Clinical Endoscopy

The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (대한소화기내시경학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Does computer-aided diagnostic endoscopy improve the detection of commonly missed polyps? A meta-analysis

  • Arun Sivananthan (Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College) ;
  • Scarlet Nazarian (Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College) ;
  • Lakshmana Ayaru (Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College NHS Healthcare Trust) ;
  • Kinesh Patel (Department of Gastroenterology, Chelsea and Westminster NHS Healthcare Trust) ;
  • Hutan Ashrafian (Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College) ;
  • Ara Darzi (Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College) ;
  • Nisha Patel (Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College)
  • Received : 2021.09.09
  • Accepted : 2021.12.14
  • Published : 2022.05.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background/Aims: Colonoscopy is the gold standard diagnostic method for colorectal neoplasia, allowing detection and resection of adenomatous polyps; however, significant proportions of adenomas are missed. Computer-aided detection (CADe) systems in endoscopy are currently available to help identify lesions. Diminutive (≤5 mm) and nonpedunculated polyps are most commonly missed. This meta-analysis aimed to assess whether CADe systems can improve the real-time detection of these commonly missed lesions. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed. Randomized controlled trials evaluating CADe systems categorized by morphology and lesion size were included. The mean number of polyps and adenomas per patient was derived. Independent proportions and their differences were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects modeling. Results: Seven studies, including 2,595 CADe-assisted colonoscopies and 2,622 conventional colonoscopies, were analyzed. CADe-assisted colonoscopy demonstrated an 80% increase in the mean number of diminutive adenomas detected per patient compared with conventional colonoscopy (0.31 vs. 0.17; effect size, 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-0.18); it also demonstrated a 91.7% increase in the mean number of nonpedunculated adenomas detected per patient (0.32 vs. 0.19; effect size, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.07). Conclusions: CADe-assisted endoscopy significantly improved the detection of most commonly missed adenomas. Although this method is a potentially exciting technology, limitations still apply to current data, prompting the need for further real-time studies.

Keywords

References

  1. Arnold M, Sierra MS, Laversanne M, et al. Global patterns and trends in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Gut 2017;66:683-691. 
  2. Centelles JJ. General aspects of colorectal cancer. ISRN Oncol 2012;2012:1-19. 
  3. Leslie A, Carey FA, Pratt NR, et al. The colorectal adenoma-carcinoma sequence. Br J Surg 2002;89:845-860. 
  4. Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Jansen L, et al. Reduced risk of colorectal cancer up to 10 years after screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2014;146:709-717. 
  5. Kahi CJ, Myers LJ, Slaven JE, et al. Lower endoscopy reduces colorectal cancer incidence in older individuals. Gastroenterology 2014;146:718-725.e3. 
  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.e11. 
  7. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1298-1306. 
  8. Rutter MD, Beintaris I, Valori R, et al. World Endoscopy Organization consensus statements on post-colonoscopy and post-imaging colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2018;155:909-925.e3. 
  9. Anderson R, Burr NE, Valori R. Causes of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers based on World Endoscopy Organization system of analysis. Gastroenterology 2020;158:1287-1299.e2. 
  10. Sivananthan A, Glover B, Patel K, et al. The evolution of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy; where are we now. Ther Adv Gastrointest Endosc 2020;13:2631774520979591. 
  11. Harlow C, Sivananthan A, Ayaru L, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection: an update on tools and accessories. Ther Adv Gastrointest Endosc 2020;13:2631774520957220. 
  12. 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. 
  13. 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. 
  14. Nazarian S, Glover B, Ashrafian H, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence and computer-aided diagnosis for the detection and characterization of colorectal polyps: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res 2021;23:e27370. 
  15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097. 
  16. Ng S, Sreenivasan AK, Pecoriello J, et al. Polyp detection rate correlates strongly with adenoma detection rate in trainee endoscopists. Dig Dis Sci 2020;65:2229-2233. 
  17. Delavari A, Salimzadeh H, Bishehsari F, et al. Mean polyp per patient is an accurate and readily obtainable surrogate for adenoma detection rate: results from an opportunistic screening colonoscopy program. Middle East J Dig Dis 2015;7:214-219. 
  18. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1-12. 
  19. 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. 
  20. Luo Y, Zhang Y, Liu M, et al. Artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy for detection of colon polyps: a prospective, randomized cohort study. J Gastrointest Surg 2021;25:2011-2018. 
  21. Su JR, Li Z, Shao XJ, et al. Impact of a real-time automatic quality control system on colorectal polyp and adenoma detection: a prospective randomized controlled study (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:415-424.e4. 
  22. 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. 
  23. Liu WN, Zhang YY, Bian XQ, et al. Study on detection rate of polyps and adenomas in artificial-intelligence-aided colonoscopy. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2020;26:13-19. 
  24. 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. 
  25. 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. 
  26. Zachariah R, Samarasena J, Luba D, et al. Prediction of polyp pathology using convolutional neural networks achieves "resect and discard" thresholds. Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115:138-144. 
  27. Rodriguez-Diaz E, Baffy G, Singh SK. Development of computer-assisted real time histology of colorectal polyps based on the nice criteria using nearfocus narrow-band imaging. Gastroenterology 2017;152(5 Suppl 1):S81. 
  28. James P, Hegagi M, Hegagi M, et al. Variable endoscopist performance in proximal and distal adenoma detection during colonoscopy: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Gastroenterol 2018;18:73. 
  29. Vleugels JL, Hassan C, Senore C, et al. Diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features do not increase risk for metachronous advanced colon neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2019;156:623-634.e3. 
  30. Kim JY, Kim TJ, Baek SY, et al. Risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia in patients with multiple diminutive adenomas. Am J Gastroenterol 2018;113:1855-1861.