Search

Background and Aim: Randomised trials show improved polyp detection with computer-aided detection (CADe), mostly of small lesions. However, operator and selection bias may affect CADe's true benefit. Clinical outcomes of increased detection have not yet been fully elucidated., Methods: In this multicentre trial, CADe combining convolutional and recurrent neural networks was used for polyp detection. Blinded endoscopists were monitored in real time by a second observer with CADe access. CADe detections prompted reinspection. Adenoma detection rates (ADR) and polyp detection rates were measured prestudy and poststudy. Histological assessments were done by independent histopathologists. The primary outcome compared polyp detection between endoscopists and CADe., Results: In 946 patients (51.9% male, mean age 64), a total of 2141 polyps were identified, including 989 adenomas. CADe was not superior to human polyp detection (sensitivity 94.6% vs 96.0%) but outperformed them when restricted to adenomas. Unblinding led to an additional yield of 86 true positive polyp detections (1.1% ADR increase per patient; 73.8% were <5 mm). CADe also increased non-neoplastic polyp detection by an absolute value of 4.9% of the cases (1.8% increase of entire polyp load). Procedure time increased with 6.6±6.5 min (+42.6%). In 22/946 patients, the additional detection of adenomas changed surveillance intervals (2.3%), mostly by increasing the number of small adenomas beyond the cut-off., Conclusion: Even if CADe appears to be slightly more sensitive than human endoscopists, the additional gain in ADR was minimal and follow-up intervals rarely changed. Additional inspection of non-neoplastic lesions was increased, adding to the inspection and/or polypectomy workload., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The resect-and-discard strategy allows endoscopists to replace post-polypectomy pathology with real-time prediction of polyp histology during colonoscopy (optical diagnosis). We aimed to investigate the benefits and harms of implementing computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) for polyp pathology into the resect-and-discard strategy., Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from database inception to June 5, 2024, without language restrictions, for diagnostic accuracy studies that assessed the performance of real-time CADx systems, compared with histology, for the optical diagnosis of diminutive polyps (≤5 mm) in the entire colon. We synthesised data for three strategies: CADx-alone, CADx-unassisted, and CADx-assisted; when the endoscopist was involved in the optical diagnosis, we synthesised data exclusively from diagnoses for which confidence in the prediction was reported as high. The primary outcomes were the proportion of polyps that would have avoided pathological assessment (ie, the proportion optically diagnosed with high confidence; main benefit) and the proportion of polyps incorrectly predicted due to false positives and false negatives (main harm), directly compared between CADx-assisted and CADx-unassisted strategies. We used DerSimonian and Laird's random-effects model to calculate all outcomes. We used Higgins I 2 to assess heterogeneity, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to rate certainty, and funnel plots and Egger's test to examine publication bias. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024508440., Findings: We found 1019 studies, of which 11 (7400 diminutive polyps, 3769 patients, and 185 endoscopists) were included in the final meta-analysis. Three studies (1817 patients and 4086 polyps [2148 neoplastic and 1938 non-neoplastic]) provided data to directly compare the primary outcome measures between the CADx-unassisted and CADx-assisted strategies. We found no significant difference between the CADx-assisted and CADx-unassisted strategies for the proportion of polyps that would have avoided pathological assessment (90% [88-93], 3653 [89·4%] of 4086 polyps diagnosed with high confidence vs 90% [95% CI 85-94], 3588 [87·8%] of 4086 polyps diagnosed with high confidence; risk ratio 1·01 [95% CI 0·99-1·04; I 2 =53·49%; low-certainty evidence; Egger's test p=0·18). The proportion of incorrectly predicted polyps was lower with the CADx-assisted strategy than with the CADx-unassisted strategy (12% [95% CI 7-17], 523 [14·3%] of 3653 polyps incorrectly predicted with a CADx-assisted strategy vs 13% [6-20], 582 [16·2%] of 3588 polyps incorrectly diagnosed with a CADx-unassisted strategy; risk ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·79-0·98]; I 2 =0·00%; low-certainty evidence; Egger's test p=0·18)., Interpretation: CADx did not produce benefit nor harm for the resect-and-discard strategy, questioning its value in clinical practice. Improving the accuracy and explainability of CADx is desired., Funding: European Commission (Horizon Europe), the Japan Society of Promotion of Science, and Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CHas reports consultancy fees from Fujifilm and Medtronic. YM reports consultancy fees, speaking honoraria, and equipment loan from Olympus, and license fee for the co-developed artificial intelligence medical devices from Cybernet System (in the field of colonoscopy, one of which has been included in the analysis in this Article). AR reports consultancy fees from Fujifilm, Olympus, and Medtronic. DvR reports research grants from Fujifilm, Eberhard & Robert Bosch Elektronik (ERBE), and Boston Scientific; speaker fees from Fujifilm, ERBE, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; support for attending meetings from Fujifilm and ERBE, and endoscopy device loan from Fujifilm and ERBE. ER reports speaking honoraria from Fujifilm; consultancy fees from Medtronic; and speaker fees from Fujifilm. OP reports speaker fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, AbbVie, Falk, Luvos, and Olympus. ED reports consulting fees from Olympus, Fujifilm, Ambu, InterVenn, Norgine, and Exact Science; speaker fees from Olympus, GI Supply, Norgine, IPSEN-Mayoly, and Fujifilm; and endoscopy device loan from Fujifilm. POV reports research grant from European Comission (Horizon Europe 101057099). PS reports research grants from ERBE, Fujifilm, Nippon Electric Company, and Sebela; and consulting fees from Olympus, Boston Scientific, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Cipla, Medtronic, Takeda, Samsung Bioepis, and CDx. DKR reports research grants from Olympus, Sebela Pharmaceuticals, and ERBE; consulting fees from Olympus, Sebela Pharmaceuticals, Boston Scientific, and Laborie Medical; speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Laborie Medical, and Medtronic; and ownership of stock in Satisfai Health. PB reports research grants from NEC-Europe, Boston Scientific, and 3-D matrix and consulting fees from Fujifilm. GA reports research grants from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, consulting fees from Medtronic and Cosmo IMD, and speaker fees from Medtronic. JWL reports speaker fees from Olympus and Fujifilm. MMe reports license fee for the co-developed artificial intelligence medical devices from Cybernet System (in the field of colonoscopy, one of which has been included in the analysis in this Article) and consulting fees and speaker fees from Olympus. S-eK reports license fees for the co-developed artificial intelligence medical devices from Cybernet System (in the field of colonoscopy, one of which has been included in the analysis in this Article) and speaker fees from Olympus. RM reports research grants from ERBE, Fujifilm, Olympus, Pentax, and Boston Scientific. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background and Aims: Serrated polyps (SPs) are precursors to 15% to 20% of colorectal cancers (CRCs). However, there are uncertainties regarding which SPs require surveillance and at what intervals, with recommendations adapted from those for adenomas in the absence of solid evidence. Our aim was to assess which SP risk characteristics relate to a higher risk of metachronous CRC or advanced polyps., Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for cohort studies, case-control studies, and clinical trials from inception to December 31, 2023, of CRC or advanced polyps (advanced adenoma [AA] or advanced SP) incidence at surveillance stratified by baseline SP size, dysplasia, location, and multiplicity. We defined advanced SPs as those ≥10 mm or with dysplasia. CRC and advanced polyp incidence per 1000 person-years were estimated. We performed a meta-analysis by calculating pooled relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model., Results: A total of 5903 studies were reviewed, and 14 were included with 493,949 patients (mean age, 59.5 years; 55% men). The mean follow-up was 4.9 years. CRC incidence per 1000 person-years was 2.09 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-2.90) for advanced SPs, 1.52 (95% CI, 0.78-2.25) for SPs of ≥10 mm, 5.86 (95% CI, 2.16-9.56) for SPs with dysplasia, 1.18 (95% CI, 0.77-1.60) for proximal SPs, 0.52 (95% CI, 0.08-1.12) for ≥3 SPs, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.35-0.66) for nonadvanced SPs, and 0.44 (95% CI, 0.41-0.46) for normal colonoscopy findings. Metachronous CRC risk was higher in advanced SPs versus nonadvanced SPs (RR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.11-3.04) and versus normal colonoscopy findings (RR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.26-3.77), in SPs of ≥10 mm versus <10 mm (RR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.43-4.77) and versus normal colonoscopy findings (RR: 3.52; 95% CI, 2.17-5.69); and in SPs with dysplasia versus normal colonoscopy findings (RR: 2.71; 95% CI, 2.00-3.67). No increase in CRC or advanced polyp risk was found in patients with proximal versus distal SPs, nor in ≥3 SPs versus 1 or 2 SPs., Conclusions: CRC risk is significantly higher in patients with baseline advanced SPs after 4.9 years of follow-up, with risk magnitudes similar to those described for AA, supporting the current recommendation for 3-year surveillance in patients with advanced SPs., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: U. Ladabaum: Advisor for UniversalDx, Lean Medical, Vivante, and Kohler Ventures; consultant for Medtronic, Clinical Genomics, Guardant Health, Freenome and CheckCap. C. Hassan: Consultant for ERBE, Fujifilm, Odin, and Olympus; R. Jover: Advisor for MSD, Norgine, Alpha.Sigma, and GI Supply. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Resection of colorectal polyps has been shown to decrease the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are often referred to expert centers for endoscopic resection, which requires relevant information to be conveyed to the therapeutic endoscopist to allow for triage and planning of resection technique. The primary objective of this study was to establish minimum expected standards for the referral of large nonpedunculated colonic polyps for potential endoscopic resection., Methods: A Delphi method was used to establish consensus on minimum expected standards for the referral of large colorectal polyps among a panel of international endoscopy experts. The expert panel was recruited through purposive sampling, and 3 rounds of surveys were conducted to achieve consensus. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed for each round., Results: A total of 24 international experts from diverse continents participated in the Delphi study, resulting in consensus on 19 statements related to the referral of large colorectal polyps. The identified factors, including patient demographic characteristics, relevant medications, lesion factors, photodocumentation, and the presence of a tattoo, were deemed important for conveying the necessary information to therapeutic endoscopists. The mean scores for the statements, which were scored on a scale of 1 to 10, ranged from 7.04 to 9.29, with high percentages of experts considering most statements as a very high priority. Subgroup analysis according to continent revealed some variations in consensus rates among experts from different regions., Conclusions: The identified consensus statements can aid in improving the triage and planning of resection techniques for large colorectal polyps, ultimately contributing to the reduction of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: A. Sethi: consultant for Boston Scientific, Interscope, Medtronic, and Olympus; research support from Boston Scientific and Fujifilm; advisory board member for Endosound. K. Mönkemüller: consultant for Ovesco USA and Ovesco Germany. T. Pavic: speaker for Olympus and Boston Scientific. M. J. Bourke: research support for ethics-approved studies from Cook Medical, Olympus Medical, and Boston Scientific. P. Saxena: consultant for Boston Scientific, Ambu, and Erbe. D. K. Rex: Consultant for Olympus Corporation, Boston Scientific, Braintree Laboratories, Norgine, Medtronic, and Acacia Pharmaceuticals; research support from Olympus Corporation, Medivators, Erbe USA Inc, and Braintree Laboratories; shareholder with Satisfai Health. U. D. Siddiqui: research, consultant, and speaker for Olympus and Boston Scientific; and consultant and speaker for CONMED, Cook, and Medtronic. M. Pellisé: clinical advisory boards for Fujifilm Europe and Olympus; clinical advisory board and share options in MiWEndo; speaker fees from Casen Recordati, Norgine Iberia, Fujifilm, Mayoli, Medtronic, and Olympus; and research funding from Fujifilm, Casen Recordati, Ziuz, and 3-D Matrix. J. D. Mosko: Consulting: Boston Scientific, Fuji, Medtronic, Pendopharm, and Steris; research funding from Boston Scientific and Vantage/ERBE. C. W. Teshima: speaker for Medtronic and Boston Scientific; and consultant for Boston Scientific. G. R. May: consultant for Olympus; and speaker for Pentax, Fuji, and Medtronic. S. C. Grover: research grants and personal fees from AbbVie and Ferring Pharmaceuticals; personal fees from Takeda, Sanofi, and BioJAMP; education grants from Janssen; and equity shares in Volo Healthcare. C. Hassan: consultant for Fujifilm and Medtronic; and research grants from Fujifilm and NEC. A. Repici: consultant for Fujifilm, Olympus Corp, and Medtronic; and research grants from Fujifilm and NEC. P. Sharma: consultant for Olympus Corporation, Boston Scientific, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Cipla, Medtronic, Takeda, Samsung Bioepis, and CDx; and grant support from ERBE and Fujifilm. R. Bechara: consultant for Olympus, Pentax, Vantage, Medtronic, and Pendopharm. A. Shaukat: Consultant for Itertive Health, Freenome, UniversalDx, and Motus GI. All other authors disclosed no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest to declare. The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

