...miss rate by a human endoscopist has been strictly associated with one or more of these factors.1 As only one every two lesions was rated as adenomatous by centralised pathology in the original ...study3 (see online supplementary data), AI may result in the useless removal of hyperplastic polyps. ...a leave in situ strategy at least for distal non-adenomatous lesions is critical for AI not to increase false-positive rate at colonoscopy. Despite the general enthusiasm, prospective series are affected by ineludible operator-related bias, as the endoscopist cannot be blinded in most of the cases to the innovative technique. ...retrospective reassessment of whole colonoscopy videos, such as those in our series, owns the unique advantage of eliminating all of these subjective biases, objectively exposing independent videos to the new technologies. ...a possible bias that we could not eliminate is the fact that AI had in each video clip a relatively long interval between a few seconds before polyp appearance and the use of snare or another device. ...we could not exclude in principle that AI was somewhat facilitated by the fact that the polyp is usually put in a better and close position to the endoscope before resection. ...AI cannot compensate for lesions missed for a suboptimal exploration of colorectal mucosa. ...an adequate level of cleansing, a longer than 6 min withdrawal time and a good withdrawal technique remain prerequisites to maximise the performance of AI.6 We limited our study to white-light high definition colonoscopy.
One-fourth of colorectal neoplasia are missed at screening colonoscopy, representing the main cause of interval colorectal cancer. Deep learning systems with real-time computer-aided polyp detection ...(CADe) showed high accuracy in artificial settings, and preliminary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported favorable outcomes in the clinical setting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize available RCTs on the performance of CADe systems in colorectal neoplasia detection.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases until March 2020 for RCTs reporting diagnostic accuracy of CADe systems in the detection of colorectal neoplasia. The primary outcome was pooled adenoma detection rate (ADR), and secondary outcomes were adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) according to size, morphology, and location; advanced APC; polyp detection rate; polyps per colonoscopy; and sessile serrated lesions per colonoscopy. We calculated risk ratios (RRs), performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and assessed heterogeneity and publication bias.
Overall, 5 randomized controlled trials (4354 patients) were included in the final analysis. Pooled ADR was significantly higher in the CADe group than in the control group (791/2163 36.6% vs 558/2191 25.2%; RR, 1.44; 95% confidence interval CI, 1.27-1.62; P < .01; I2 = 42%). APC was also higher in the CADe group compared with control (1249/2163 .58 vs 779/2191 .36; RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.53-1.89; P < .01; I2 = 33%). APC was higher for ≤5-mm (RR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.48-1.84), 6- to 9-mm (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.19-1.75), and ≥10-mm adenomas (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.04-2.06) and for proximal (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.34-1.88), distal (RR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.50-1.88), flat (RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.47-2.15), and polypoid morphology (RR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.40-1.68). Regarding histology, CADe resulted in a higher sessile serrated lesion per colonoscopy (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.14-2.02), whereas a nonsignificant trend for advanced ADR was found (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, .74-2.47; P = .33; I2 = 69%). Level of evidence for RCTs was graded as moderate.
According to available evidence, the incorporation of artificial intelligence as aid for detection of colorectal neoplasia results in a significant increase in the detection of colorectal neoplasia, and such effect is independent from main adenoma characteristics.
Display omitted
One-fourth of colorectal neoplasias are missed during screening colonoscopies; these can develop into colorectal cancer (CRC). Deep learning systems allow for real-time computer-aided detection ...(CADe) of polyps with high accuracy. We performed a multicenter, randomized trial to assess the safety and efficacy of a CADe system in detection of colorectal neoplasias during real-time colonoscopy.
We analyzed data from 685 subjects (61.32 ± 10.2 years old; 337 men) undergoing screening colonoscopies for CRC, post-polypectomy surveillance, or workup due to positive results from a fecal immunochemical test or signs or symptoms of CRC, at 3 centers in Italy from September through November 2019. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups who underwent high-definition colonoscopies with the CADe system or without (controls). The CADe system included an artificial intelligence–based medical device (GI-Genius, Medtronic) trained to process colonoscopy images and superimpose them, in real time, on the endoscopy display a green box over suspected lesions. A minimum withdrawal time of 6 minutes was required. Lesions were collected and histopathology findings were used as the reference standard. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR, the percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy, non-neoplastic resection rate, and withdrawal time.
The ADR was significantly higher in the CADe group (54.8%) than in the control group (40.4%) (relative risk RR, 1.30; 95% confidence interval CI, 1.14–1.45). Adenomas detected per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CADe group (mean, 1.07 ±1.54) than in the control group (mean 0.71 ± 1.20) (incidence rate ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.15–1.86). Adenomas 5 mm or smaller were detected in a significantly higher proportion of subjects in the CADe group (33.7%) than in the control group (26.5%; RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.01–1.52), as were adenomas of 6 to 9 mm (detected in 10.6% of subjects in the CADe group vs 5.8% in the control group; RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.09–2.86), regardless of morphology or location. There was no significant difference between groups in withdrawal time (417 ± 101 seconds for the CADe group vs 435 ± 149 for controls; P = .1) or proportion of subjects with resection of non-neoplastic lesions (26.0% in the CADe group vs 28.7% of controls; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90–1.12).
In a multicenter, randomized trial, we found that including CADe in real-time colonoscopy significantly increases ADR and adenomas detected per colonoscopy without increasing withdrawal time. ClinicalTrials.gov no: 04079478
Display omitted
Artificial intelligence (AI) may detect colorectal polyps that have been missed due to perceptual pitfalls. By reducing such miss rate, AI may increase the detection of colorectal neoplasia leading ...to a higher degree of colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention.
Patients undergoing CRC screening or surveillance were enrolled in 8 centers (Italy, UK, US), and randomized (1:1) to undergo 2 same-day, back-to-back colonoscopies with or without AI (deep learning computer aided diagnosis endoscopy) in 2 different arms, namely AI followed by colonoscopy without AI or vice-versa. Adenoma miss rate (AMR) was calculated as the number of histologically verified lesions detected at second colonoscopy divided by the total number of lesions detected at first and second colonoscopy. Mean number of lesions detected in the second colonoscopy and proportion of false negative subjects (no lesion at first colonoscopy and at least 1 at second) were calculated. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were adjusted by endoscopist, age, sex, and indication for colonoscopy. Adverse events were also measured.
A total of 230 subjects (116 AI first, 114 standard colonoscopy first) were included in the study analysis. AMR was 15.5% (38 of 246) and 32.4% (80 of 247) in the arm with AI and non-AI colonoscopy first, respectively (adjusted OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23–0.62). In detail, AMR was lower for AI first for the ≤5 mm (15.9% vs 35.8%; OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.21–0.55) and nonpolypoid lesions (16.8% vs 45.8%; OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13–0.43), and it was lower both in the proximal (18.3% vs 32.5%; OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26–0.78) and distal colon (10.8% vs 32.1%; OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.11–0.57). Mean number of adenomas at second colonoscopy was lower in the AI-first group as compared with non-AI colonoscopy first (0.33 ± 0.63 vs 0.70 ± 0.97, P < .001). False negative rates were 6.8% (3 of 44 patients) and 29.6% (13 of 44) in the AI and non-AI first arms, respectively (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05–0.67). No difference in the rate of adverse events was found between the 2 groups.
AI resulted in an approximately 2-fold reduction in miss rate of colorectal neoplasia, supporting AI-benefit in reducing perceptual errors for small and subtle lesions at standard colonoscopy. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03954548.
When the endoscopist is assisted by artificial intelligence, the risk of missing colorectal neoplasia decreased substantially, reassuring a better stratification of the neoplastic risk of the individual patient, and a higher degree of colorectal cancer prevention.
In the last few decades, a better knowledge of the inflammatory pathways involved in the pathogenesis of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) has promoted biological therapy as an important tool to treat ...IBD patients. However, in spite of a wider spectrum of biological drugs, a significant proportion of patients is unaffected by or lose their response to these compounds, along with increased risks of infections and malignancies. For these reasons there is an urgent need to look for new pharmacological targets. The novel Phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors have been recently introduced as new modulators of intracellular signals and gene transcription for the treatment of IBD.
To discuss and describe the state of the art of this new class of compounds in the IBD field, with particular attention to apremilast.
Published articles selected from PubMed were comprehensively reviewed, with key words including apremilast, inflammatory disease, IBD, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, pathogenesis, therapies, and treatment.
PDE4 inhibitors generate elevated intracellular levels of cyclic Adenosine Monophosphate (cAMP), that consequently down-regulate the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines in the mucosa of IBD patients. The newly developed apremilast is one of these drugs and has already been approved for the treatment of dermatologic/rheumatologic inflammatory conditions; studies in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis have in fact demonstrated its clinical activity. However, no clinical trials have yet been published on the use of apremilast in IBD.
In light of the similarity of pro-inflammatory signaling pathways across the gut, the skin, and joints, apremilast is likely supposed to show its efficacy also in IBD.
Evidence is limited on the comparative diagnostic performance of tissue sampling techniques for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling of pancreatic masses. We performed a systematic review with ...network meta-analysis to compare these techniques.
Rates of sample adequacy, blood contamination, and tissue integrity using fine-needle biopsy sampling needles were evaluated. Direct and indirect comparisons were performed among the slow-pull, dry-suction, modified wet-suction, or no-suction techniques. Results are expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
Overall, 9 randomized controlled trials (756 patients) were identified. On network meta-analysis, the no-suction technique was significantly inferior to the other techniques (RR, .85 95% CI, .78-.92 vs slow pull; RR, .85 95% CI, .78-.92 vs dry suction; RR, .83 95% CI, .76-.90 vs modified wet suction) in terms of sample adequacy. Consequently, modified wet suction was shown to be the best technique (surface under the cumulative ranking curve score, .90), with the no-suction technique showing poorer performance in terms of sample adequacy (surface under the cumulative ranking curve score, .14). Dry suction was associated with significantly higher rates of blood contamination as compared with the slow-pull technique (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.15-1.80), whereas no suction led to less blood contamination of samples in comparison with other techniques (RR, .71 95% CI, .52-.97 vs slow pull; RR, .49 95% CI, .36-.66 vs dry suction; RR, .57 95% CI, .40-.81 vs modified wet suction). The modified wet-suction technique significantly outperformed dry suction in terms of tissue integrity of the sample (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06-1.75).
Modified wet suction seemed to provide high rates of integrity and adequate samples, albeit with high blood contamination. The no-suction technique performed significantly worse than other sampling strategies.
Hot snare polypectomy and EMR are the standard of care in resecting colorectal polyps ≥10 mm. To avoid the risk of electrocautery-induced damage, there is recent evidence about using cold snare ...polypectomy and cold EMR for such lesions. The aim of this pooled analysis is to report outcomes of cold snare resection for polyps ≥10 mm.
PubMed/Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases were searched up to July 2018 to identify studies that performed cold snare resection for colorectal polyps ≥10 mm. Primary outcomes were adverse events (bleeding, perforation, and postpolypectomy abdominal pain), and secondary outcomes were the rates of complete resection, overall residual polyp rates, and rates for adenomas versus sessile serrated polyps (SSPs). Subgroup analysis was performed focusing on lesion size, location, and resection technique.
Eight studies were included in the final analysis that included 522 colorectal polyps with a mean polyp size of 17.5 mm (range, 10-60). The overall adverse event rate was 1.1% (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.2%-2.0%; I2 = 0%). Intra- and postprocedural bleeding rates were .7% (95% CI, 0%-1.4%) and .5% (95% CI, .1%-1.2%), respectively, with abdominal pain rate being .6% (95% CI, .1%-1.3%). Polyps ≥20 mm had a higher intraprocedural bleeding rate of 1.3% (95% CI, .7%-3.3%) and abdominal pain rate of 1.2% (95% CI, .7%-3.0%) but no delayed bleedings. No perforations were reported. The complete resection rate was 99.3% (95% CI, 98.6%-100%). Overall pooled residual rates of polyps of any histology, adenomas, and SSPs were 4.1% (95% CI, .2%-8.4%), 11.1% (95% CI, 4.1%-18.1%), and 1.0% (95% CI, .4%-2.4%), respectively, during a follow-up period ranging from 154 to 258 days.
The results of this systematic review and pooled analysis were excellent with cold snare resection of colorectal polyps >10 mm in terms of postpolypectomy bleeding, complete resection, and residual polyp rates. Randomized controlled trials comparing cold snare resection with hot snare resections of polyps ≥10 mm are required for further investigation.
Display omitted
Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the second-generation distal attachment cuff device (Endocuff Vision; Olympus America, Center Valley, Pa, USA) have reported conflicting results in ...improving adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared with standard high-definition colonoscopy without the distal attachment. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs to compare outcomes between second-generation cuff colonoscopy (CC) versus colonoscopy without the distal attachment (standard colonoscopy SC).
An electronic literature search was performed using PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane Library through May 2020. The primary outcome was reporting of ADR, and secondary outcomes were polyp detection rate (PDR), mean withdrawal time, mean adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), sessile serrated lesion detection rate, and adverse events. Pooled rates and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals were reported.
Eight RCTs with 5695 patients were included in the final analysis, with 2862 patients (mean age, 62.8 years; 52.9% men) in the CC group and 2833 patients (mean age, 62.6 years; 54.2% men) in the SC group. Compared with SC, use of CC was associated with a significant improvement in ADR (49.8% vs 45.6%, respectively; RR, 1.12; P = .02), PDR (58.1% vs 53%, respectively; RR, 1.12; P = .009), and APC (P < .01). Furthermore, use of CC had a .93-minute lower mean withdrawal time (P < .01) when compared with SC. The difference in ADR was larger in the screening/surveillance population (6.5%, P = .02) and when used by endoscopists with ADRs <30% (9.4%, P = .03).
The results of this meta-analysis of randomized trials show a significant improvement in ADR and APC with shorter withdrawal times using the second-generation cuff device compared with SC.
PDF
