No Effect of Computer Aided Diagnosis on Colonoscopic Adenoma Detection in a Large Pragmatic Multicenter Randomized Study.

Katharina Zimmermann-Fraedrich,Susanne Sehner,Thomas Rösch,Jens Aschenbeck,Stefan Schubert,Thomas Liceni,Gero Moog,Helmut Neumann,Rüdiger Berndt,Jochen Weigt,Dominik J Kaczmarek,Andrea May,Albrecht Hoffmeister,Oliver Möschler,Christian Wiessner,Guido Schachschal
{"title":"No Effect of Computer Aided Diagnosis on Colonoscopic Adenoma Detection in a Large Pragmatic Multicenter Randomized Study.","authors":"Katharina Zimmermann-Fraedrich,Susanne Sehner,Thomas Rösch,Jens Aschenbeck,Stefan Schubert,Thomas Liceni,Gero Moog,Helmut Neumann,Rüdiger Berndt,Jochen Weigt,Dominik J Kaczmarek,Andrea May,Albrecht Hoffmeister,Oliver Möschler,Christian Wiessner,Guido Schachschal","doi":"10.14309/ajg.0000000000003500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION\r\nMultiple randomized studies have demonstrated that computer-assisted detection (CADe) improves the colonoscopic adenoma detection rate (ADR); however, these improvements have not been consistently reproduced in some more recent studies.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nPatients aged ≥50 years undergoing outpatient colonoscopy in 12 German institutions were randomized to either the CADe group or the control group. The primary outcome parameter was the adenoma detection rate (ADR), while secondary outcomes included the adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) rate, detection rates of different histologic subgroups, and adverse events. The median examiner-specific observed rates and examiner-adjusted rates were compared between treatment groups.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\n1627 patients were included (mean age 63.1 years, 39.8% female; 71.% screening indications). The observed median examiner ADR was 40.0% (inter-quartile range IQR 20.0-57.1%) in the study vs. 37.5% (IQR 20.0-50.0%) in the control group. Similarly, adjusted overall ADR was 40.6 % (95%CI: 35.8%, 45.5%) in the study and 38.3% (95%CI: 33.5%, 43.1%) in the control group. No differences were observed in APC or any of the adenoma subgroups with regards to size, morphology, location, and histology as well as colonoscopy indication. The examiner had a large influence on ADR (adjusted median odds ratio/OR 1.32), similar to patient age (OR per 10-years increase 1.40, 95%CI: 1.23, 1.59) and sex (OR 1.62, 95%CI: 1.30, 2.04). On the other hand, more hyperplastic polyps were found by CADe (OR for adjusted HDR = 1.29; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.63; p=0.033).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nIn patients over the age of 50 with mixed colonoscopy indications, CADe did not increase the adenoma detection rate. Further studies should define the requirements for selective CADe use in routine clinical practice, particularly in relation to the examiner's baseline ADR.","PeriodicalId":520099,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Gastroenterology","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000003500","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Multiple randomized studies have demonstrated that computer-assisted detection (CADe) improves the colonoscopic adenoma detection rate (ADR); however, these improvements have not been consistently reproduced in some more recent studies. METHODS Patients aged ≥50 years undergoing outpatient colonoscopy in 12 German institutions were randomized to either the CADe group or the control group. The primary outcome parameter was the adenoma detection rate (ADR), while secondary outcomes included the adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) rate, detection rates of different histologic subgroups, and adverse events. The median examiner-specific observed rates and examiner-adjusted rates were compared between treatment groups. RESULTS 1627 patients were included (mean age 63.1 years, 39.8% female; 71.% screening indications). The observed median examiner ADR was 40.0% (inter-quartile range IQR 20.0-57.1%) in the study vs. 37.5% (IQR 20.0-50.0%) in the control group. Similarly, adjusted overall ADR was 40.6 % (95%CI: 35.8%, 45.5%) in the study and 38.3% (95%CI: 33.5%, 43.1%) in the control group. No differences were observed in APC or any of the adenoma subgroups with regards to size, morphology, location, and histology as well as colonoscopy indication. The examiner had a large influence on ADR (adjusted median odds ratio/OR 1.32), similar to patient age (OR per 10-years increase 1.40, 95%CI: 1.23, 1.59) and sex (OR 1.62, 95%CI: 1.30, 2.04). On the other hand, more hyperplastic polyps were found by CADe (OR for adjusted HDR = 1.29; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.63; p=0.033). CONCLUSIONS In patients over the age of 50 with mixed colonoscopy indications, CADe did not increase the adenoma detection rate. Further studies should define the requirements for selective CADe use in routine clinical practice, particularly in relation to the examiner's baseline ADR.
在一项大型实用多中心随机研究中,计算机辅助诊断对结肠镜腺瘤检测无影响。
多个随机研究表明,计算机辅助检测(CADe)提高了结肠镜下腺瘤的检出率(ADR);然而,在最近的一些研究中,这些改进并没有得到一致的再现。方法年龄≥50岁的患者在12家德国机构接受门诊结肠镜检查,随机分为CADe组和对照组。主要转归参数为腺瘤检出率(ADR),次要转归参数包括每肠镜检查腺瘤(APC)率、不同组织学亚组的检出率和不良事件。比较两组间审查员特异性观察率和审查员调整率的中位数。结果共纳入1627例患者,平均年龄63.1岁,女性占39.8%;71.%筛选适应症)。观察到的审查员不良反应中位数为40.0%(四分位数范围IQR 20.0-57.1%),对照组为37.5%(四分位数范围IQR 20.0-50.0%)。同样,研究中调整后的总不良反应为40.6% (95%CI: 35.8%, 45.5%),对照组为38.3% (95%CI: 33.5%, 43.1%)。在APC或任何腺瘤亚组中,在大小、形态、位置、组织学以及结肠镜适应症方面没有观察到差异。审查员对不良反应有很大的影响(调整中位优势比/OR 1.32),类似于患者年龄(OR每10年增加1.40,95%CI: 1.23, 1.59)和性别(OR 1.62, 95%CI: 1.30, 2.04)。另一方面,CADe检查发现增生性息肉较多(调整后HDR OR = 1.29;95% ci: 1.02, 1.63;p = 0.033)。结论在50岁以上混合结肠镜适应症患者中,CADe并没有提高腺瘤的检出率。进一步的研究应该确定在常规临床实践中选择性使用CADe的要求,特别是与审查员的基线不良反应有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信