Use of artificial intelligence in improving adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy:Might both endoscopists and pathologists be further helped

Colonoscopy remains the standard strategy for screening for colorectal cancer around the world due to its efficacy in both detecting adenomatous or precancerous lesions and the capacity to remove them intra-procedurally.Computeraided detection and diagnosis(CAD),thanks to the brand new developed innovations of artificial intelligence,and especially deep-learning techniques,leads to a promising solution to human biases in performance by guarantying decision support during colonoscopy.The application of CAD on real-time colonoscopy helps increasing the adenoma detection rate,and therefore contributes to reduce the incidence of interval cancers improving the effectiveness of colonoscopy screening on critical outcome such as colorectal cancer related mortality.Furthermore,a significant reduction in costs is also expected.In addition,the assistance of the machine will lead to a reduction of the examination time and therefore an optimization of the endoscopic schedule.The aim of this opinion review is to analyze the clinical applications of CAD and artificial intelligence in colonoscopy,as it is reported in literature,addressing evidence,limitations,and future prospects.

Does deep sedation with propofol affect adenoma detection rates in average risk screening colonoscopy exams?

To determine the effect of sedation with propofol on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal intubation rates (CIR) in average risk screening colonoscopies compared to moderate sedation. METHODSWe conducted a retrospective chart review of 2604 first-time average risk screening colonoscopies performed at MD Anderson Cancer Center from 2010-2013. ADR and CIR were calculated in each sedation group. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders of age and body mass index (BMI). RESULTSOne-third of the exams were done with propofol (n = 874). Overall ADR in the propofol group was significantly higher than moderate sedation (46.3% vs 41.2%, P = 0.01). After adjustment for age and BMI differences, ADR was similar between the groups. CIR was 99% for all exams. The mean cecal insertion time was shorter among propofol patients (6.9 min vs 8.2 min; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONDeep sedation with propofol for screening colonoscopy did not significantly improve ADR or CIR in our population of average risk patients. While propofol may allow for safer sedation in certain patients (e.g., with sleep apnea), the overall effect on colonoscopy quality metrics is not significant. Given its increased cost, propofol should be used judiciously and without the implicit expectation of a higher quality screening exam.

New endoscopy advances to refine adenoma detection rate for colorectal cancer screening:None is the winner

Colorectal cancer(CRC) is the third most common cancer in males and second in females, and globally the fourth cause for cancer death worldwide. Oncological screening of CRC has a major role in the management of the disease and it is mostly performed by colonoscopy. Anyway, effectiveness of endoscopic screening for CRC strictly depends on adequate detection and removal of potentially precancerous lesions, and accuracy of colonoscopy in detection of adenomas is still suboptimal. For this reason, several technological advances have been implemented in order to improve the diagnostic sensitivity of colonoscopy in adenoma detection. Among these:(1) Visual technologies such as chromoendoscopy and narrow band imaging;(2) optical innovation as high definition endoscopy, full-spectrum endoscopy or Third Eye Retroscope; and(3) mechanical advances as Cap assisted colonoscopy, Endocuff, Endoring and G-Eye endoscope. All these technologies advances have been tested over time by clinical studies with mixed results. Which of them is more likely to be successful in the next future?

When should we perform colonoscopy to increase the adenoma detection rate?

The rate of adenoma detection is the most reliable quality indicator of colonoscopy.Studies have reported that colonoscopy performed in morning has a higher adenoma detection rate(ADR)than that performed in the afternoon.These studies have explained that several physician-related factors such as undergoing an emergency procedure the night before colonoscopy,accumulated workload,and increased fatigue level in the afternoon might have led to such finding.However,several opposing articles have indicated that the time of day and ADR is not quite related.Complex confounding factors can impact study results.Colonoscopy withdrawal time and bowel preparation quality are key factors.However,queue list numbers,participation of academic fellows,nurses'assistance,and the number of colonoscopies allocated per hour are also notable factors.Recently,an attempt has been made to homogenize the ADR in the morning and afternoon through artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy.This review article introduces the history of this long-debated topic,discusses points to consider in real-world practice,and suggests new ideas for planning future research.By understanding this issue,the rate of adenoma detection during colonoscopy is expected to be improved further.