1:  ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5:  ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6:  ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7:  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9:  ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10:  ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11:  ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence., Competing Interests: R. Bisschops has been on the advisory boards of Pentax, Medtronic, Fujifilm, Cook, Boston Scientific, and Olympus, and has received speaker’s fees from Pentax, Medtronic, and Fujifilm; his department has received research grants, and organizational support for events from Pentax and Medtronic, and further organizational support for events from Erbe, Ovesco, and Olympus (all within the last 3 years). M.J. Bourke has received research support from Cook Medical and Olympus (2014 to date). E. Dekker has provided consultancy to Olympus and GI supply (several occasions in recent years). M. Dinis-Ribeiro has provided consultancy to Medtronic and Roche (2021 to 2022) and received a research grant from Fujifilm (2021 to 2022). H. Messmann has provided consultancy to Ambu, Boston Scientific, and Olympus (2022 to date); his department has received research support from Olympus and Satisfai (2022 to date). L. Moons has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific and Pentax (2024 to date) and is a member of the Colorectal cancer guideline committee and chair of the Dutch Guideline group on polypectomy in the rectum and colon. M. Pellisé has provided consultancy to Norgine Iberia (2015 to 2019), GI supply (2019), Fujifilm Europe (2021 to date), and Olympus (2022 to date), and received research support from Fujifilm Spain (2019), Fujifilm Europe (2020 to 2021), Casen recordati (2020), and ZuiZ (2021); her department has also received equipment on loan from Fujifilm Europe (2019 to date); she was on the Endoscopy editorial board (2015 to 2021), was ESGE Equity and diversity working group chair (2021 to 2022), councillor for SEED (2016 to 2022), and is president of AEG (2022 to date). G. Rahmi has provided consultancy to Fujifilm and Medtronic (2023 to date). A. Repici has received consultancy fees and research funding from ERBE (2020 to date) and Fujifilm (2018 to date), and speaker’s and consultancy fees, and research funding from Boston Scientific (2019 to date). M. Rutter is a member of the British Society of Gastroenterology and is the current Chair of the Joint Advisory Group for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Y. Takeuchi has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific Japan (2012 to 2022) and has received speaker’s fees from Olympus, Daiichi-Sankyo, Miyarisan Pharmaceutical, Asuka Pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, EA Pharma, Zeria Pharmaceutical, Fujifilm, Kaneka Medix, Kyorin Pharmaceutical, and the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society. H. Uchima Koecklin has received proctorship and speaker’s fees from ERBE Spain and Olympus Iberia (2022 to 2023). E. Albeniz, A. Amato, H. Awadie, P. Bhandari, M. Ferlitsch, I. Gralnek, C. Hassan R. Jover, D. Libanio, V. Lorenzo-Zuniga, A. Moss, G. Paspatis, A. Probst, M. Risio, L.-M. Rockenbauer, K. Triantafyllou, A. Voiosu, and E. Waldmann declare that they have no conflict of interest., (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

Background: Real-time prediction of histologic features of small colorectal polyps may prevent resection and/or pathologic evaluation and therefore decrease colonoscopy costs. Previous studies showed that computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) was highly accurate, though it did not outperform expert endoscopists., Objective: To assess the diagnostic performance of histologic predictions by general endoscopists before and after assistance from CADx in a real-life setting., Design: Prospective, multicenter, single-group study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04437615)., Setting: 6 centers across the United States., Participants: 1252 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy and 49 general endoscopists with variable experience in real-time prediction of polyp histologic features., Intervention: Real-time use of CADx during routine colonoscopy., Measurements: The primary end points were the sensitivity and specificity of CADx-unassisted and CADx-assisted histologic predictions for adenomas measuring 5 mm or less. For clinical purposes, additional estimates according to location and confidence level were provided., Results: The CADx device made a diagnosis for 2695 polyps measuring 5 mm or less (96%) in 1252 patients. There was no difference in sensitivity between the unassisted and assisted groups (90.7% vs. 90.8%; P = 0.52). Specificity was higher in the CADx-assisted group (59.5% vs. 64.7%; P < 0.001). Among all 2695 polyps measuring 5 mm or less, 88.2% and 86.1% ( P < 0.001) in the CADx-assisted and unassisted groups, respectively, could be resected and discarded without pathologic evaluation. Among 743 rectosigmoid polyps measuring 5 mm or less, 49.5% and 47.9% ( P < 0.001) in the CADx-assisted and unassisted groups, respectively, could be left in situ without resection., Limitation: Decision making based on CADx might differ outside a clinical trial., Conclusion: CADx assistance did not result in increased sensitivity of optical diagnosis. Despite a slight increase, the specificity of CADx-assisted diagnosis remained suboptimal., Primary Funding Source: Olympus America Corporation served as the clinical study sponsor., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M24-0086.

