

      SC, standard colonoscopy; ENAD, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device; BBPS, Boston bowel preparation scale.

      Total withdrawal time minus total polypectomy time.

      Table 3. Comparison of polyp detection rates (per-patient analysis)

      Values are presented as number (%) unless otherwise defined.

      SC, standard colonoscopy; ENAD, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device; RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval; SSL, sessile serrated lesion.

      Table 4. Comparison of adenomas per colonoscopy (per-polyp analysis)

      Values are described as mean±standard deviation unless otherwise defined.

      APC, adenomas per colonoscopy; SC, standard colonoscopy; ENAD, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device; IRR, incidence risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.

      a)Cecum, ascending, and transverse colon. b)Descending, sigmoid colon, and rectum.


      Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy Twitter Facebook
      Close layer
      TOP