Long-term impact of artificial intelligence on colorectal adenoma detection in high-risk colonoscopy

BACKGROUND Improved adenoma detection rate(ADR)has been demonstrated with artificial intelligence(AI)-assisted colonoscopy.However,data on the real-world appli-cation of AI and its effect on colorectal cancer(CRC)screening outcomes is limited.AIM To analyze the long-term impact of AI on a diverse at-risk patient population undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy for positive CRC screening tests or sympt-oms.METHODS AI software(GI Genius,Medtronic)was implemented into the standard proced-ure protocol in November 2022.Data was collected on patient demographics,procedure indication,polyp size,location,and pathology.CRC screening outcomes were evaluated before and at different intervals after AI introduction with one year of follow-up.RESULTS We evaluated 1008 colonoscopies(278 pre-AI,255 early post-AI,285 established post-AI,and 190 late post-AI).The ADR was 38.1%pre-AI,42.0%early post-AI(P=0.77),40.0%established post-AI(P=0.44),and 39.5%late post-AI(P=0.77).There were no significant differences in polyp detection rate(PDR,baseline 59.7%),advanced ADR(baseline 16.2%),and non-neoplastic PDR(baseline 30.0%)before and after AI introduction.CONCLUSION In patients with an increased pre-test probability of having an abnormal colonoscopy,the current generation of AI did not yield enhanced CRC screening metrics over high-quality colonoscopy.Although the potential of AI in colonoscopy is undisputed,current AI technology may not universally elevate screening metrics across all situations and patient populations.Future studies that analyze different AI systems across various patient populations are needed to determine the most effective role of AI in optimizing CRC screening in clinical practice.

Efficacy of image-enhanced endoscopy for colorectal adenoma detection:A multicenter,randomized trial

BACKGROUND Improved adenoma detection at colonoscopy has decreased the risk of developing colorectal cancer.However,whether image-enhanced endoscopy(IEE)further improves the adenoma detection rate(ADR)is controversial.AIM To compare IEE with white-light imaging(WLI)endoscopy for the detection and identification of colorectal adenoma.METHODS This was a multicenter,randomized,controlled trial.Participants were enrolled between September 2019 to April 2021 from 4 hospital in China.Patients were randomly assigned to an IEE group with WLI on entry and IEE on withdrawal(n=2113)or a WLI group with WLI on both entry and withdrawal(n=2098).The primary outcome was the ADR.The secondary endpoints were the polyp detection rate(PDR),adenomas per colonoscopy,adenomas per positive colonoscopy,and factors related to adenoma detection.RESULTS A total of 4211 patients(966 adenomas)were included in the analysis(mean age,56.7 years,47.1%male).There were 2113 patients(508 adenomas)in the IEE group and 2098 patients(458 adenomas)in the WLI group.The ADR in two group were not significantly different[24.0%vs 21.8%,1.10,95%confidence interval(CI):0.99-1.23,P=0.09].The PDR was higher with IEE group(41.7%)than with WLI group(36.1%,1.16,95%CI:1.07-1.25,P=0.01).Differences in mean withdrawal time(7.90±3.42 min vs 7.85±3.47 min,P=0.30)and adenomas per colonoscopy(0.33±0.68 vs 0.28±0.62,P=0.06)were not significant.Subgroup analysis found that with narrowband imaging(NBI),between-group differences in the ADR,were not significant(23.7%vs 21.8%,1.09,95%CI:0.97-1.22,P=0.15),but were greater with linked color imaging(30.9%vs 21.8%,1.42,95%CI:1.04-1.93,P=0.04).the second-generation NBI(2G-NBI)had an advantage of ADR than both WLI and the first-generation NBI(27.0%vs 21.8%,P=0.01;27.0%vs 21.2.0%,P=0.01).CONCLUSION This prospective study confirmed that,among Chinese,IEE didn’t increase the ADR compared with WLI,but 2G-NBI increase the ADR.