Background: Computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) allows prediction of polyp histology during colonoscopy, which may reduce unnecessary removal of nonneoplastic polyps. However, the potential benefits and harms of CADx are still unclear., Purpose: To quantify the benefit and harm of using CADx in colonoscopy for the optical diagnosis of small (≤5-mm) rectosigmoid polyps., Data Sources: Medline, Embase, and Scopus were searched for articles published before 22 December 2023., Study Selection: Histologically verified diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated the real-time performance of physicians in predicting neoplastic change of small rectosigmoid polyps without or with CADx assistance during colonoscopy., Data Extraction: The clinical benefit and harm were estimated on the basis of accuracy values of the endoscopist before and after CADx assistance. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. The outcome measure for benefit was the proportion of polyps predicted to be nonneoplastic that would avoid removal with the use of CADx. The outcome measure for harm was the proportion of neoplastic polyps that would be not resected and left in situ due to an incorrect diagnosis with the use of CADx. Histology served as the reference standard for both outcomes., Data Synthesis: Ten studies, including 3620 patients with 4103 small rectosigmoid polyps, were analyzed. The studies that assessed the performance of CADx alone (9 studies; 3237 polyps) showed a sensitivity of 87.3% (95% CI, 79.2% to 92.5%) and specificity of 88.9% (CI, 81.7% to 93.5%) in predicting neoplastic change. In the studies that compared histology prediction performance before versus after CADx assistance (4 studies; 2503 polyps), there was no difference in the proportion of polyps predicted to be nonneoplastic that would avoid removal (55.4% vs. 58.4%; risk ratio [RR], 1.06 [CI, 0.96 to 1.17]; moderate-certainty evidence) or in the proportion of neoplastic polyps that would be erroneously left in situ (8.2% vs. 7.5%; RR, 0.95 [CI, 0.69 to 1.33]; moderate-certainty evidence)., Limitation: The application of optical diagnosis was only simulated, potentially altering the decision-making process of the operator., Conclusion: Computer-aided diagnosis provided no incremental benefit or harm in the management of small rectosigmoid polyps during colonoscopy., Primary Funding Source: European Commission. (PROSPERO: CRD42023402197)., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M23-2865.

Background: Post-fecal immunochemical test (FIT) colonoscopy represents a setting with an enriched prevalence of advanced adenomas. Due to an expected higher risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), postpolypectomy surveillance is recommended, generating a substantially increased load on endoscopy services. The aim of our study was to investigate postpolypectomy CRC risk in a screening population of FIT+ subjects after resection of low-risk adenomas (LRAs) or high-risk adenomas (HRAs)., Methods: We retrieved data from a cohort of patients undergoing postpolypectomy surveillance within a FIT-based CRC screening program in Italy between 2002 and 2017 and followed-up to December 2021. Main outcomes were postpolypectomy CRC incidence and mortality risks according to type of adenoma (LRA/HRA) removed at colonoscopy as well as morphology, size, dysplasia, and location of the index lesion. We adopted as comparators FIT+/colonoscopy-negative and FIT- patients. The absolute risk was calculated as the number of incident CRCs per 100,000 person-years of follow-up. We used Cox multivariable regression models to identify associations between CRC risks and patient- and polyp-related variables., Results: Overall, we included 87,248 post-FIT+ colonoscopies (133 endoscopists). Of these, 42,899 (49.2%) were negative, 21,650 (24.8%) had an LRA, and 22,709 (26.0%) an HRA. After a median follow-up of 7.25 years, a total of 635 CRCs were observed. For patients with LRAs, CRC incidence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.53) was not increased compared with the FIT+/colonoscopy-negative group, while for HRAs a significant increase in CRC incidence (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.14-2.04) was found. The presence of 1 or more risk factors among proximal location, nonpedunculated morphology, and high-grade dysplasia explained most of this excess CRC risk in the HRA group (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.36-2.52). Patients with only distal pedunculated polyps without high-grade dysplasia, representing 39.2% of HRA, did not have increased risk compared with the FIT- group (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.59-1.28)., Conclusions: CRC incidence is significantly higher in patients with HRAs diagnosed at colonoscopy. However, such excess risk does not appear to apply to patients with only distal pedunculated polyps without high-grade dysplasia, an observation that could potentially reduce the burden of surveillance in FIT programs., (Copyright © 2024 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Detection and diagnosis of colon polyps are key to preventing colorectal cancer. Recent evidence suggests that AI-based computer-aided detection (CADe) and computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) systems can enhance endoscopists' performance and boost colonoscopy effectiveness. However, most available public datasets primarily consist of still images or video clips, often at a down-sampled resolution, and do not accurately represent real-world colonoscopy procedures. We introduce the REAL-Colon (Real-world multi-center Endoscopy Annotated video Library) dataset: a compilation of 2.7 M native video frames from sixty full-resolution, real-world colonoscopy recordings across multiple centers. The dataset contains 350k bounding-box annotations, each created under the supervision of expert gastroenterologists. Comprehensive patient clinical data, colonoscopy acquisition information, and polyp histopathological information are also included in each video. With its unprecedented size, quality, and heterogeneity, the REAL-Colon dataset is a unique resource for researchers and developers aiming to advance AI research in colonoscopy. Its openness and transparency facilitate rigorous and reproducible research, fostering the development and benchmarking of more accurate and reliable colonoscopy-related algorithms and models., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Aims: Accurate polyp size estimation during colonoscopy has an impact on clinical decision-making. A laser-based virtual scale endoscope (VSE) is available to allow measuring polyp size using a virtual adaptive scale. This study evaluates video-based polyp size measurement accuracy among expert endoscopists using either VSE or visual assessment (VA) with either snare as reference size or without any reference size information., Methods: A prospective, video-based study was conducted with 10 expert endoscopists. Video sequences from 90 polyps with known reference size (fresh specimen measured using calipers) were distributed on three different slide sets so that each slide set showed the same polyp only once with either VSE, VA or snare-based information. A slide set was randomly assigned to each endoscopist. Endoscopists were asked to provide size estimation based on video review., Results: Relative accuracies for VSE, VA, and snare-based estimation were 75.1% (95% CI [71.6-78.5]), 65.0% (95% CI [59.5-70.4]) and 62.0% (95% CI [54.8-69.0]), respectively. VSE yielded significantly higher relative accuracy compared to VA ( p  = 0.002) and to snare ( p  = 0.001). A significantly lower percentage of polyps 1-5 mm were misclassified as >5 mm using VSE versus VA and snare (6.52% vs. 19.6% and 17.5%, p  = 0.004) and a significantly lower percentage of polyps >5 mm were misclassified as 1-5 mm using VSE versus VA and snare (11.4% vs. 31.9% and 14.9%, p  = 0.038)., Conclusions: Endoscopists estimate polyp size with the highest accuracy when virtual adaptive scale information is displayed. Using a snare to assist sizing did not improve measurement accuracy compared to displaying visual information alone.

Background and Aims: Despite advances in EMR techniques, a high polyp recurrence rate remains a challenge. Due to the scarcity of direct comparisons, we performed an indirect comparison of conventional EMR (EMR alone), underwater EMR (U-EMR), and EMR + adjuvant thermal ablation of polypectomy margins to assess polyp recurrence rates., Methods: Electronic databases were searched from inception to January 12, 2023, for studies reporting polyp recurrence rates after EMR for large nonpedunculated polyps (>15 mm) with or without adjuvant techniques (snare tip soft coagulation [STSC]/argon plasma coagulation [APC]). An indirect comparison was performed by using the frequentist method. The p-score was calculated to identify preferred intervention. Publication bias was assessed by using a comparison-adjusted funnel plot., Results: A total of 9 full articles were identified. On direct comparisons, EMR + STSC had 82% reduced odds (odds ratio, .18; 95% confidence interval, .13-.26; P < .001), whereas U-EMR alone had 77% reduced odds (odds ratio, .23; 95% confidence interval, .08-.67; P = .007) of polyp recurrence compared with EMR alone. On indirect comparison, all interventions had significantly lower odds of polyp recurrence compared with EMR alone. The p-score ranking showed that EMR + STSC seems a potential first method in reducing the odds of polyp recurrence, followed by U-EMR, EMR + APC, and EMR alone., Conclusions: EMR + STSC seems to provide favorable odds for reducing polyp recurrence postresection for large nonpedunculated polyps. Standardization of methods to detect residual polyp and prevent polyp recurrence at the time of EMR are required., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: C. Hassan and A. Repici: consultants for Fujifilm and Olympus; D. Rex: consultant for Olympus Corporation, Boston Scientific, Braintree Laboratories, Norgine, Medtronic, Acacia Pharmaceuticals; received research support from Olympus Corporation, Medivators, Erbe USA Inc, and Braintree Laboratories. D. Radadiya: consultant for Castle Biosciences. P. Sharma: consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus Inc; grant support from US Endoscopy, Medtronic, Fujifilm, Ironwood, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals, and Erbe. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cold forceps and snares are each effective for removing polyps of 1-3 mm, while snares are more effective for polyps of 4-10 mm in size. If, in the same patient, polyps of 1-3 mm are removed with forceps and those of 4-10 mm with snares, two devices are used. If cold snares are used to resect all lesions of 1-10 mm (one-device colonoscopy), there is a potential for lower costs and less plastic waste., Methods: A single high detecting colonoscopist prospectively measured the feasibility of cold snaring all colorectal lesions of ≤10 mm in size, along with the associated costs and plastic waste reduction., Results: 677 consecutive lower gastrointestinal endoscopies (not for inflammatory bowel disease) were assessed. Of 1430 lesions of 1-3 mm and 1685 lesions of 4-10 mm in size, 1428 (99.9%, 95%CI 99.5%-100%) and 1674 (99.3%, 95%CI 98.8%-99.7%), respectively, were successfully resected using cold snaring. Among 379 screening and surveillance patients, universal cold snaring of lesions ≤10 mm saved 35 and 47 cold forceps per 100 screening and surveillance patients, respectively., Conclusion: Cold snare resection of all lesions ≤10 mm (one-device colonoscopy) was feasible, and reduced costs and plastic waste., Competing Interests: D.K. Rex has provided consultancy to Olympus Corporation, Boston Scientific, Braintree Laboratories, Norgine, Medtronic, and Acacia Pharmaceuticals; and has received research support from Olympus Corporation, Medivators, Erbe USA Inc., and Braintree Laboratories; he is a shareholder in Satisfai Health. K. Vemulapalli is employed by Cook Medical. P. Sharma is a consultant for Olympus Corporation, Boston Scientific, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Cipla, Medtronic, Takeda, Samsung Bioepis, and CDx; and has received grant support from ERBE and Fujifilm. C. Hassan has provided consultancy to Fujifilm Co., Olympus Corp., Medtronic Co., and has received research support from NEC and Odin. J.A. Gallagher and R.E. Lahr declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

