Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia During Colonoscopy : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.


Journal

Annals of internal medicine
ISSN: 1539-3704
Titre abrégé: Ann Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372351

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 2023
Historique:
medline: 20 9 2023
pubmed: 28 8 2023
entrez: 28 8 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopy may increase adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and reduce adenoma miss rates, but it may increase overdiagnosis and overtreatment of nonneoplastic polyps. To quantify the benefits and harms of CADe in randomized trials. Systematic review and meta-analysis. (PROSPERO: CRD42022293181). Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases through February 2023. Randomized trials comparing CADe-assisted with standard colonoscopy for polyp and cancer detection. Adenoma detection rate (proportion of patients with ≥1 adenoma), number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenoma (≥10 mm with high-grade dysplasia and villous histology), number of serrated lesions per colonoscopy, and adenoma miss rate were extracted as benefit outcomes. Number of polypectomies for nonneoplastic lesions and withdrawal time were extracted as harm outcomes. For each outcome, studies were pooled using a random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. Twenty-one randomized trials on 18 232 patients were included. The ADR was higher in the CADe group than in the standard colonoscopy group (44.0% vs. 35.9%; relative risk, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.33]; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to a 55% (risk ratio, 0.45 [CI, 0.35 to 0.58]) relative reduction in miss rate (moderate-certainty evidence). More nonneoplastic polyps were removed in the CADe than the standard group (0.52 vs. 0.34 per colonoscopy; mean difference [MD], 0.18 polypectomy [CI, 0.11 to 0.26 polypectomy]; low-certainty evidence). Mean inspection time increased only marginally with CADe (MD, 0.47 minute [CI, 0.23 to 0.72 minute]; moderate-certainty evidence). This review focused on surrogates of patient-important outcomes. Most patients, however, may consider cancer incidence and cancer-related mortality important outcomes. The effect of CADe on such patient-important outcomes remains unclear. The use of CADe for polyp detection during colonoscopy results in increased detection of adenomas but not advanced adenomas and in higher rates of unnecessary removal of nonneoplastic polyps. European Commission Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopy may increase adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and reduce adenoma miss rates, but it may increase overdiagnosis and overtreatment of nonneoplastic polyps.
PURPOSE
To quantify the benefits and harms of CADe in randomized trials.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis. (PROSPERO: CRD42022293181).
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases through February 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized trials comparing CADe-assisted with standard colonoscopy for polyp and cancer detection.
DATA EXTRACTION
Adenoma detection rate (proportion of patients with ≥1 adenoma), number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenoma (≥10 mm with high-grade dysplasia and villous histology), number of serrated lesions per colonoscopy, and adenoma miss rate were extracted as benefit outcomes. Number of polypectomies for nonneoplastic lesions and withdrawal time were extracted as harm outcomes. For each outcome, studies were pooled using a random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Twenty-one randomized trials on 18 232 patients were included. The ADR was higher in the CADe group than in the standard colonoscopy group (44.0% vs. 35.9%; relative risk, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.33]; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to a 55% (risk ratio, 0.45 [CI, 0.35 to 0.58]) relative reduction in miss rate (moderate-certainty evidence). More nonneoplastic polyps were removed in the CADe than the standard group (0.52 vs. 0.34 per colonoscopy; mean difference [MD], 0.18 polypectomy [CI, 0.11 to 0.26 polypectomy]; low-certainty evidence). Mean inspection time increased only marginally with CADe (MD, 0.47 minute [CI, 0.23 to 0.72 minute]; moderate-certainty evidence).
LIMITATIONS
This review focused on surrogates of patient-important outcomes. Most patients, however, may consider cancer incidence and cancer-related mortality important outcomes. The effect of CADe on such patient-important outcomes remains unclear.
CONCLUSION
The use of CADe for polyp detection during colonoscopy results in increased detection of adenomas but not advanced adenomas and in higher rates of unnecessary removal of nonneoplastic polyps.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
European Commission Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37639719
doi: 10.7326/M22-3678
doi:

Types de publication

Meta-Analysis Systematic Review Journal Article Review Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1209-1220

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Auteurs

Cesare Hassan (C)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, and Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Rozzano, Italy (C.H., M.S., A.R.).

Marco Spadaccini (M)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, and Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Rozzano, Italy (C.H., M.S., A.R.).

Yuichi Mori (Y)

Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, and Digestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Japan (Y.M.).

Farid Foroutan (F)

Ted Rogers Centre for Heart Research, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (F.F.).

Antonio Facciorusso (A)

Department of Medical Sciences, Section of Gastroenterology, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy (A.Facciorusso).

Paraskevas Gkolfakis (P)

Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology, and Digestive Oncology, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium (P.G.).

Georgios Tziatzios (G)

Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine-Propaedeutic, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon University General Hospital, Athens, Greece (G.T., K.T.).

Konstantinos Triantafyllou (K)

Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine-Propaedeutic, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon University General Hospital, Athens, Greece (G.T., K.T.).

Giulio Antonelli (G)

Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Ospedale dei Castelli, Ariccia, and Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic Medicine and Orthopedics Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy (G.A.).

Kareem Khalaf (K)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy (K.K., T.R.).

Tommy Rizkala (T)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy (K.K., T.R.).

Per Olav Vandvik (PO)

Department of Medicine, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway (P.O.V.).

Alessandro Fugazza (A)

Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Rozzano, Italy (A.Fugazza, L.C.).

Emanuele Rondonotti (E)

Gastroenterology Unit, Valduce Hospital, Como, Italy (E.R.).

Jeremy R Glissen-Brown (JR)

Center for Advanced Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (J.R.G.).

Shunsuke Kamba (S)

Department of Endoscopy, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan (S.K.).

Marcello Maida (M)

Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, S. Elia-Raimondi Hospital, Caltanissetta, Italy (M.M.).

Loredana Correale (L)

Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Rozzano, Italy (A.Fugazza, L.C.).

Pradeep Bhandari (P)

Department of Gastroenterology, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, United Kingdom (P.B.).

Rodrigo Jover (R)

Departamento de Medicina Clínica, Servicio de Gastroenterología, Hospital General Universitario Dr. Balmis, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Alicante ISABIAL, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain (R.J.).

Prateek Sharma (P)

Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri (P.S.).

Douglas K Rex (DK)

Division of Gastroenterology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana (D.K.R.).

Alessandro Repici (A)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, and Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Rozzano, Italy (C.H., M.S., A.R.).

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH