Clin Endosc.  2025 Jan;58(1):112-120. 10.5946/ce.2024.168.

Effectiveness of a novel artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy system for adenoma detection: a prospective, propensity score-matched, non-randomized controlled study in Korea

• Park JB
• Bae JH

• KMID: 2564025
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.168

Abstract

Background/Aims
The real-world effectiveness of computer-aided detection (CADe) systems during colonoscopies remains uncertain. We assessed the effectiveness of the novel CADe system, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device (ENAD), in enhancing the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and other quality indicators in real-world clinical practice.
Methods
We enrolled patients who underwent elective colonoscopies between May 2022 and October 2022 at a tertiary healthcare center. Standard colonoscopy (SC) was compared to ENAD-assisted colonoscopy. Eight experienced endoscopists performed the procedures in randomly assigned CADe- and non-CADe-assisted rooms. The primary outcome was a comparison of ADR between the ENAD and SC groups.
Results
A total of 1,758 sex- and age-matched patients were included and evenly distributed into two groups. The ENAD group had a significantly higher ADR (45.1% vs. 38.8%, p=0.010), higher sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR) (5.7% vs. 2.5%, p=0.001), higher mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) (0.78±1.17 vs. 0.61±0.99; incidence risk ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.13–1.42), and longer withdrawal time (9.0±3.4 vs. 8.3±3.1, p<0.001) than the SC group. However, the mean withdrawal times were not significantly different between the two groups in cases where no polyps were detected (6.9±1.7 vs. 6.7±1.7, p=0.058).
Conclusions
ENAD-assisted colonoscopy significantly improved the ADR, APC, and SSLDR in real-world clinical practice, particularly for smaller and nonpolypoid adenomas.

Keyword

Adenoma; Artificial intelligence; Colonoscopy; Polyps

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Flowchart showing participant selection. SC, standard colonoscopy; ENAD, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device.

• 

  Fig. 2. Comparison of polyp detection rates (per-patient analysis) between the SC and ENAD groups. SC, standard colonoscopy; ENAD, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device; SSL, sessile serrated lesion.

• 

Reference

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021; 71:209–249.

2. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366:687–696.

3. Schreuders EH, Ruco A, Rabeneck L, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes. Gut. 2015; 64:1637–1649.

4. Bevan R, Rutter MD. Colorectal cancer screening: who, how, and when? Clin Endosc. 2018; 51:37–49.

5. Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology. 1997; 112:24–28.

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.

7. Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017; 112:1016–1030.

8. Park SB, Cha JM. Quality indicators in colonoscopy: the chasm between ideal and reality. Clin Endosc. 2022; 55:332–338.

9. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370:1298–1306.

10. Sanduleanu S, le Clercq CM, Dekker E, et al. Definition and taxonomy of interval colorectal cancers: a proposal for standardising nomenclature. Gut. 2015; 64:1257–1267.

11. Gurudu SR, Ramirez FC, Harrison ME, et al. Increased adenoma detection rate with system-wide implementation of a split-dose preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 76:603–608.

12. Matsuda T, Ono A, Sekiguchi M, et al. Advances in image enhancement in colonoscopy for detection of adenomas. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; 14:305–314.

13. Facciorusso A, Del Prete V, Buccino RV, et al. Comparative efficacy of colonoscope distal attachment devices in increasing rates of adenoma detection: a network meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018; 16:1209–1219.

14. Patil R, Ona MA, Ofori E, et al. Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy-a novel accessory in improving adenoma detection rate: a review of the literature. Clin Endosc. 2016; 49:533–538.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. Hassan C, Spadaccini M, Mori Y, et al. Real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2023; 176:1209–1220.

19. Sivananthan A, Nazarian S, Ayaru L, et al. Does computer-aided diagnostic endoscopy improve the detection of commonly missed polyps? A meta-analysis. Clin Endosc. 2022; 55:355–364.

20. Spadaccini M, Iannone A, Maselli R, et al. Computer-aided detection versus advanced imaging for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021; 6:793–802.

