Artificial Intelligence-Aid Colonoscopy Vs. Conventional Colonoscopy for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Systematic Review of 7 Discordant Meta-Analyses

Objectives: Multiple meta-analyses which investigated the comparative efficacy and safety of artificial intelligence (AI)-aid colonoscopy (AIC) vs. conventional colonoscopy (CC) in the detection of polyp and adenoma have been published. However, a definitive conclusion has not yet been generated. This systematic review selected from discordant meta-analyses to draw a definitive conclusion about whether AIC is better than CC for the detection of polyp and adenoma.Methods: We comprehensively searched potentially eligible literature in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and China National Knowledgement Infrastructure (CNKI) databases from their inceptions until to April 2021. Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument was used to assess the methodological quality. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality. Two investigators independently used the Jadad decision algorithm to select high-quality meta-analyses which summarized the best available evidence.Results: Seven meta-analyses met our selection criteria finally. AMSTAR score ranged from 8 to 10, and PRISMA score ranged from 23 to 26. According to the Jadad decision algorithm, two high-quality meta-analyses were selected. These two meta-analyses suggested that AIC was superior to CC for colonoscopy outcomes, especially for polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR).Conclusion: Based on the best available evidence, we conclude that AIC should be preferentially selected for the route screening of colorectal lesions because it has potential value of increasing the polyp and adenoma detection. However, the continued improvement of AIC in differentiating the shape and pathology of colorectal lesions is needed.

Preoperative Localization in Colonic Surgery (PLoCoS Study): a multicentric experience on behalf of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR)

The aim of this prospective multicentric study was to compare the accurate colonic lesion localization ratio between CT and colonoscopy in comparison with surgery. All consecutive patients from 1st January to 31st December 2019 with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of dysplastic adenoma or adenocarcinoma with planned elective, curative colonic resection who underwent both colonoscopy and CT scans were included. Each patient underwent conventional colonoscopy and CT to stage the tumour, and the localization results of each procedure were registered. CT and colonoscopic localization were compared with surgical localization, adopted as the reference. Our analysis included 745 patients from 23 centres. After comparing the accuracy of colonoscopy and CT (for visible lesions) in localizing colonic lesions, no significant differences were found between the two preoperative tools (510/661 vs 499/661 correctly localized lesions, p = 0.518). Furthermore, after analysing only the patients who underwent complete colonoscopy and had a visible lesion on CT, no significant difference was observed between conventional colonoscopy and CT (331/427 vs 340/427, p = 0.505). Considering the intraoperative localization results as a reference, a comparison between colonoscopy and CT showed that colonoscopy significantly failed to correctly locate the lesions localized in the descending colon (17/32 vs 26/32, p = 0.031). We did not identify an advantage in using CT to localize colonic tumours. In this setting, colonoscopy should be considered the reference to properly localize lesions; however, to better identify lesions in the descending colon, CT could be considered a valuable tool to improve the accuracy of lesion localization.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Preferences for Colon Capsule Endoscopy and Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Colon capsule endoscopy as an alternative to colonoscopy for the diagnosis of colonic disease may serve as a less invasive and more tolerable investigation for patients. Our aim was to examine patient-reported outcomes for colon capsule endoscopy compared to conventional optical colonoscopy including preference of investigation modality, tolerability and adverse events. A systematic literature search was conducted in Web of Science, PubMed and Embase. Search results were thoroughly screened for in- and exclusion criteria. Included studies underwent assessment of transparency and completeness, after which, data for meta-analysis were extracted. Pooled estimates of patient preference were calculated and heterogeneity was examined including univariate meta-regressions. Patient-reported tolerability and adverse events were reviewed. Out of fourteen included studies, twelve had investigated patient-reported outcomes in patients who had undergone both investigations, whereas in two the patients were randomized between investigations. Pooled patient preferences were estimated to be 52% (CI 95%: 41–63%) for colon capsule endoscopy and 45% (CI 95%: 33–57%) for conventional colonoscopy: not indicating a significant difference. Procedural adverse events were rarely reported by patients for either investigation. The tolerability was high for both colon capsule endoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Patient preferences for conventional colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy were not significantly different. Procedural adverse events were rare and the tolerability for colon capsule endoscopy was consistently reported higher or equal to that of conventional colonoscopy.

Efficacy of Combination Colonoscopy Using Modified Cap-assisted and Water-exchange Colonoscopy with Prone Position in the Detection of Colorectal Adenomas: A Retrospective Study

Background: The efficacy of cap-assisted and water-exchange colonoscopy for adenoma detection, individually or in combination, is well documented but the efficacy of the combination colonoscopy using the above methods with prone position for adenoma detection is unclear. We compared the effectiveness of the combination colonoscopy using modified cap-assisted and water-exchange colonoscopy with prone position (CWP) and conventional colonoscopy (CC) for adenoma detection.Methods: A total of 746 patients who underwent either CWP or CC, performed by two board-certified gastroenterologists between December 2019 and March 2020, were investigated retrospectively. Cap-assisted colonoscopy was modified using hooking and dragging maneuver. We evaluated the polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), and mean number of adenomas detected per procedure (MAP). Results: There was no significant difference in sex, age, the indication of colonoscopy and quality of bowel preparation between the two groups. The PDR, ADR, and proximal MAP were significantly higher in the CWP group than the CC group (PDR: 84.9% vs. 59.8%, P < 0.001; ADR: 70.1%, vs. 49.2%, P < 0.001; proximal MAP: 1.24 vs. 0.55, P < 0.001). Amongst males, total and proximal MAP were significantly higher in the CWP group than the CC group, respectively (2.28 ± 2.24 vs. 1.49 ± 1.92, P < 0.001; 1.73 ± 1.98 vs. 0.74 ± 1.21, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Combination colonoscopy is more effective than conventional colonoscopy for the PDR, ADR, and proximal MAP. Further studies assessing the synergistic or complementary effects of the combination are needed.

Scoring Systems for Clinical Colon Capsule Endoscopy—All You Need to Know

In the constantly developing era of minimal diagnostic invasiveness, the role of colon capsule endoscopy in colonic examination is being increasingly recognised, especially in the context of curtailed endoscopy services due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is a safe diagnostic tool with low adverse event rates. As with other endoscopic modalities, various colon capsule endoscopy scores allow the standardisation of reporting and reproducibility. As bowel cleanliness affects CCE’s diagnostic yield, a few operator-dependent scores (Leighton–Rex and CC-CLEAR scores) and a computer-dependent score (CAC score) have been developed to grade bowel cleanliness objectively. CCE can be used to monitor IBD mucosal disease activity through the UCEIS and the panenteric CECDAIic score for UC and CD, respectively. CCE may also have a role in CRC screening, given similar sensitivity and specificity rates to conventional colonoscopy to detect colonic polyps ≥ 10 mm and CRC. Given CCE’s diagnostic yield and reproducible clinical scores with high inter-observer agreements, CCE is fast becoming a suitable alternative to conventional colonoscopy in specific patient populations.