Effect of quality of bowel preparation on quality indicators of adenoma detection rates and colonoscopy completion rates

Background and aim:Adequate bowel preparation is important for safe and effective colonoscopy.Quality indicators(QI)for colonoscopy include achieving at least 95%completion rate and an adenoma detection rate(ADR)of at least 25%in average-risk men and 15%in average-risk women aged over 50.Our aim was to investigate the impact of bowel preparation on ADR and colonoscopy completion rates.Methods:This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent colonoscopy between January 2008 and December 2009.The main outcome measurements were ADR and colonoscopy completion rates to the cecum.Results:A total of 2519 patients was included;1030(41.0%)had excellent preparation,1145(45.5%)good-,240(9.5%)fair-,and 104(4.1%)poor preparation.Colonoscopy completion rates were significantly lower in patients with poor or fair preparation(72.1%and 75.4%,respectively)than in those with good and excellent preparation(99.7%and 99.9%,respectively;P<0.001),and significantly lower than the QI of 95%(P<0.001).ADR in men and women combined was similar in all four grades of preparation(excellent,good,fair and poor)at 24.2%vs.26.8%vs.32.1%vs.22.1%,respectively;P¼0.06.All the groups had ADR above the QI(25%for men and 15%for women)with evidence of significantly higher ADR in the women with excellent or good preparation and in men with excellent,good or fair preparation.On multivariate analysis,male gender was significantly associated with increased ADR(P<0.001),while the quality of bowel preparation did not influence ADR.Conclusions:Patients with fair and poor standards of preparation have significantly lower colonoscopy completion rates than those with excellent and good preparation.However,there was no difference in ADR between the different grades of preparation.

Colonoscopy procedural volume increases adenoma and polyp detection rates in gastroenterology trainees

AIM To investigate changes in polyp detection throughout fellowship training, and estimate colonoscopy volume required to achieve the adenoma detection rate(ADRs) and polyp detection rate(PDRs) of attending gastroenterologists.METHODS We reviewed colonoscopies from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2014. Fellows' procedural logs were used to retrieve colonoscopy procedural volumes, and these were treated as the time variable. Findings from screening colonoscopies were used to calculate colonoscopy outcomes for each fellow for the prior 50 colonoscopies at each time point. ADR and PDR were plotted against colonoscopy procedural volumes to produce individual longitudinal graphs. Repeated measures linear mixed effects models were used to study the change of ADR and PDR with increasing procedural volume.RESULTS During the study period, 12 fellows completed full three years of training and were included in the analysis. The average ADR and PDR were, respectively, 31.5% and 41.9% for all fellows, and 28.9% and 38.2% for attendings alone. There was a statistically significant increase in ADR with increasing procedural volume(1.8%/100 colonoscopies, P = 0.002). Similarly, PDR increased 2.8%/100 colonoscopies(P = 0.0001), while there was no significant change in advanced ADR(0.04%/100 colonoscopies, P = 0.92). The ADR increase was limited to the right side of the colon, while the PDR increased in both the right and left colon. The adenoma per colon and polyp per colon also increased throughout training. Fellows reached the attendings' ADR and PDR after 265 and 292 colonoscopies, respectively.CONCLUSION We found that the ADR and PDR increase with increasing colonoscopy volume throughout fellowship. Our findings support recent recommendations of ≥ 275 colonoscopies for colonoscopy credentialing.

Standard-definition White-light,High-definition White-light versus Narrow-band Imaging Endoscopy for Detecting Colorectal Adenomas:A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective This study aimed to compare the performance of standard-definition white-light endoscopy(SD-WL),high-definition white-light endoscopy(HD-WL),and high-definition narrow-band imaging(HD-NBI)in detecting colorectal lesions in the Chinese population.Methods This was a multicenter,single-blind,randomized,controlled trial with a non-inferiority design.Patients undergoing endoscopy for physical examination,screening,and surveillance were enrolled from July 2017 to December 2020.The primary outcome measure was the adenoma detection rate(ADR),defined as the proportion of patients with at least one adenoma detected.The associated factors for detecting adenomas were assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression.Results Out of 653 eligible patients enrolled,data from 596 patients were analyzed.The ADRs were 34.5%in the SD-WL group,33.5%in the HD-WL group,and 37.5%in the HD-NBI group(P=0.72).The advanced neoplasm detection rates(ANDRs)in the three arms were 17.1%,15.5%,and 10.4%(P=0.17).No significant differences were found between the SD group and HD group regarding ADR or ANDR(ADR:34.5%vs.35.6%,P=0.79;ANDR:17.1%vs.13.0%,P=0.16,respectively).Similar results were observed between the HD-WL group and HD-NBI group(ADR:33.5%vs.37.7%,P=0.45;ANDR:15.5%vs.10.4%,P=0.18,respectively).In the univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses,neither HD-WL nor HD-NBI led to a significant difference in overall adenoma detection compared to SD-WL(HD-WL:OR 0.91,P=0.69;HD-NBI:OR 1.15,P=0.80).Conclusion HD-NBI and HD-WL are comparable to SD-WL for overall adenoma detection among Chinese outpatients.It can be concluded that HD-NBI or HD-WL is not superior to SD-WL,but more effective instruction may be needed to guide the selection of different endoscopic methods in the future.Our study’s conclusions may aid in the efficient allocation and utilization of limited colonoscopy resources,especially advanced imaging technologies.