21. Levy I, Bruckmayer L, Klang E, et al. Artificial intelligence-aided colonoscopy does not increase adenoma detection rate in routine clinical practice. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022; 117:1871–1873.

22. Ladabaum U, Shepard J, Weng Y, et al. Computer-aided detection of polyps does not improve colonoscopist performance in a pragmatic implementation trial. Gastroenterology. 2023; 164:481–483.

23. Nehme F, Coronel E, Barringer DA, et al. Performance and attitudes toward real-time computer-aided polyp detection during colonoscopy in a large tertiary referral center in the United States. Gastrointest Endosc. 2023; 98:100–109.

24. Patel HK, Mori Y, Hassan C, et al. Lack of effectiveness of computer aided detection for colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024; 22:971–980.

25. Ahmad OF, Mori Y, Misawa M, et al. Establishing key research questions for the implementation of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: a modified Delphi method. Endoscopy. 2021; 53:893–901.

26. Hassan C, Badalamenti M, Maselli R, et al. Computer-aided detection-assisted colonoscopy: classification and relevance of false positives. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020; 92:900–904.

27. Tiankanon K, Karuehardsuwan J, Aniwan S, et al. Performance comparison between two computer-aided detection colonoscopy models by trainees using different false positive thresholds: a cross-sectional study in Thailand. Clin Endosc. 2024; 57:217–225.

28. Yoon D, Kong HJ, Kim BS, et al. Colonoscopic image synthesis with generative adversarial network for enhanced detection of sessile serrated lesions using convolutional neural network. Sci Rep. 2022; 12:261.

29. Lee J, Cho WS, Kim BS, et al. Impact of user's background knowledge and polyp characteristics in colonoscopy with computer-aided detection. Gut Liver 2024 Jul 26 [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl240068.

30. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon. November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 58(6 Suppl):S3–S43.

31. Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G, et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009; 69:620–625.

32. 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.

33. Shaukat A, Colucci D, Erisson L, et al. Improvement in adenoma detection using a novel artificial intelligence-aided polyp detection device. Endosc Int Open. 2021; 9:E263–E270.

34. Ishiyama M, Kudo SE, Misawa M, et al. Impact of the clinical use of artificial intelligence-assisted neoplasia detection for colonoscopy: a large-scale prospective, propensity score-matched study (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2022; 95:155–163.

35. Shah S, Park N, Chehade NE, et al. Effect of computer-aided colonoscopy on adenoma miss rates and polyp detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023; 38:162–176.

36. IJspeert JE, Vermeulen L, Meijer GA, et al. Serrated neoplasia-role in colorectal carcinogenesis and clinical implications. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015; 12:401–409.

37. Wang P, Xiao X, Glissen Brown JR, et al. Development and validation of a deep-learning algorithm for the detection of polyps during colonoscopy. Nat Biomed Eng. 2018; 2:741–748.

38. McGill SK, Rosenman J, Wang R, et al. Artificial intelligence identifies and quantifies colonoscopy blind spots. Endoscopy. 2021; 53:1284–1286.

39. Freedman D, Blau Y, Katzir L, et al. Detecting deficient coverage in colonoscopies. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2020; 39:3451–3462.

40. Lee JY, Park J, Lee HJ, et al. Automatic assessment of bowel preparation by an artificial intelligence model and its clinical applicability. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024 May 20 [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.16618.

41. Rey JF. As how artificial intelligence is revolutionizing endoscopy. Clin Endosc. 2024; 57:302–308.

42. Imperiale TF, Abhyankar PR, Stump TE, et al. Prevalence of advanced, precancerous colorectal neoplasms in black and white populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2018; 155:1776–1786.

43. Wang P, Liu P, Glissen Brown JR, et al. Lower adenoma miss rate of computer-aided detection-assisted colonoscopy vs routine white-light colonoscopy in a prospective tandem study. Gastroenterology. 2020; 159:1252–1261.