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.

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).

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.

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.

The diagnostic quality of screening colonoscopies has been found to differ between morning and afternoon. Specifically, the adenoma detection rate (ADR) is higher in the morning. Our aim was to assess if time-of-day dependent differences in colonoscopy quality exist in a Danish screening setting. Following national screening guidelines, an individual will be exempt from screening invitations for 8 years if the colonoscopy is without pathology. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to identify factors systematically affecting the detection of lesions.

This was a single-center study of screening colonoscopies performed between 2014 and 2018. Records were retrieved from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Screening Database and coupled with local data. The ADR and the cecal intubation rate were compared between morning (8-12 a.m.) and afternoon (12-4 p.m.) colonoscopies. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed.

A total of 3659 screening colonoscopies were included. The ADR was 51% in the morning and 58% in the afternoon. Multivariate analysis found this statistically significant, with the "afternoon vs. morning" odds ratio for adenoma detection being 1.4 (95% confidence interval 1.17-1.68; P<0.001). The cecal intubation rate was 95.6% in the morning and 94.7%, a non-significant difference.

The ADR of screening colonoscopies was higher in the afternoon. Our study highlights the need for local/regional evaluation of factors affecting colonoscopy quality to address such issues. A clean colonoscopy exempts the patient from subsequent screening invitations for 8 years. Therefore, any observed systematic differences in quality must be addressed and eliminated.

Variability in colon polyp detection impacts patient outcomes. However, the relative influence of physician, patient, and procedure-specific factors on polyp detection is unclear. Therefore, determining how these factors contribute to adenoma and sessile serrated polyp (SSP) detection is important to contextualize measures of colonoscopy quality such as adenoma detection rate and patient outcomes.

To determine the relative contribution of physician, patient, and procedure-specific factors in total polyp, adenoma, and SSP detection rates.

We performed a retrospective study of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy and used a two-level generalized linear mixed regression model to identify factors associated with polyp detection.

7799 average risk screening colonoscopies were performed between July 2016 and October 2017. The patient factor most strongly associated with increased risk of adenoma and sessile serrated polyp detection was white race (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.05-1.39 and OR 3.17, 95% CI 2.34-4.30, respectively). Adenomatous (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.04-3.57) and sessile serrated polyps (OR 5.56, 95% CI 1.37-20.0) were more likely to be found during procedures performed with anesthesia care as compared to those with moderate sedation. Physician with a luminal gastrointestinal focus had increased odds of adenoma detection (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.02-2.50).

In a multi-level model accounting for clustering effects, we identified patient, provider and procedural factors independently influence adenoma and sessile serrated polyp detection. Our findings suggest that to compare polyp detection rates between endoscopists, even at the same institution, risk adjustment by characteristics of the patient population and practice is necessary.

Computer-aided detection (CADe) of colon polyps has been demonstrated to improve colon polyp and adenoma detection during colonoscopy by indicating the location of a given polyp on a parallel monitor. The aim of this study was to investigate whether embedding the CADe system into the primary colonoscopy monitor may serve to increase polyp and adenoma detection, without increasing physician fatigue level.

Consecutive patients presenting for colonoscopies were prospectively randomized to undergo routine colonoscopy with or without the assistance of a real-time polyp detection CADe system. Fatigue level was evaluated from score 0 to 10 by the performing endoscopists after each colonoscopy procedure. The main outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR).

Out of 790 patients analyzed, 397 were randomized to routine colonoscopy (control group), and 393 to a colonoscopy with computer-aided diagnosis (CADe group). The ADRs were 20.91% and 29.01%, respectively (OR = 1.546, 95% CI 1.116-2.141, p = 0.009). The average number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) was 0.29 and 0.48, respectively (Change Folds = 1.64, 95% CI 1.299-2.063, p < 0.001). The improvement in polyp detection was mainly due to increased detection of non-advanced diminutive adenomas, serrated adenoma and hyperplastic polyps. The fatigue score for each procedure was 3.28 versus 3.40 for routine and CADe group, p = 0.357.

A real-time CADe system employed on the primary endoscopy monitor may lead to improvements in ADR and polyp detection rate without increasing fatigue level during colonoscopy. The integration of a low-latency and high-performance CADe systems may serve as an effective quality assurance tool during colonoscopy. www.chictr.org.cn number, ChiCTR1800018058.

Colonoscopy is effective in the prevention and screening of colorectal cancer. Whether terminal ileal (TI) intubation is required during conventional colonoscopy and whether it offers clinical benefits with respect to polyp detection rate (PDR) remain unclear. This retrospective study included patients who underwent colonoscopy at our hospital between July 1, 2018 and April 20, 2019. The positive findings and time for TI intubation were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with PDR. There were 1675 patients with cecal intubation colonoscopy, including 994 (59 %) with TI intubation and 8 (1 %) with intestinal disease. The mean time for TI intubation was 40 seconds (3-338), and the mean time from cecal intubation to arrival at the deep part of TI mucosa was 24 seconds (2-118). The overall PDR was 27 %. On multivariable analysis, age > 50 years [95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.837-4.590], male sex (95 %CI, 0.406-0.649), presence of symptoms (abdominal symptoms vs. asymptomatic, 95 % CI, 1.146-2.468; stool changes vs. asymptomatic, 95 % CI, 1.070-1.834), and non-TI intubation (95 % CI, 1.040-1.648) were independent predictors of higher PDR. Trend analysis indicated decreasing trend of PDR among non-TI intubation group, 0-5 cm TI intubation group, and > 5 cm TI intubation group (30 % vs. 27 % vs. 24 %, respectively; p < 0.05). TI intubation is necessary to identify small bowel disease among a designated population, but it was not suggested to be routinely performed as part of colonoscopy, owing to limited positive intestinal findings, extra time requirement, and possible PDR worsening.