Association of trainee participation with adenoma and polyp detection rates

To investigate whether adenoma and polyp detection rates (ADR and PDR, respectively) in screening colonoscopies performed in the presence of fellows differ from those performed by attending physicians alone. METHODSWe performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent a screening colonoscopy at Grady Memorial Hospital between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2015. Patients with a history of colon polyps or cancer and those with poor colon preparation or failed cecal intubation were excluded from the analysis. Associations of fellowship training level with the ADR and PDR relative to attendings alone were assessed using unconditional multivariable logistic regression. Models were adjusted for sex, age, race, and colon preparation quality. RESULTSA total of 7503 colonoscopies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The mean age of the study patients was 58.2 years; 63.1% were women and 88.2% were African American. The ADR was higher in the fellow participation group overall compared to that in the attending group: 34.5% vs 30.7% (P = 0.001), and for third year fellows it was 35.4% vs 30.7% (aOR = 1.23, 95%CI: 1.09-1.39). The higher ADR in the fellow participation group was evident for both the right and left side of the colon. For the PDR the corresponding figures were 44.5% vs 40.1% (P = 0.0003) and 45.7% vs 40.1% (aOR = 1.25, 95%CI: 1.12-1.41). The ADR and PDR increased with increasing fellow training level (P for trend < 0.05). CONCLUSIONThere is a stepwise increase in ADR and PDR across the years of gastroenterology training. Fellow participation is associated with higher adenoma and polyp detection.

Diagnostic yield of third eye retroscope on adenoma detection during colonoscopy:A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM： To determine the diagnostic yield of the “third eye retroscope”, on adenoma detection rate during screening colonoscopy.METHODS： The “third eye retroscope” when used with standard colonoscopy provides an additional retro-grade view to visualize lesions on the proximal aspects of folds and fexures. We searched MEDLINE （PubMed and Ovid）, SCOPUS （including MEDLINE and EMBASE databases）, Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, Google Scholar, and CINAHL Plus databases to identify studies that evaluated diagnostic yield of “third eye retroscope” during screening colonoscopy. DerSimonian Laird random effects model was used to generate the overall effect for each outcome. We evaluated statistical heterogeneity among the studies by using the Cochran Q statistic and quantifed by I2 statistics.RESULTS： Four distinct studies with a total of 920 pa-tients, mean age 59.83 （95%CI： 56.77-62.83） years, were included in the review. The additional adenoma detection rate （AADR） defined as the number of ad-ditional adenomas identified due to “third eye retro-scope” device in comparison to standard colonoscopy alone was 19.9% （95%CI： 7.3-43.9）. AADR for right and left colon were 13.9% （95%CI： 9.4-20） and 10.7 （95%CI： 1.9-42）, respectively. AADR for polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 10 mm were 24.6% （95%CI： 16.6-34.9） and 24.2% （95%CI： 12.9-40.8）, respectively. The ad-ditional polyp detection rate defined as the number of additional polyps identifed due to “third eye retro-scope” device in comparison to standard colonoscopyalone was 19.8% （95%CI： 7.9-41.8）. There were no complications reported with use of “third eye retro-scope” device.CONCLUSION： The “third eye retroscope” device when used with standard colonoscopy is safe and de-tects 19.9% additional adenomas, compared to stan-dard colonoscopy alone.

Evaluation of computer aided detection during colonoscopy among Veterans:Randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND There has been significant interest in use of computer aided detection(CADe)devices in colonoscopy to improve polyp detection and reduce miss rate.AIM To investigate the use of CADe amongst veterans.METHODS Between September 2020 and December 2021,we performed a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of CADe.Patients at Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System presenting for screening or low-risk surveillance were randomized to colonoscopy performed with or without CADe.Primary outcomes of interest included adenoma detection rate(ADR),adenomas per colonoscopy(APC),and adenomas per extraction.In addition,we measured serrated polyps per colonoscopy,non-adenomatous,non-serrated polyps per colonoscopy,serrated polyp detection rate,and procedural time.RESULTS A total of 244 patients were enrolled(124 with CADe),with similar patient characteristics(age,sex,body mass index,indication)between the two groups.Use of CADe was found to have decreased number of adenomas(1.79 vs 2.53,P=0.030)per colonoscopy compared to without CADe.There was no significant difference in number of serrated polyps or non-adenomatous non-serrated polyps per colonoscopy between the two groups.Overall,use of CADe was found to have lower ADR(68.5%vs 80.0%,P=0.041)compared to without use of CADe.Serrated polyp detection rate was lower with CADe(3.2%vs 7.5%)compared to without CADe,but this was not statistically significant(P=0.137).There was no significant difference in withdrawal and procedure times between the two groups or in detection of adenomas per extraction(71.4%vs 73.1%,P=0.613).No adverse events were identified.CONCLUSION While several randomized controlled trials have demonstrated improved ADR and APC with use of CADe,in this RCT performed at a center with high ADR,use of CADe was found to have decreased APC and ADR.Further studies are needed to understand the true impact of CADe on performance quality among endoscopists as well as determine criteria for endoscopists to consider when choosing to adopt CADe in their practices.

Human-artificial intelligence interaction in gastrointestinal endoscopy

The number and variety of applications of artificial intelligence(AI)in gastr-ointestinal(GI)endoscopy is growing rapidly.New technologies based on machine learning(ML)and convolutional neural networks(CNNs)are at various stages of development and deployment to assist patients and endoscopists in preparing for endoscopic procedures,in detection,diagnosis and classification of pathology during endoscopy and in confirmation of key performance indicators.Platforms based on ML and CNNs require regulatory approval as medical devices.Interactions between humans and the technologies we use are complex and are influenced by design,behavioural and psychological elements.Due to the substantial differences between AI and prior technologies,important differences may be expected in how we interact with advice from AI technologies.Human-AI interaction(HAII)may be optimised by developing AI algorithms to minimise false positives and designing platform interfaces to maximise usability.Human factors influencing HAII may include automation bias,alarm fatigue,algorithm aversion,learning effect and deskilling.Each of these areas merits further study in the specific setting of AI applications in GI endoscopy and professional societies should engage to ensure that sufficient emphasis is placed on human-centred design in development of new AI technologies.

High-definition colonoscopy with i-Scan:Better diagnosis for small polyps and flat adenomas

AIM： To investigate if high-definition （HD） colonoscope with i-Scan gave a higher detection rate of mucosal le- sions vs standard white-light instruments. METHODS： Data were collected from the computer- ized database of the endoscopy unit of our tertiary referral center. We retrospectively analyzed 1101 con- secutive colonoscopies that were performed over 1 year with standard white-light （n = 849） or HD＋ with i-Scan （n = 252） instruments by four endoscopists, in an outpatient setting. Colonoscopy records included patients＇ main details and family history for colorectal cancer, indication for colonoscopy （screening, diagnos- tic or surveillance）, type of instrument used （standard white-light or HD＋ plus i-Scan）, name of endoscopist and bowel preparation. Records for each procedure included whether the cecum was reached or not and the reason for failure, complications during or imme- diately after the procedure, and number, size, location and characteristics of the lesions. Polyps or protruding lesions were defined as sessile or pedunculated, and nonprotruding lesions were defined according to Paris classification. For each lesion, histological diagnosis was recorded. RESULTS： Eight hundred and forty-nine colonosco- pies were carried with the standard white-light video colonoscope and 252 with the HD＋ plus i-Scan video colonoscope, The four endoscopists did 264, 300, 276 and 261 procedures, respectively; 21.6%, 24.0%, 21.7% and 24.1% of them with the HD＋ plus i-Scan technique. There were no significant differences be- tween the four endoscopists in either the number of procedures done or the proportions of each imaging technique used. Both techniques detected one or more mucosal lesions in 522/1101 procedures （47.4%）. The overall number of lesions recognized was 1266; 645 in the right colon and 621 in the left. A significantly higher number of colonoscopies recognized lesions in the HD＋ plus i-Scan mode （171/252 = 67.9%） than with the standard white-light technique （408/849 = 48.1%） （P 〈 0.0001）. HD＋ with i-Scan colonoscopies identified more lesions than standard white-light imag- ing （459/252 and 807/849, P 〈 0.0001）, in the right or left colon （mean ：1： SD, 1.62±1.36 vs 1.33±0.73, P 〈 0.003 and 1.55±0.98 vs 1.17±0.93, P = 0.033）, more lesions 〈 10 mm （P 〈 0.0001） or nonprotruding （P 〈 0.022）, and flat polyps （P = 0.04）. The cumulative mean number of lesions per procedure detected by the four endoscopists was significantly higher with HD＋ with i-Scan than with standard white-light imaging （1.82 ± 2.89 vs 0.95± 1.35, P 〈 0.0001）. CONCLUSION： HD imaging with i-Scan during the withdrawal phase of colonoscopy significantly increased the detection of colonic mucosal lesions, particularly small and nonprotruding polyps.

