Louis H. S. Lau, Jacky C. L. Ho, Jimmy C. T. Lai, Agnes H. Y. Ho, Claudia W. K. Wu, Vincent W. H. Lo, Carol M. S. Lai, Markus W. Scheppach, Felix Sia, Kyle H. K. Ho, Xiang Xiao, Terry C. F. Yip, Thomas Y. T. Lam, Hanson Y. H. Kwok, Heyson C. H. Chan, Rashid N. Lui, Ting-Ting Chan, Marc T. L. Wong, Man-Fung Ho, Rachel C. W. Ko, Sok-Fei Hon, Simon Chu, Koari Futaba, Simon S. M. Ng, Hon-Chi Yip, Raymond S. Y. Tang, Vincent W. S. Wong, Francis K. L. Chan, Philip W. Y. Chiu
- Background
The effect of computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) on adenoma detection rate (ADR) among endoscopists-in-training remains unknown.
Methods
We performed a single-blind, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial in Hong Kong between April 2021 and July 2022 (NCT04838951). Eligible subjects undergoing screening/surveillance/diagnostic colonoscopies were randomized 1:1 to receive colonoscopies with CADe (ENDO-AID(OIP-1), Olympus Co., Japan) or not (control) during withdrawal. Procedures were performed by endoscopists-in-training with <500 procedures and <3 years’ experience. Randomization was stratified by patient age, sex, and endoscopist experience (beginner vs intermediate-level, <200 vs 200-500 procedures). Image enhancement and distal attachment devices were disallowed. Subjects with incomplete colonoscopies or inadequate bowel preparation were excluded. Treatment allocation was blinded to outcome assessors. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were ADRBackground
The effect of computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) on adenoma detection rate (ADR) among endoscopists-in-training remains unknown.
Methods
We performed a single-blind, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial in Hong Kong between April 2021 and July 2022 (NCT04838951). Eligible subjects undergoing screening/surveillance/diagnostic colonoscopies were randomized 1:1 to receive colonoscopies with CADe (ENDO-AID(OIP-1), Olympus Co., Japan) or not (control) during withdrawal. Procedures were performed by endoscopists-in-training with <500 procedures and <3 years’ experience. Randomization was stratified by patient age, sex, and endoscopist experience (beginner vs intermediate-level, <200 vs 200-500 procedures). Image enhancement and distal attachment devices were disallowed. Subjects with incomplete colonoscopies or inadequate bowel preparation were excluded. Treatment allocation was blinded to outcome assessors. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were ADR for different adenoma sizes and locations, mean number of adenomas, and non-neoplastic resection rate.
Results
386 and 380 subjects were randomized to CADe and control groups, respectively. The overall ADR was significantly higher in CADe than control group (57.5% vs 44.5%, adjusted relative risk 1.41, 95%CI 1.17-1.72, p<0.001). The ADRs for <5mm (40.4% vs 25.0%) and 5-10mm adenomas (36.8% vs 29.2%) were higher in CADe group. The ADRs were higher in CADe group in both right (42.0% vs 30.8%) and left colon (34.5% vs 27.6%), but there was no significant difference in advanced ADR. The ADRs were higher in CADe group among beginners (60.0% vs 41.9%) and intermediate-level endoscopists (56.5% vs 45.5%). Mean number of adenomas (1.48 vs 0.86) and non-neoplastic resection rate were higher in CADe group (52.1% vs 35.0%).
Conclusions
Among endoscopists-in-training, the use of CADe during colonoscopies was associated with increased overall ADR. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04838951)…