This review article provides a comprehensive overview of the evolving techniques in image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) for the characterization of colorectal polyps, and the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in revolutionizing the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopy. We discuss the historical use of dye-spray and virtual chromoendoscopy for the characterization of colorectal polyps, which are now being replaced with more advanced technologies. Specifically, we focus on the application of AI to create a "virtual biopsy" for the detection and characterization of colorectal polyps, with potential for replacing histopathological diagnosis. The incorporation of AI has the potential to provide an evolutionary learning system that aids in the diagnosis and management of patients with the best possible outcomes. A detailed analysis of the literature supporting AI-assisted diagnostic techniques for the detection and characterization of colorectal polyps, with a particular emphasis on AI's characterization mechanism, is provided. The benefits of AI over traditional IEE techniques, including the reduction in human error in diagnosis, and its potential to provide an accurate diagnosis with similar accuracy to the gold standard are presented. However, the need for large-scale testing of AI in clinical practice and the importance of integrating patient data into the diagnostic process are acknowledged. In conclusion, the constant evolution of IEE technology and the potential for AI to revolutionize the field of endoscopy in the future are presented.

Background The natural history of colorectal polyps is not well characterized due to clinical standards of care and other practical constraints limiting in vivo longitudinal surveillance. Established CT colonography (CTC) clinical screening protocols allow surveillance of small (6-9 mm) polyps. Purpose To assess the natural history of colorectal polyps followed with CTC in a clinical screening program, with histopathologic correlation for resected polyps. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, CTC was used to longitudinally monitor small colorectal polyps in asymptomatic adult patients from April 1, 2004, to August 31, 2020. All patients underwent at least two CTC examinations. Polyp growth patterns across multiple time points were analyzed, with histopathologic context for resected polyps. Regression analysis was performed to evaluate predictors of advanced histopathology. Results In this study of 475 asymptomatic adult patients (mean age, 56.9 years ± 6.7 [SD]; 263 men), 639 unique polyps (mean initial diameter, 6.3 mm; volume, 50.2 mm 3 ) were followed for a mean of 5.1 years ± 2.9. Of these 639 polyps, 398 (62.3%) underwent resection and histopathologic evaluation, and 41 (6.4%) proved to be histopathologically advanced (adenocarcinoma, high-grade dysplasia, or villous content), including two cancers and 38 tubulovillous adenomas. Advanced polyps showed mean volume growth of +178% per year (752% per year for adenocarcinomas) compared with +33% per year for nonadvanced polyps and -3% per year for unresected, unretrieved, or resolved polyps ( P < .001). In addition, 90% of histologically advanced polyps achieved a volume of 100 mm 3 and/or volume growth rate of 100% per year, compared with 29% of nonadvanced and 16% of unresected or resolved polyps ( P < .001). Polyp volume-to-diameter ratio was also significantly greater for advanced polyps. For polyps observed at three or more time points, most advanced polyps demonstrated an initial slower growth interval, followed by a period of more rapid growth. Conclusion Small colorectal polyps ultimately proving to be histopathologically advanced neoplasms demonstrated substantially faster growth and attained greater overall size compared with nonadvanced polyps. Clinical trial registration no. NCT00204867 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Dachman in this issue.

Background and Aims: The natural history of small polyps is not well established and rests on limited evidence from barium enema studies decades ago. Patients with one or two small polyps (6-9 mm) at screening CT colonography (CTC) are offered CTC surveillance at 3 years but may elect immediate colonoscopy. This practice allows direct observation of the growth of subcentimetre polyps, with histopathological correlation in patients undergoing subsequent polypectomy., Design: Of 11 165 asymptomatic patients screened by CTC over a period of 16.4 years, 1067 had one or two 6-9 mm polyps detected (with no polyps ≥10 mm). Of these, 314 (mean age, 57.4 years; M:F, 141:173; 375 total polyps) elected immediate colonoscopic polypectomy, and 382 (mean age 57.0 years; M:F, 217:165; 481 total polyps) elected CTC surveillance over a mean of 4.7 years. Volumetric polyp growth was analysed, with histopathological correlation for resected polyps. Polyp growth and regression were defined as volume change of ±20% per year, with rapid growth defined as +100% per year (annual volume doubling). Regression analysis was performed to evaluate predictors of advanced histology, defined as the presence of cancer, high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or villous components., Results: Of the 314 patients who underwent immediate polypectomy, 67.8% (213/314) harboured adenomas, 2.2% (7/314) with advanced histology; no polyps contained cancer or HGD. Of 382 patients who underwent CTC surveillance, 24.9% (95/382) had polyps that grew, while 62.0% (237/382) remained stable and 13.1% (50/382) regressed in size. Of the 58.6% (224/382) CTC surveillance patients who ultimately underwent colonoscopic resection, 87.1% (195/224) harboured adenomas, 12.9% (29/224) with advanced histology. Of CTC surveillance patients with growing polyps who underwent resection, 23.2% (19/82) harboured advanced histology vs 7.0% (10/142) with stable or regressing polyps (OR: 4.0; p<0.001), with even greater risk of advanced histology in those with rapid growth (63.6%, 14/22, OR: 25.4; p<0.001). Polyp growth, but not patient age/sex or polyp morphology/location were significant predictors of advanced histology., Conclusion: Small 6-9 mm polyps present overall low risk to patients, with polyp growth strongly associated with higher risk lesions. Most patients (75%) with small 6-9 mm polyps will see polyp stability or regression, with advanced histology seen in only 7%. The minority of patients (25%) with small polyps that do grow have a 3-fold increased risk of advanced histology., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Colorectal cancer screening plays a vital role in early detection and removal of precancerous adenomas, contributing to decreased mortality rates. Most polyps found during colonoscopies are small and unlikely to harbor advanced neoplasia or invasive cancer, leading to the development of "leave-in-situ" and "resect-and-discard" approaches. These strategies could lead to significant cost savings and efficiencies, but their implementation has been hampered by concerns around financial incentives, medical-legal risks, and local rules for tissue handling. This article reviews the potential of artificial intelligence to enhance the accuracy of polyp diagnosis through computer-aided diagnosis (CADx). While the adoption of CADx in optical biopsy has shown mixed results, it has the potential to significantly improve the management of colorectal polyps. Several studies reviewed in this article highlight the varied results of CADx in optical biopsy for colorectal polyps. Although artificial intelligence does not consistently outperform expert endoscopists, it has the potential to serve as a beneficial secondary reader, aiding in accurate optical diagnosis and increasing the confidence of the endoscopist. These studies indicate that although CADx holds great potential, it is yet to fully meet the performance thresholds necessary for clinical implementation., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Introduction: Various endoscopic resection techniques have been proposed for the treatment of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 6-20 mm, however the optimal technique still remains unclear., Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), investigating the efficacy of endoscopic treatments for the management of 6-20 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps. Primary outcomes were complete and en bloc resection rates and adverse event rate was the secondary. Effect size on outcomes is presented as risk ratio (RR; 95% confidence interval [CI])., Results: Fourteen RCTs (5219 polypectomies) were included. Endoscopic mucosal resection(EMR) significantly outperformed cold snare polypectomy(CSP) in terms of complete [(RR 95%CI): 1.04(1.00-1.07)] and en bloc resection rate [RR:1.12(1.04-1.21)]. EMR was superior to hot snare polypectomy (HSP) [RR:1.04(1.00-1.08)] regarding complete resection, while underwater EMR (U-EMR) achieved significantly higher rate of en bloc resection compared to CSP [RR:1.15(1.01-1.30)]. EMR yielded the highest ranking for complete resection(SUCRA-score 0.81), followed by cold-snare EMR(CS-EMR,SUCRA-score 0.76). None of the modalities was different regarding adverse event rate compared to CSP, however EMR and CS-EMR resulted in fewer adverse events compared to HSP [RR:0.44(0.26-0.77) and 0.43(0.21-0.87),respectively]., Conclusion: EMR achieved the highest performance in resecting 6-20 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps, with this effect being consistent for polyps 6-9 and ≥10 mm; findings supported by very low quality of evidence., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None declared., (Copyright © 2022 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The number of artificial intelligence (AI) tools for colonoscopy on the market is increasing with supporting clinical evidence. Nevertheless, their implementation is not going smoothly for a variety of reasons, including lack of data on clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness, lack of trustworthy guidelines, uncertain indications, and cost for implementation. To address this issue and better guide practitioners, the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) has provided its perspective about the status of AI in colonoscopy as the position statement. WEO Position Statement: Statement 1.1: Computer-aided detection (CADe) for colorectal polyps is likely to improve colonoscopy effectiveness by reducing adenoma miss rates and thus increase adenoma detection; Statement 1.2: In the short term, use of CADe is likely to increase health-care costs by detecting more adenomas; Statement 1.3: In the long term, the increased cost by CADe could be balanced by savings in costs related to cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, palliative care) due to CADe-related cancer prevention; Statement 1.4: Health-care delivery systems and authorities should evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CADe to support its use in clinical practice; Statement 2.1: Computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) for diminutive polyps (≤5 mm), when it has sufficient accuracy, is expected to reduce health-care costs by reducing polypectomies, pathological examinations, or both; Statement 2.2: Health-care delivery systems and authorities should evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CADx to support its use in clinical practice; Statement 3: We recommend that a broad range of high-quality cost-effectiveness research should be undertaken to understand whether AI implementation benefits populations and societies in different health-care systems., (© 2023 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

Background and Aims: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools aimed at improving polyp detection have been shown to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. However, it is unknown how increased polyp detection rates by AI affect the burden of patient surveillance after polyp removal., Methods: We conducted a pooled analysis of 9 randomized controlled trials (5 in China, 2 in Italy, 1 in Japan, and 1 in the United States) comparing colonoscopy with or without AI detection aids. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients recommended to undergo intensive surveillance (ie, 3-year interval). We analyzed intervals for AI and non-AI colonoscopies for the U.S. and European recommendations separately. We estimated proportions by calculating relative risks using the Mantel-Haenszel method., Results: A total of 5796 patients (51% male, mean 53 years of age) were included; 2894 underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy and 2902 non-AI colonoscopy. When following U.S. guidelines, the proportion of patients recommended intensive surveillance increased from 8.4% (95% CI, 7.4%-9.5%) in the non-AI group to 11.3% (95% CI, 10.2%-12.6%) in the AI group (absolute difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 1.4%-4.4%]; risk ratio, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.57]). When following European guidelines, it increased from 6.1% (95% CI, 5.3%-7.0%) to 7.4% (95% CI, 6.5%-8.4%) (absolute difference, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.01%-2.6%]; risk ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.01-1.47])., Conclusions: The use of AI during colonoscopy increased the proportion of patients requiring intensive colonoscopy surveillance by approximately 35% in the United States and 20% in Europe (absolute increases of 2.9% and 1.3%, respectively). While this may contribute to improved cancer prevention, it significantly adds patient burden and healthcare costs., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Among the characteristics of high-risk adenomas (HRAs), some may predict a higher risk of metachronous advanced lesions. Our aim was to assess which HRA characteristics are associated with high risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) or advanced adenomas (AAs)., Methods: We systematically searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for cohort studies and clinical trials of CRC or AA incidence at surveillance stratified by baseline lesion size, histology, and multiplicity. We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I 2 statistic., Results: Fifty-five studies were included, with 936,540 patients with mean follow-up 5.4 ± 2.9 years. CRC incidence per 1000 person-years was 2.6 (2.1-3.0) for adenomas ≥20 mm, 2.7 (2.2-3.2) for high-grade dysplasia (HGD), 2.0 (1.8-2.3) for villous component, 0.8 (0.1-1.4) for ≥5 adenomas, 1.0 (0.7-1.2) for ≥3 adenomas. Metachronous CRC risk was higher in adenomas ≥20 mm vs 10 to 19 mm (RR, 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-3.61), HGD vs low-grade dysplasia (RR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.88-4.44), villous vs tubular (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.33-2.31). No significant differences in CRC risk were found in ≥3 adenomas vs 1 to 2 (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.83), nor in ≥5 adenomas vs 3 to 4 (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.30-2.11). Compared with normal colonoscopy, RR for CRC risk was 2.61 (95% CI, 2.06-3.32) for ≥10mm, 6.62 (95% CI, 4.60-9.52) for HGD, 3.58 (95% CI, 2.24-5.73) for villous component, and 2.03 (95% CI, 1.40-2.94) for ≥3 adenomas. Similar trends were seen for metachronous AAs., Conclusion: Metachronous CRC risk is highest in patients with baseline adenomas with ≥20 mm or HGD. Multiplicity does not seem to be associated with substantially higher CRC risk in the near term., (Copyright © 2023 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Artificial Intelligence (AI) could support cost-saving strategies for colonoscopy because of its accuracy in the optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps. However, AI must meet predefined criteria to be implemented in clinical settings., Methods: An approved computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) module for differentiating between adenoma and nonadenoma in unmagnified white-light colonoscopy was used in a consecutive series of colonoscopies. For each polyp, CADx output and subsequent endoscopist diagnosis with advanced imaging were matched against the histology gold standard. The primary outcome was the negative predictive value (NPV) of CADx for adenomatous histology for ≤5-mm rectosigmoid lesions. We also calculated the NPV for AI-assisted endoscopist predictions, and agreement between CADx and histology-based postpolypectomy surveillance intervals according to European and American guidelines., Results: Overall, 544 polyps were removed in 162 patients, of which 295 (54.2%) were ≤5-mm rectosigmoid histologically verified lesions. CADx diagnosis was feasible in 291 of 295 (98.6%), and the NPV for ≤5-mm rectosigmoid lesions was 97.6% (95% CI, 94.1%-99.1%). There were 242 of 295 (82%) lesions that were amenable for a leave-in-situ strategy. Based on CADx output, 212 of 544 (39%) would be amenable to a resect-and-discard strategy, resulting in a 95.6% (95% CI, 90.8%-98.0%) and 95.9% (95% CI, 89.8%-98.4%) agreement between CADx- and histology-based surveillance intervals according to European and American guidelines, respectively. A similar NPV (97.6%; 95% CI, 94.8%-99.1%) for ≤5-mm rectosigmoids was achieved by AI-assisted endoscopists assessing polyps with electronic chromoendoscopy, with a CADx-concordant diagnosis in 97.2% of cases., Conclusions: In this study, CADx without advanced imaging exceeded the benchmarks required for optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps. CADx could help implement cost-saving strategies in colonoscopy by reducing the burden of polypectomy and/or pathology., Clinicaltrials: gov registration number: NCT04884581., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Widespread adoption of optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia is prevented by suboptimal endoscopist performance and lack of standardized training and competence evaluation. We aimed to assess diagnostic accuracy of endoscopists in optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia in the framework of artificial intelligence (AI) validation studies. Literature searches of databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus) up to April 2022 were performed to identify articles evaluating accuracy of individual endoscopists in performing optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia within studies validating AI against a histologically verified ground-truth. The main outcomes were endoscopists' pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV/NPV), positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR) and area under the curve (AUC for sROC) for predicting adenomas versus non-adenomas. Six studies with 67 endoscopists and 2085 (IQR: 115-243,5) patients were evaluated. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for adenomatous histology was respectively 84.5% (95% CI 80.3%-88%) and 83% (95% CI 79.6%-85.9%), corresponding to a PPV, NPV, LR+, LR- of 89.5% (95% CI 87.1%-91.5%), 75.7% (95% CI 70.1%-80.7%), 5 (95% CI 3.9%-6.2%) and 0.19 (95% CI 0.14%-0.25%). The AUC was 0.82 (CI 0.76-0.90). Expert endoscopists showed a higher sensitivity than non-experts (90.5%, [95% CI 87.6%-92.7%] vs. 75.5%, [95% CI 66.5%-82.7%], p &lt; 0.001), and Eastern endoscopists showed a higher sensitivity than Western (85%, [95% CI 80.5%-88.6%] vs. 75.8%, [95% CI 70.2%-80.6%]). Quality was graded high for 3 studies and low for 3 studies. We show that human accuracy for diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia in the setting of AI studies is suboptimal. Educational interventions could benefit by AI validation settings which seem a feasible framework for competence assessment., (© 2022 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)

Background & Aims: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusions: 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., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Artificial intelligence has been shown to be effective in polyp detection, and multiple computer-aided detection (CADe) systems have been developed. False-positive (FP) activation emerged as a possible way to benchmark CADe performance in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to validate a previously developed classification of FPs comparing the performances of different brands of approved CADe systems., Methods: We compared 2 different consecutive video libraries (40 video per arm) collected at Humanitas Research Hospital with 2 different CADe system brands (CADe A and CADe B). For each video, the number of CADe false activations, cause, and time spent by the endoscopist to examine the area erroneously highlighted were reported. The FP activations were classified according to the previously developed classification of FPs (the NOISE classification) according to their cause and relevance., Results: In CADe A 1021 FP activations were registered across the 40 videos (25.5 ± 12.2 FPs per colonoscopy), whereas in CADe B 1028 were identified (25.7 ± 13.2 FPs per colonoscopy; P = .53). Among them, 22.9 ± 9.9 (89.8% in CADe A) and 22.1 ± 10.0 (86.0% in CADe B) were because of artifacts from the bowel wall. Conversely, 2.6 ± 1.9 (10.2% in CADe A) and 3.5 ± 2.1 (14% in CADe B) were caused by bowel content (P = .45). Within CADe A each false activation required .2 ± .9 seconds, with 1.6 ± 1.0 FPs (6.3%) requiring additional time for endoscopic assessment. Comparable results were reported within CADe B with .2 ± .8 seconds spent per false activation and 1.8 ± 1.2 FPs per colonoscopy requiring additional inspection., Conclusions: The use of a standardized nomenclature provided comparable results with either of the 2 recently approved CADe systems. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04399590.)., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide. Because of the slow progression of the precancerous precursors, an efficient endoscopic surveillance strategy may be expected. It seems that around one-fourth of colorectal malignancies are still missed during colonoscopy. Several endoscopic technologies have been introduced, without radical changes. Interest in the development of artificial intelligence applications in the medical field has grown in the past decade. Artificial intelligence can help to highlight a specific region of interest that needs closer examination for the identification of polyps. The aim of this review is to report the first clinical experiences with the first US FDA-approved, real-time, deep-learning, computer-aided detection system (GI Genius™, Medtronic).

Background and Aims: Artificial intelligence has been shown to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR) as the main surrogate outcome parameter of colonoscopy quality. To which extent this effect may be related to physician experience is not known. We performed a randomised trial with colonoscopists in their qualification period (AID-2) and compared these data with a previously published randomised trial in expert endoscopists (AID-1)., Methods: In this prospective, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (AID-2), 10 non-expert endoscopists (<2000 colonoscopies) performed screening/surveillance/diagnostic colonoscopies in consecutive 40-80 year-old subjects using high-definition colonoscopy with or without a real-time deep-learning computer-aided detection (CADe) (GI Genius, Medtronic). The primary outcome was ADR in both groups with histology of resected lesions as reference. In a post-hoc analysis, data from this randomised controlled trial (RCT) were compared with data from the previous AID-1 RCT involving six experienced endoscopists in an otherwise similar setting., Results: In 660 patients (62.3±10 years; men/women: 330/330) with equal distribution of study parameters, overall ADR was higher in the CADe than in the control group (53.3% vs 44.5%; relative risk (RR): 1.22; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.40; p<0.01 for non-inferiority and p=0.02 for superiority). Similar increases were seen in adenoma numbers per colonoscopy and in small and distal lesions. No differences were observed with regards to detection of non-neoplastic lesions. When pooling these data with those from the AID-1 study, use of CADe (RR 1.29; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.42) and colonoscopy indication, but not the level of examiner experience (RR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.16) were associated with ADR differences in a multivariate analysis., Conclusions: In less experienced examiners, CADe assistance during colonoscopy increased ADR and a number of related polyp parameters as compared with the control group. Experience appears to play a minor role as determining factor for ADR., Trial Registration Number: NCT:04260321., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Conflict of interest statement/disclosure(s): All authors for equipment loan by Medtronic. AR and CH received consultancy fee from Medtronic. MBW provides consulting activity to Medtronic and Cosmo on behalf of Mayo Clinic and has equity interest in Virgo., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group aims to raise awareness for improvement in colonoscopy standards across Europe. We analysed data collected on a sample of procedures conducted across Europe to evaluate the achievement of the polyp detection rate (PDR) target. We also investigated factors associated with PDR, in the hope of establishing areas that could lead to a quality improvement. Methods: 6445 form completions from 12 countries between 2 June 2016 and 30 April 2018 were considered for this analysis. We performed an exploratory analysis looking at PDR according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) definition. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the most influential associated factors after adjusting for the other pre-specified variables. Results: In our sample there were 3365 screening and diagnostic procedures performed in those over 50 years. The PDR was 40.5%, which is comparable with the ESGE minimum standard of 40%. The variables found to be associated with PDR were in descending order: use of high-definition equipment, body mass index (BMI), patient gender, age group, and the reason for the procedure. Use of HD equipment was associated with a significant increase in the reporting of flat lesions (14.3% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.0001) and protruded lesions (34.7% vs. 25.4%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: On average, the sample of European practice captured by the ECQI survey meets the minimum PDR standard set by the ESGE. Our findings support the ESGE recommendation for routine use of HD colonoscopy.

Background: Use of artificial intelligence may increase detection of colorectal neoplasia at colonoscopy by improving lesion recognition (CADe) and reduce pathology costs by improving optical diagnosis (CADx)., Methods: A multicenter library of ≥ 200 000 images from 1572 polyps was used to train a combined CADe/CADx system. System testing was performed on two independent image sets (CADe: 446 with polyps, 234 without; CADx: 267) from 234 polyps, which were also evaluated by six endoscopists (three experts, three non-experts)., Results: CADe showed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 92.9 %, 90.6 %, and 91.7 %, respectively. Experts showed significantly higher accuracy and specificity, and similar sensitivity, while non-experts + CADe showed comparable sensitivity but lower specificity and accuracy than CADe and experts. CADx showed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 85.0 %, 79.4 %, and 83.6 %, respectively. Experts showed comparable performance, whereas non-experts + CADx showed comparable accuracy but lower specificity than CADx and experts., Conclusions: The high accuracy shown by CADe and CADx was similar to that of experts, supporting further evaluation in a clinical setting. When using CAD, non-experts achieved a similar performance to experts, with suboptimal specificity., Competing Interests: Jochen Weigt, Alessandro Repici, Cesare Hassan, and Helmut Neumann are consultants for Fujifilm. All other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

BACKGROUND : The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed a core curriculum for high quality optical diagnosis training for practice across Europe. The development of easy-to-measure competence standards for optical diagnosis can optimize clinical decision-making in endoscopy. This manuscript represents an official Position Statement of the ESGE aiming to define simple, safe, and easy-to-measure competence standards for endoscopists and artificial intelligence systems performing optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps (1 - 5 mm). METHODS : A panel of European experts in optical diagnosis participated in a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on Simple Optical Diagnosis Accuracy (SODA) competence standards for implementation of the optical diagnosis strategy for diminutive colorectal polyps. In order to assess the clinical benefits and harms of implementing optical diagnosis with different competence standards, a systematic literature search was performed. This was complemented with the results from a recently performed simulation study that provides guidance for setting alternative competence standards for optical diagnosis. Proposed competence standards were based on literature search and simulation study results. Competence standards were accepted if at least 80 % agreement was reached after a maximum of three voting rounds. RECOMMENDATION 1:  In order to implement the leave-in-situ strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1-5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 90 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1-5 mm in the rectosigmoid. Histopathology is used as the gold standard.Level of agreement 95 %. RECOMMENDATION 2:  In order to implement the resect-and-discard strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1-5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 80 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1-5 mm. Histopathology is used as the gold standard.Level of agreement 100 %. CONCLUSION : The developed SODA competence standards define diagnostic performance thresholds in relation to clinical consequences, for training and for use when auditing the optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps., Competing Interests: R. Bisschops has received research support from Cook and Medtronic, and financial support for symposium organization from Cook, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and Erbe (2009–2109), and speakers’ fees from Boston Scientific and Medtronic (2009–2019). E. Coron has received speakerʼs fees from Fujifilm (2018–2020). E. Dekker has received speaker’s fees from Roche (2018), Norgine (2019), Olympus and GI Supply (both 2019 to 2020), and Fujifilm (2020), and has provided consultancy to Fujifilm (2018), CPP-FAP (2019), GI Supply (2019 to 2020), Olympus (2020 to present), PAION and Ambu (both 2021); she received a research grant from Fujifilm (2017 to 2020) and her department has equipment on loan from Fujifilm (2017 to present) and Olympus (2021). M. Dinis-Ribeiro receives an educational grant from Olympus (2020 to present) and a research grant from Fujifilm (2020 to present); he is co-editor in-chief of Endoscopy. J.E. East has provided consultancy to, and holds share options in, Satisfai Health (2020 to present). C. Hassan has received research support from Fujifilm (2017 to present); his department has received support from Sonoscape. M. Iacucci receives research support from Pentax (2011 to present), Olympus (2017 to present) and Fujifilm (2018 to present). Y. Mori receives consultancy and speaker’s fees from Olympus (2018 to present) and has an ownership interest in Cybernet System Corp. (2020 to present). H. Neumann has provided consultancy to Fujifilm, Sonoscope, and Boston Scientific (all 2019 to 2020). M. Pellisé has received consultancy and speaker’s fees from Norgine Iberia (2015 to 2020), a consultancy fee from GI Supply (2019), speaker’s fees from Casen Recordati (2016 to 2019), Olympus (2018), and Jansen (2018), and research funding from Fujifilm Spain (2019), Fujifilm Europe (2020), and Casen Recordati (2020); her department has received loan material from Fujifilm Spain (2017 to present), a research grant from Olympus Europe (2005 to 2019), and loan material and a research grant from Fujifilm Europe (2020 to 2021); she is a Board member of ESGE and SEED, and is a co-editor of Endoscopy (2015 to 2021). I. Puig has provided advisory services to Fujifilm (2020 to present) and has equipment on loan from Olympus and Fujifilm (both 2019 to present). B. Saunders receives research funding from Olympus (2019 to present). D.J. Tate received an educational grant from Olympus (2018 to 2019). G. Antonelli, M. Bustamante-Balén, G. Cortas, V.M.H. Coupé, D.E. Dobru, M.J.E. Greuter, Y. Hazewinkel, B.B.S.L. Houwen, R. Jover, R. Kuvaev, G. Longcroft-Wheaton, M.D. Rutter, and J.L.A. Vleugels declare that they have no conflict of interest., (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Previous meta-analysis including nonrandomized studies showed marginal benefit of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection(U-EMR) compared to conventional EMR(C-EMR) in terms of polypectomy outcomes. We evaluated U-EMR compared to C-EMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps with respect to effectiveness and safety by analyzing only randomized controlled trials(RCTs)., Material and Methods: PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for RCTs published until 11/2020, evaluating U-EMR vs. C-EMR regarding en bloc resection, post-endoscopic resection adenoma recurrence, complete resection, adverse events rates and difference in resection time. Abstracts from Digestive Disease Week, United European Gastroenterology Week and ESGE Days meetings were also searched. Effect size on outcomes is presented as risk ratio(RR; 95% confidence interval[CI]) or mean difference(MD; 95%CI). The I 2 test was used for quantifying heterogeneity, while Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE) was used to assess strength of evidence., Results: Six RCTs analyzing outcomes from 1157 colorectal polypectomies(U-EMR589;C-EMR,568) were included. U-EMR associated with significant higher rate of en bloc resection compared to C-EMR [RR(95%CI):1.26(1.01-1.58); Chi² for heterogeneity=30.43, P<0.0001; I²=84%, GRADE: Very low]. This effect was more prominent regarding resection of polyps sized ≥20 mm compared to polyps <20 mm [RR(95%CI):1.64(1.22-2.20) vs. 1.10(0.98-1.23)]. Post-resection recurrence [RR(95%CI):0.52(0.28-0.94);GRADE:Low] was lower significantly in U-EMR group. In contrast, no significant difference was detected between U-EMR and C-EMR regarding complete resection [RR(95%CI): 1.06(0.91-1.24) GRADE:Very low] and adverse events occurrence[RR(95%CI):1.00 (0.72-1.39); GRADE:Low]., Conclusion: Meta-analysis of RCTs supports that U-EMR resection achieves higher rate of en bloc resection compared to conventional EMR. This effect is driven when resecting large(≥20 mm) polyps., (Copyright © 2021 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Since colonoscopy and polypectomy were introduced, Colorectal Cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality decreased significantly. Although we have entered the era of quality measurement and improvement, literature shows that a considerable amount of colorectal neoplasia is still missed by colonoscopists up to 25%, leading to an high rate of interval colorectal cancer that account for nearly 10% of all diagnosed CRC. Two main reasons have been recognised: recognition failure and mucosal exposure. For this purpose, Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have been recently developed that identify a "hot" area during the endoscopic examination. In retrospective studies, where the systems are tested with a batch of unknown images, deep learning systems have shown very good performances, with high levels of accuracy. Of course, this setting may not reflect actual clinical practice where different pitfalls can occur, like suboptimal bowel preparation or poor examination technique. For this reason, a number of randomised clinical trials have recently been published where AI was tested in real time during endoscopic examinations. We present here an overview on recent literature addressing the performance of Computer Assisted Detection (CADe) of colorectal polyps in colonoscopy., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: PS is supported by an unrestricted research grant from Pentax. RB received speaker’s fees, consultancy and research support from Pentax, Fujifilm and Medtronic. CH and HN received consultancy support from Fujifilm and Medtronic.

Background and Aims: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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; I 2  = 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; I 2  = 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; I 2  = 69%). Level of evidence for RCTs was graded as moderate., Conclusions: 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., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems, especially after the successful application of Convolutional Neural Networks, are revolutionizing modern medicine. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy has shown to be a fertile terrain for the development of AI systems aiming to aid endoscopists in various aspects of their daily activity. Lesion detection can be one of the two main aspects in which AI can increase diagnostic yield and abilities of endoscopists. In colonoscopy, it is well known that a substantial rate of missed neoplasia is still present, representing the major cause of interval cancer. In addition, an extremely high variability in adenoma detection rate, the main key quality indicator in colonoscopy, has been extensively reported. The other domain in which AI is believed to have a considerable impact on everyday clinical practice is lesion characterization and aid in "optical diagnosis". By predicting in vivo histology, such pathology costs may be averted by the implementation of two separate but synergistic strategies, namely the "leave-in-situ" strategy for < 5 mm hyperplastic lesions in the rectosigmoid tract, and "resect and discard" for the other diminutive lesions. In this opinion review we present current available evidence regarding the role of AI in improving lesions' detection and characterization during colonoscopy., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: All authors declare no conflict of interest., (©The Author(s) 2020. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)

Several studies have shown a significant adenoma miss rate up to 35% during screening colonoscopy, especially in patients with diminutive adenomas. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in colonoscopy has been gaining popularity by helping endoscopists in polyp detection, with the aim to increase their adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR) in order to reduce the incidence of interval cancers. The efficacy of deep convolutional neural network (DCNN)-based AI system for polyp detection has been trained and tested in ex vivo settings such as colonoscopy still images or videos. Recent trials have evaluated the real-time efficacy of DCNN-based systems showing promising results in term of improved ADR and PDR. In this review we reported data from the preliminary ex vivo experiences and summarized the results of the initial randomized controlled trials., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: No conflict of interest., (©The Author(s) 2020. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: The best method for endoscopic resection of sessile serrated polyps (SSP) 10 mm or larger is unclear; studies report variable outcomes in comparison to conventional adenomas. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of resection of SSPs 10 mm or larger in size., Methods: We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies reporting data on endoscopic resection of SSPs 10 mm or larger, through May 31st, 2019. The primary outcome was rate of residual SSP, which was the rate of residual SSP found at the polypectomy site during the first follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were: technical success (rate of complete macroscopic resection), R0 resection rate (complete histological resection with absence of any polyp tissue at the lateral and deep margins after en-bloc resection), and adverse events (immediate or delayed bleeding and perforation). We performed IQR,group analyses for outcomes based on polyp size and resection techniques. Pooled proportion rates (%) or odds ratio with 95% CIs with heterogeneity (I 2 ) and P < .05., Results: A total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria: 911 patients (50.2% male; mean age, 62.8 ± 4.9 years) who underwent resection of 1137 SSPs (574 SSPs ≥ 20 mm) with a median polyp size of 19.4 mm (interquartile range, 15.9-29.6 mm). Follow-up information was available for 832 SSPs with a median follow-up duration of 12 months (interquartile range, 6-22.5 months). Piecemeal resection was performed in 58.5% SSPs. The pooled residual SSP rate was 4.3% (95% CI, 2%-6.5%). There was a higher residual SSP rate for polyps ≥ 20 mm compared to 10-19 mm (5.9% vs 1.2%; odds ratio, 3.02; 95% CI, 1-9.2; P = .049). Cold endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) had significantly lower rates of delayed bleeding (0 vs 2.3%; P = .03) and residual polyp rate (0.9% vs 5%; P=.01) compared to hot EMR, based on univariate analysis. In multi-variate analysis there was no difference in residual polyp rate. There was no significant difference in other outcomes based on the size or method of resection., Conclusions: In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that SSPs ≥ 10 mm can be safely resected with low residual polyp rates. Polyp size ≥ 20 mm is a significant factor for residual polyp. Compared to hot EMR, cold EMR is associated with a lower rate of delayed bleeding. Randomized controlled trials comparing hot and cold resection are needed to standardize techniques and optimize outcomes., (Copyright © 2020 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Blue-light imaging (BLI) is a chromoendoscopy technique that uses direct (not filtered) emission of blue light with short wavelength (410 nm) to increase visibility of microvascular pattern and superficial mucosa. A BLI-based classification system for colorectal polyps (also called BLI Adenomas Serrated International Classification, BASIC) has been created and was validated using still images or short videos. We aimed to validate BASIC in a clinical practice setting, using thresholds recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy for the resect and discard strategy as the reference standard., Methods: We studied 333 patients (mean age, 62.7±8.1 y; 176 men) who underwent screening colonoscopy from January through July 2019. Six endoscopists trained in BASIC participated in the study. All detected diminutive polyps were characterized by real-time BLI and categorized as adenoma or non-adenoma according to BASIC. All polyps were removed and evaluated by histopathology. The BLI-directed surveillance intervals (based on high-confidence characterization of polyps 5 mm or smaller and pathology feature for others) were compared with histology-directed surveillance intervals, according to United States Multi-society Task Force and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommendations. We calculated negative-predictive values of optical real-time analysis of diminutive rectosigmoid adenomas., Results: When we applied BASIC, 748 polyps smaller than 5 mm were categorized with 89% accuracy (95% CI, 85.9%-90.6%). BLI-directed surveillance was correct for 90% of patients according to the United States Multi-society task force criteria (95% CI, 86%-93%) and for 96% of patients according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy criteria (95% CI, 93%-97%). The negative-predictive value for 302 polyps smaller than 5 mm, located in the rectosigmoid colon and evaluated with high confidence, based on histologic features of adenomatous polyps, was 91% (95% CI, 85%-95%)., Conclusions: Our analysis of data from 333 patients undergoing screen colonoscopies supports the validity of BASIC discriminating diminutive colorectal polyps with histologic features of adenomas from non-adenomas. This allows for the implementation of the resect and discard strategy based on BLI in clinical practice. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT03746171., (Copyright © 2020 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The following recommendations for post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance apply to all patients who had one or more polyps that were completely removed during a high quality baseline colonoscopy. 1: ESGE recommends that patients with complete removal of 1 - 4 < 10 mm adenomas with low grade dysplasia, irrespective of villous components, or any serrated polyp < 10 mm without dysplasia, do not require endoscopic surveillance and should be returned to screening.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.If organized screening is not available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index procedure is recommended.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy after 3 years for patients with complete removal of at least 1 adenoma ≥ 10 mm or with high grade dysplasia, or ≥ 5 adenomas, or any serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm or with dysplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends a 3 - 6-month early repeat colonoscopy following piecemeal endoscopic resection of polyps ≥ 20 mm.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. A first surveillance colonoscopy 12 months after the repeat colonoscopy is recommended to detect late recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4: If no polyps requiring surveillance are detected at the first surveillance colonoscopy, ESGE suggests to perform a second surveillance colonoscopy after 5 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.After that, if no polyps requiring surveillance are detected, patients can be returned to screening. 5: ESGE suggests that, if polyps requiring surveillance are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, surveillance colonoscopy may be performed at 3 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.A flowchart showing the recommended surveillance intervals is provided (Fig. 1)., Competing Interests: M. Bretthauer’s department has received support and cooperation from the EndoBRAIN study from Olympus Europa SE (from 2019 ongoing). E. Dekker has received consultancy honoraria from Fujifilm, Olympus, Tillots, GI Supply, and CPP-FAP, and speakers’ fees from Olympus, Roche and GI Supply; she has endoscopic equipment on loan and receives a research grant from Fujifilm. L.M. Helsingen’s department has received support and cooperation from the EndoBRAIN study from Olympus Europa SE (from 2019 ongoing). J.E. van Hooft has received lecture fees from Medtronics (from 2014 to 2015 and 2019) and Cook Medical (2019), and consultancy fees from Boston Scientific (2014 – 2017); her department has received research grants from Cook Medical (2014 – 2019) and Abbott (2014 – 2017). M. Pellisé has received consultancy and speaker’s fees from Norgine Iberia (2015 – 2019), a consultancy fee from GI Supply (2019), speaker’s fees from Casen Recordati (2016 – 2019), Olympus (2018), and Jansen (2018), and research funding from Fujifilm Spain (2019), Fujifilm Europe (2020), and Casen Recordati (2020); her department has received loan material from Fujifilm Spain (from 2017 ongoing), a research grant from Olympus Europe (2005 – 2019), and loan material and a research grant from Fujifilm Europe (2020 – 2021); she is a Board member of ESGE and SEED; and receives a fee from Thieme as an Endoscopy Co-Editor. J. Regula has received sponsorship and lecture fees from Ipsen Pharma and Alfasigma (2017 – 2020). M. Rutter is a member of the British Society of Gastroenterology. G. Antonelli, A. Bleijenberg, S. Chaussade, M. Dinis-Ribeiro, J.-M. Dumonceau, M. Ferlitsch, A. Gimeno-Garcia, C. Hassan, R. Jover, M. Kalager, C. Pox, E. Quintero, and L. Ricciardello, and C. Senore have no competing interests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background & Aims: The benefits of prophylactic clipping to prevent bleeding after polypectomy are unclear. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials to assess the efficacy of clipping in preventing bleeding after polypectomy, overall and according to polyp size and location., Methods: We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases for randomized trials that compared the effects of clipping vs not clipping to prevent bleeding after polypectomy. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to generate pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs. Multilevel random-effects metaregression analysis was used to combine data on bleeding after polypectomy and estimate associations between rates of bleeding and polyp characteristics., Results: We analyzed data from 9 trials, comprising 71897 colorectal lesions (22.5% 20 mm or larger; 49.2% with proximal location). Clipping, compared with no clipping, did not significantly reduce the overall risk of postpolypectomy bleeding (2.2% with clipping vs 3.3% with no clipping; RR, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-1.08; P = .072). Clipping significantly reduced risk of bleeding after removal of polyps that were 20 mm or larger (4.3% had bleeding after clipping vs 7.6% had bleeding with no clipping; RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33-0.78; P = .020) or that were in a proximal location (3.0% had bleeding after clipping vs 6.2% had bleeding with no clipping; RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.81; P < .001). In multilevel metaregression analysis that adjusted for polyp size and location, prophylactic clipping was significantly associated with reduced risk of bleeding after removal of large proximal polyps (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.61; P = .021) but not small proximal lesions (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.48-1.62; P = .581)., Conclusions: In a meta-analysis of randomized trials, we found that routine use of prophylactic clipping does not reduce risk of postpolypectomy bleeding overall. However, clipping appeared to reduce bleeding after removal of large (more than 20 mm) proximal lesions., (Copyright © 2020 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE-2) has shown promising accuracy for the diagnosis of overall neoplasia. Advanced neoplasia (AN) represents the main target of colorectal cancer screening programs. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CCE-2 for the detection of AN in patients with a positive result for the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) who are undergoing screening., Methods: Patients aged 50 to 69 years with a positive result for the FIT in 4 population screening programs in Italy and Spain were enrolled. Screenees were asked to undergo CCE-2, followed by traditional colonoscopy (TC). TC was performed the same day or the following morning. Bowel preparation included a split-dose polyethylene glycol-based regimen, with sodium phosphate (NaP) with gastrografin as boosters. The CCE-2 video was read by an endoscopist blinded to the results of TC. The main outcomes were CCE-2 accuracy in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for AN when using 2 different size thresholds for TC referral (ie, polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm)., Results: Two hundred twenty-two patients were enrolled, and 178 patients completed both CCE-2 and TC (87.7%). Overall, 59 cases of AN were detected at TC. CCE-2 sensitivity was 90%, specificity was 66.1%, PPV was 57.4%, and NPV was 92.9% for AN when using a 6-mm cut-off (TC referral rate, 52.8%) and 76.7%, 90.7%, 80.7%, and 88.4% when using a 10-mm cut-off (TC referral rate, 32%), respectively. CCE-2 detected that 8 of 9 already developed colorectal cancers. Among the 41 false positives at the 6-mm cut-off, 34 (82.9%) presented with a nonadvanced adenoma at TC. Mean transit time was 4 hours and 4 minutes, and ≥70% of patients excreted the capsule within 5 hours., Conclusions: In an enriched disease setting, we showed the high sensitivity of CCE-2 for the diagnosis of AN at a 6-mm cut-off. The apparently low CCE-2 specificity is related to the choice of AN as the main outcome. (Clinical trial registration number: ISRCTN 62158762.)., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The BASIC classification for predicting in vivo colorectal polyp histology incorporates both surface and pit/vessel descriptor domains. This study aimed to define new BASIC classes for adenomatous and hyperplastic polyps., Methods: A video library (102 still images/videos of < 10-mm polyps using white-light [WLI] and blue-light imaging [BLI]) was reviewed by seven expert endoscopists. Polyps were rated according to the individual descriptors of the three BASIC domains (surface/pit/vessel). A model to predict polyp histology (adenomatous or hyperplastic) was developed using multivariable logistic regression and subsequent "leave-one-out" cross-validation. New BASIC rules were then defined by Delphi agreement. The overall accuracy of these rules when used by experts was evaluated according to the level of confidence and light type., Results: The strength of prediction for adenomatous histology from 2175 observations assessed by area under the curve (AUC; 95 % confidence interval) was poor-to-fair for the surface descriptors (0.50 [0.33 - 0.69] for mucus; 0.68 [0.57 - 0.79] for irregular surface), but stronger for pits (0.87 [0.80 - 0.96] for featureless/round/not round) and vessels (0.80 [0.65 - 0.87] for not present/lacy/pericryptal). By combining the domains, a good-to-excellent prediction was shown (AUC 0.89 [0.81 - 0.96]). After the definition of new BASIC rules for adenomatous and hyperplastic polyps, accuracy for high confidence BLI predictions was 90.3 % (86.3 % - 93.2 %), which was superior to high confidence WLI (83.7 % [77.3 % - 87.7 %]) and low confidence BLI predictions (77.7 % [61.1 % - 88.6 %])., Conclusions: Based on the strength of prediction, the new BASIC classes for adenomatous and hyperplastic histology show favorable results for accuracy and confidence levels., Competing Interests: R. Bisschops has received speaker’s fees from Pentax, Olympus, and Fujifilm, and research support from Olympus and Pentax. C. Hassan has equipment on loan from Fujifilm. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)