Factors affecting the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in hard-to-prepare patients:Evidence from the literature

Adequate bowel cleansing is critical for a high-quality colonoscopy because it affects diagnostic accuracy and adenoma detection.Nevertheless,almost a quarter of procedures are still carried out with suboptimal preparation,resulting in longer procedure times,higher risk of complications,and higher likelihood of missing lesions.Current guidelines recommend high-volume or low-volume polyethylene glycol(PEG)/non-PEG-based split-dose regimens.In patients who have had insufficient bowel cleansing,the colonoscopy should be repeated the same day or the next day with additional bowel cleansing as a salvage option.A strategy that includes a prolonged low-fiber diet,a split preparation regimen,and a colonoscopy within 5 h of the end of preparation may increase cleansing success rates in the elderly.Furthermore,even though no specific product is specifically recommended in the other cases for difficult-to-prepare patients,clinical evidence suggests that 1-L PEG plus ascorbic acid preparation are associated with higher cleansing success in hospitalized and inflammatory bowel disease patients.Patients with severe renal insufficiency(creatinine clearance<30 mL/min)should be prepared with isotonic high volume PEG solutions.Few data on cirrhotic patients are currently available,and no trials have been conducted in this population.An accurate characterization of procedural and patient variables may lead to a more personalized approach to bowel preparation,especially in patients undergoing resection of left colon lesions,where intestinal preparation has a poor outcome.The purpose of this review was to summarize the evidence on the risk factors influencing the quality of bowel cleansing in difficult-to-prepare patients,as well as strategies to improve colonoscopy preparation in these patients.

Human immunodeficiency virus patients with low CD4 counts are more likely to have precancerous polyps identified during index colonoscopy

BACKGROUND Antiretroviral treatment(ART)has improved the life expectancy of patients living with human immunodeficiency virus(HIV).As these patients age,they are at increased risk for developing non-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome defining malignancies(NADMs)such as colon cancers.AIM To determine which factors are associated with the development of precancerous polyps on screening colonoscopy in patients with HIV and to investigate whether HIV disease status,measured by viral load and CD4 count,might influence precancerous polyp development.METHODS A retrospective review of records at two urban academic medical centers was performed for HIV patients who had a screening colonoscopy between 2005-2015.Patients with a history of colorectal cancer or polyps,poor bowel preparation,or inflammatory bowel disease were excluded.Demographic data such as sex,age,race,and body mass index(BMI)as well as information regarding the HIV disease status such as CD4 count,viral load,and medication regimen were collected.Well-controlled patients were defined as those that had viral load<50 copies,and poorly-controlled patients were those with viral load≥50.Patients were also stratified based on their CD4 count,comparing those with a low CD4 count to those with a high CD4 count.Using colonoscopy reports in the medical record,the size,histology,and number of polyps were recorded for each patient.Precancerous polyps included adenomas and proximal serrated polyps.Data was analyzed using Fisher’s exact tests and logistic regression through SAS 3.8 software.RESULTS Two hundred and seven patients met our inclusion criteria.The mean age was 56.13 years,and 58%were males.There were no significant differences in terms of age,race or ethnicity,insurance,and smoking status between patients with CD4 counts above or below 500.BMI was lower in patients with CD4 count<500 as compared to those with count>500(P=0.0276).In patients with CD4>500,53.85%of patients were female,and 70.87%of patients with CD4<500 were male(P=0.0004).Only 1.92%of patients with CD4≥500 had precancerous polyps vs 10.68%of patients with CD4<500(P=0.0102).When controlled for sex,BMI,and ART use,patients with CD4<500 were 9.01 times more likely to have precancerous polyps[95%confidence interval(CI):1.69-47.97;P=0.0100].Patients taking non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors were also found to be 10.23 times more likely to have precancerous polyps(95%CI:1.08-97.15;P=0.0428).There was not a significant difference noted in precancerous polyps between those that had viral loads greater or less than 50 copies.CONCLUSION Patients with low CD4 counts were more likely to have precancerous polyps on their screening colonoscopy although the etiology for this association is unclear.We also found an increased risk of precancerous polyps in patients taking non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors,which is contradictory to prior literature showing ART has decreased the risk of development of NADMs.However,there have not been studies looking at colorectal cancer and ART by drug class,to our knowledge.Further prospective studies are needed to determine the effect of HIV control and therapies on polyp development.