Up to 30% of adenomas might be missed during screening colonoscopy-these could be polyps that appear on-screen but are not recognized by endoscopists or polyps that are in locations that do not appear on the screen at all. Computer-aided detection (CADe) systems, based on deep learning, might reduce rates of missed adenomas by displaying visual alerts that identify precancerous polyps on the endoscopy monitor in real time. We compared adenoma miss rates of CADe colonoscopy vs routine white-light colonoscopy.

We performed a prospective study of patients, 18-75 years old, referred for diagnostic, screening, or surveillance colonoscopies at a single endoscopy center of Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital from June 3, 2019 through September 24, 2019. Same day, tandem colonoscopies were performed for each participant by the same endoscopist. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that received either CADe colonoscopy (n=184) or routine colonoscopy (n=185) first, followed immediately by the other procedure. Endoscopists were blinded to the group each patient was assigned to until immediately before the start of each colonoscopy. Polyps that were missed by the CADe system but detected by endoscopists were classified as missed polyps. False polyps were those continuously traced by the CADe system but then determined not to be polyps by the endoscopists. The primary endpoint was adenoma miss rate, which was defined as the number of adenomas detected in the second-pass colonoscopy divided by the total number of adenomas detected in both passes.

The adenoma miss rate was significantly lower with CADe colonoscopy (13.89%; 95% CI, 8.24%-19.54%) than with routine colonoscopy (40.00%; 95% CI, 31.23%-48.77%, P<.0001). The polyp miss rate was significantly lower with CADe colonoscopy (12.98%; 95% CI, 9.08%-16.88%) than with routine colonoscopy (45.90%; 95% CI, 39.65%-52.15%) (P<.0001). Adenoma miss rates in ascending, transverse, and descending colon were significantly lower with CADe colonoscopy than with routine colonoscopy (ascending colon 6.67% vs 39.13%; P=.0095; transverse colon 16.33% vs 45.16%; P=.0065; and descending colon 12.50% vs 40.91%, P=.0364).

CADe colonoscopy reduced the overall miss rate of adenomas by endoscopists using white-light endoscopy. Routine use of CADe might reduce the incidence of interval colon cancers. chictr.org.cn study no: ChiCTR1900023086.

Colonoscopy screening for the detection and removal of colonic adenomas is central to efforts to reduce the morbidity and mortality of colorectal cancer. However, up to a third of adenomas may be missed at colonoscopy, and the majority of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers are thought to arise from these. Adenomas have three-dimensional surface topographic features that differentiate them from adjacent normal mucosa. However, these topographic features are not enhanced by white light colonoscopy, and the endoscopist must infer these from two-dimensional cues. This may contribute to the number of missed lesions. A variety of optical imaging technologies have been developed commercially to enhance surface topography. However, existing techniques enhance surface topography indirectly, and in two dimensions, and the evidence does not wholly support their use in routine clinical practice. In this narrative review, co-authored by gastroenterologists and engineers, we summarise the evidence for the impact of established optical imaging technologies on adenoma detection rate, and review the development of photometric stereo (PS) for colonoscopy. PS is a machine vision technique able to capture a dense array of surface normals to render three-dimensional reconstructions of surface topography. This imaging technique has several potential clinical applications in colonoscopy, including adenoma detection, polyp classification, and facilitating polypectomy, an inherently three-dimensional task. However, the development of PS for colonoscopy is at an early stage. We consider the progress that has been made with PS to date and identify the obstacles that need to be overcome prior to clinical application.

The effect of colonoscopy on colorectal cancer mortality is limited by several factors, among them a certain miss rate, leading to limited adenoma detection rates (ADRs). We investigated the effect of an automatic polyp detection system based on deep learning on polyp detection rate and ADR.

In an open, non-blinded trial, consecutive patients were prospectively randomised to undergo diagnostic colonoscopy with or without assistance of a real-time automatic polyp detection system providing a simultaneous visual notice and sound alarm on polyp detection. The primary outcome was ADR.

Of 1058 patients included, 536 were randomised to standard colonoscopy, and 522 were randomised to colonoscopy with computer-aided diagnosis. The artificial intelligence (AI) system significantly increased ADR (29.1%vs20.3%, p<0.001) and the mean number of adenomas per patient (0.53vs0.31, p<0.001). This was due to a higher number of diminutive adenomas found (185vs102; p<0.001), while there was no statistical difference in larger adenomas (77vs58, p=0.075). In addition, the number of hyperplastic polyps was also significantly increased (114vs52, p<0.001).

In a low prevalent ADR population, an automatic polyp detection system during colonoscopy resulted in a significant increase in the number of diminutive adenomas detected, as well as an increase in the rate of hyperplastic polyps. The cost-benefit ratio of such effects has to be determined further.

ChiCTR-DDD-17012221; Results.