Supply and quality of colonoscopy according to the characteristics of gastroenterologists in the French population-based colorectalcancer screening program

BACKGROUND Since its complete roll-out in 2009,the French colorectal cancer screening program(CRCSP)experienced 3 major constraints[use of a less efficient Guaiac-test(gFOBT),stopping the supply of Fecal-Immunochemical-Test kits(FIT),and suspension of the program due to the coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19)]affecting its effectiveness.AIM To describe the impact of the constraints in terms of changes in the quality of screeningcolonoscopy(Quali-Colo).METHODS This retrospective cohort study included screening-colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists between Jan-2010 and Dec-2020 in people aged 50-74 living in Ile-de-France(France).The changes in Quali-colo(Proportion of colonoscopies performed beyond 7 mo(Colo_7 mo),Frequency of serious adverse events(SAE)and Colonoscopy detection rate)were described in a cohort of Gastroenterologists who performed at least one colonoscopy over each of the four periods defined according to the chronology of the constraints[gFOBT:Normal progress of the CRCSP using gFOBT(2010-2014);FIT:Normal progress of the CRCSP using FIT(2015-2018);STOP-FIT:Year(2019)during which the CRCSP experienced the cessation of the supply of test kits;COVID:Program suspension due to the COVID-19 health crisis(2020)].The link between each dependent variable(Colo_7 mo;SAE occurrence,neoplasm detection rate)and the predictive factors was analyzed in a two-level multivariate hierarchical model.RESULTS The 533 gastroenterologists(cohort)achieved 21509 screening colonoscopies over gFOBT period,38352 over FIT,7342 over STOP-FIT and 7995 over COVID period.The frequency of SAE did not change between periods(gFOBT:0.3%;FIT:0.3%;STOP-FIT:0.3%;and COVID:0.2%;P=0.10).The risk of Colo_7 mo doubled between FIT[adjusted odds ratio(aOR):1.2(1.1;1.2)]and STOPFIT[aOR:2.4(2.1;2.6)];then,decreased by 40%between STOP-FIT and COVID[aOR:2.0(1.8;2.2)].Regardless of the period,this Colo_7 mo’s risk was twice as high for screening colonoscopy performed in a public hospital[aOR:2.1(1.3;3.6)]compared to screening-colonoscopy performed in a private clinic.The neoplasm detection,which increased by 60%between gFOBT and FIT[aOR:1.6(1.5;1.7)],decreased by 40%between FIT and COVID[aOR:1.1(1.0;1.3)].CONCLUSION The constraints likely affected the time-to-colonoscopy as well as the colonoscopy detection rate without impacting the SAE’s occurrence,highlighting the need for a respectable reference time-tocolonoscopy in CRCSP.

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.