Artificial intelligence fails to improve colonoscopy quality:A single centre retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND Limited data currently exists on the clinical utility of Artificial Intelligence Assisted Colonoscopy(AIAC)outside of clinical trials.AIM To evaluate the impact of AIAC on key markers of colonoscopy quality compared to conventional colonoscopy(CC).METHODS This single-centre retrospective observational cohort study included all patients undergoing colonoscopy at a secondary centre in Brisbane,Australia.CC outcomes between October 2021 and October 2022 were compared with AIAC outcomes after the introduction of the Olympus Endo-AID module from October 2022 to January 2023.Endoscopists who conducted over 50 procedures before and after AIAC introduction were included.Procedures for surveillance of inflammatory bowel disease were excluded.Patient demographics,proceduralist specialisation,indication for colonoscopy,and colonoscopy quality metrics were collected.Adenoma detection rate(ADR)and sessile serrated lesion detection rate(SSLDR)were calculated for both AIAC and CC.RESULTS The study included 746 AIAC procedures and 2162 CC procedures performed by seven endoscopists.Baseline patient demographics were similar,with median age of 60 years with a slight female predominance(52.1%).Procedure indications,bowel preparation quality,and caecal intubation rates were comparable between groups.AIAC had a slightly longer withdrawal time compared to CC,but the difference was not statistically significant.The introduction of AIAC did not significantly change ADR(52.1%for AIAC vs 52.6%for CC,P=0.91)or SSLDR(17.4%for AIAC vs 18.1%for CC,P=0.44).CONCLUSION The implementation of AIAC failed to improve key markers of colonoscopy quality,including ADR,SSLDR and withdrawal time.Further research is required to assess the utility and cost-efficiency of AIAC for high performing endoscopists.

Screening colonoscopy:The present and the future

In the United States,colorectal cancer(CRC)is the second leading cause of mortality in men and women.We are now seeing an increasing number of patients with advanced-stage diagnosis and mortality from colorectal cancer before 50 years of age,which requires earlier screening.With the increasing need for CRC screening through colonoscopy,and thus endoscopists,easier and simpler techniques are needed to train proficient endoscopists.The most widely used approach by endoscopists is air insufflation colonoscopy,where air distends the colon to allow visualization of the colonic mucosa.This technique is uncomfortable for patients and requires an anesthetist to administer sedation.In addition,patients commonly complain about discomfort post-op as air escapes into the small bowel and cannot be adequately removed.Current research into the use of water insufflation colonoscopies has proved promising in reducing the need for sedation,decreasing discomfort,and increasing the visibility of the colonic mucosa.Future direction into water insufflation colonoscopies which have shown to be simpler and easier to teach may increase the number of proficient endoscopists in training to serve our aging population.

