Smit S Deliwala1, Kewan Hamid2, Mahmoud Barbarawi3, Harini Lakshman3, Yazan Zayed3, Pujan Kandel3, Srikanth Malladi2, Adiraj Singh2, Ghassan Bachuwa3, Grigoriy E Gurvits4, Saurabh Chawla5. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Michigan State University at Hurley Medical Center, Two Hurley Plaza, Ste 212, Flint, MI, 48503, USA. deliwal1@msu.edu. 2. Department of Internal Medicine/Pediatrics, Michigan State University at Hurley Medical Center, Flint, MI, USA. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Michigan State University at Hurley Medical Center, Two Hurley Plaza, Ste 212, Flint, MI, 48503, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine - Division of Gastroenterology, New York University/Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Internal Medicine - Division of Gastroenterology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
GOALS AND BACKGROUND: Studies analyzing artificial intelligence (AI) in colonoscopies have reported improvements in detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) lesions, however its utility in the realworld remains limited. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluate the efficacy of AI-assisted colonoscopies against routine colonoscopy (RC). STUDY: We performed an extensive search of major databases (through January 2021) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting adenoma and polyp detection rates. Odds ratio (OR) and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. Additionally, trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to guard against errors. RESULTS: Six RCTs were included (4996 participants). The mean age (SD) was 51.99 (4.43) years, and 49% were females. Detection rates favored AI over RC for adenomas (OR 1.77; 95% CI: 1.570-2.08) and polyps (OR 1.91; 95% CI: 1.68-2.16). Secondary outcomes including mean number of adenomas (SMD 0.23; 95% CI: 0.18-0.29) and polyps (SMD 0.23; 95% CI: 0.17-0.29) detected per procedure favored AI. However, RC outperformed AI in detecting pedunculated polyps. Withdrawal times (WTs) favored AI when biopsies were included, while WTs without biopsies, cecal intubation times, and bowel preparation adequacy were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopies equipped with AI detection algorithms could significantly detect previously missed adenomas and polyps while retaining the ability to self-assess and improve periodically. More effective clearance of diminutive adenomas may allow lengthening in surveillance intervals, reducing the burden of surveillance colonoscopies, and increasing its accessibility to those at higher risk. TSA ruled out the risk for false-positive results and confirmed a sufficient sample size to detect the observed effect. Currently, these findings suggest that AI-assisted colonoscopy can serve as a useful proxy to address critical gaps in CRC identification.
GOALS AND BACKGROUND: Studies analyzing artificial intelligence (AI) in colonoscopies have reported improvements in detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) lesions, however its utility in the realworld remains limited. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluate the efficacy of AI-assisted colonoscopies against routine colonoscopy (RC). STUDY: We performed an extensive search of major databases (through January 2021) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting adenoma and polyp detection rates. Odds ratio (OR) and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. Additionally, trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to guard against errors. RESULTS: Six RCTs were included (4996 participants). The mean age (SD) was 51.99 (4.43) years, and 49% were females. Detection rates favored AI over RC for adenomas (OR 1.77; 95% CI: 1.570-2.08) and polyps (OR 1.91; 95% CI: 1.68-2.16). Secondary outcomes including mean number of adenomas (SMD 0.23; 95% CI: 0.18-0.29) and polyps (SMD 0.23; 95% CI: 0.17-0.29) detected per procedure favored AI. However, RC outperformed AI in detecting pedunculated polyps. Withdrawal times (WTs) favored AI when biopsies were included, while WTs without biopsies, cecal intubation times, and bowel preparation adequacy were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopies equipped with AI detection algorithms could significantly detect previously missed adenomas and polyps while retaining the ability to self-assess and improve periodically. More effective clearance of diminutive adenomas may allow lengthening in surveillance intervals, reducing the burden of surveillance colonoscopies, and increasing its accessibility to those at higher risk. TSA ruled out the risk for false-positive results and confirmed a sufficient sample size to detect the observed effect. Currently, these findings suggest that AI-assisted colonoscopy can serve as a useful proxy to address critical gaps in CRC identification.
Entities:
Keywords:
Automatic detection; CADe; CADx; Computer-aided detection; Deep learning