Diagnostic value of novel retroflexion colonoscopy in the right colon: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND Colonoscopy is the accepted gold standard for the detection of colorectal cancer. However, colonoscopy is less effective in preventing colon cancer in the right side compared with the left side.AIM To investigate the feasibility of a novel type of retroflexion colonoscope, EC-3490 Ti colonoscope, for detection of proximal colon lesions.METHODS In this prospective trial, we recruited patients who underwent colonoscopy for screening or surveillance. When the endoscopists could not grasp the whole observation of the right-side colon mucosa in the forward view(FV), insertion and withdrawal were repeatedly performed in the FV group with the EC38-i10 F colonoscope while retroflexion was performed in the retroflexed view(RV) group with the EC-3490 Ti colonoscope. Adenoma detection rate, the total number of adenomas per positive participant, the success rate of retroflexion, and endoscope withdrawal time were recorded and compared.RESULTS The total adenoma detection rate(39.3% vs 37.7%, P = 0.646) did not show any significant difference between the two groups. However, the polyp detection rate(59.6% vs 51.0%, P = 0.002), adenoma detection rate in the right colon(21.6% vs 14.4%, P = 0.012), and the total number of adenomas per positive participant(2.1 vs 1.7, P = 0.011) reached statistical significance. Retroflexion was achieved in 91.7% of our cohort. Compared with the FV group, the withdrawal time was significantly prolonged in the RV group(586.1 ± 124.4 s vs 508.8 ± 129.6 s, P < 0.001). In contrast, the proportion of additional ancillary pressure decreased(27.4% vs 45.7%, P < 0.001), and the visual analog scale pain scores did not increase(2.7 ± 1.4 vs 2.8 ± 1.4, P = 0.377).CONCLUSION Retroflexion in the proximal colon could be performed successfully and safely with the EC-3490 Ti colonoscope. This maneuver could detect more adenomas effectively.

Quality of colonoscopy performed by medical or surgical specialists and trainees in five Australian hospitals

BACKGROUND Ensuring colonoscopy procedure quality is vital to the success of screening and surveillance programmes for bowel cancer in Australia. However, the data on the performance of quality metrics, through adequate adenoma detection, bowel preparation, and procedure completion rates, in the Australian public sector is limited. Understanding these can inform quality improvement to further strengthen our capacity for prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer.AIM To determine the quality of colonoscopy in Australian teaching hospitals and their association with proceduralist specialty, trainee involvement, and location.METHODS We retrospectively evaluated 2443 consecutive colonoscopy procedure reports from 1 January to 1 April, 2018 from five public teaching tertiary hospitals in Australia(median 60 years old, 49% male). Data for bowel preparation quality,procedure completion rates, and detection rates of clinically significant adenomas, conventional adenomas, and serrated lesions was collected and compared to national criteria for quality in colonoscopy. Participating hospital, proceduralist specialty, and trainee involvement indicators were used for stratification. Data was analysed using Chi-squared tests of independence, MannWhitney U, One-way ANOVA, and multivariate binary logistic regression.RESULTS Fifty-two point two percent(n = 1276) and 43.3%(n = 1057) were performed by medical and surgical proceduralists respectively, whilst 29.8%(n = 728) involved a trainee. Inadequate bowel preparation affected 7.3% of all procedures. The procedure completion rate was 95.1%, which increased to 97.5% after adjustment for bowel preparation quality. The pooled cancer, adenoma, and serrated lesion detection rates for all five hospitals were 3.5%, 40%, and 5.9% respectively. Assessed hospitals varied significantly by patient age(P < 0.001), work-force composition(P < 0.001), adequacy of bowel preparation(P < 0.001), and adenoma detection rate(P < 0.001). Two hospitals(40%) did not meet all national criteria for quality, due to a procedure completion rate of 94.5% or serrated lesion detection rate of 2.6%. Although lower than the other hospitals, the difference was not significant. Compared with surgical specialists, procedures performed by medical specialists involved older patients [65 years(inter-quartile range, IQR 58-73) vs 64 years(IQR 56-71);P = 0.04] and were associated with a higher adenoma detection rate [odds ratio(OR) 1.53;confidence interval: 1.21-1.94;P < 0.001]. Procedures involving trainee proceduralists were not associated with differences in the detection of cancer, adenoma, or serrated lesions, compared with specialists, or according to their medical or surgical background. On multivariate analysis, cancer detection was positively associated with patient age(OR 1.04;P < 0.001) and negatively associated with medical compared to surgical proceduralists(OR 0.54;P = 0.04). Conventional adenoma detection rates were independently associated with increasing patient age(OR 1.04;P < 0.001), positively associated with medical compared to surgical proceduralists(OR 1.41;P = 0.002) and negatively associated with male gender(OR 0.53;P < 0.001).CONCLUSION Significant differences in the quality of colonoscopy in Australia exist, even when national benchmarks are achieved. The role of possible contributing factors, like procedural specialty and patient gender need further evaluation.