Artificial intelligence-assisted optical diagnosis for the resect-and-discard strategy in clinical practice: the Artificial intelligence BLI Characterization (ABC) study

Abstract

Background Optical diagnosis of colonic polyps is poorly reproducible outside of high volume referral centers. The present study aimed to assess whether real-time artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted optical diagnosis is accurate enough to implement the leave-in-situ strategy for diminutive (≤ 5 mm) rectosigmoid polyps (DRSPs).

Methods Consecutive colonoscopy outpatients with ≥ 1 DRSP were included. DRSPs were categorized as adenomas or nonadenomas by the endoscopists, who had differing expertise in optical diagnosis, with the assistance of a real-time AI system (CAD-EYE). The primary end point was ≥ 90 % negative predictive value (NPV) for adenomatous histology in high confidence AI-assisted optical diagnosis of DRSPs (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable endoscopic Innovations [PIVI-1] threshold), with histopathology as the reference standard. The agreement between optical- and histology-based post-polypectomy surveillance intervals (≥ 90 %; PIVI-2 threshold) was also calculated according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United States Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) guidelines.

Results Overall 596 DRSPs were retrieved for histology in 389 patients; an AI-assisted high confidence optical diagnosis was made in 92.3 %. The NPV of AI-assisted optical diagnosis for DRSPs (PIVI-1) was 91.0 % (95 %CI 87.1 %–93.9 %). The PIVI-2 threshold was met with 97.4 % (95 %CI 95.7 %–98.9 %) and 92.6 % (95 %CI 90.0 %–95.2 %) of patients according to ESGE and USMSTF, respectively. AI-assisted optical diagnosis accuracy was significantly lower for nonexperts (82.3 %, 95 %CI 76.4 %–87.3 %) than for experts (91.9 %, 95 %CI 88.5 %–94.5 %); however, nonexperts quickly approached the performance levels of experts over time.

Conclusion AI-assisted optical diagnosis matches the required PIVI thresholds. This does not however offset the need for endoscopistsʼ high level confidence and expertise. The AI system seems to be useful, especially for nonexperts.

^* Joint first authors

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 15. Oktober 2021

Angenommen nach Revision: 13. Mai 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
13. Mai 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
12. Juli 2022

• References

• 1 Kessler WR, Imperiale TF, Klein RW. et al. A quantitative assessment of the risks and cost savings of forgoing histologic examination of diminutive polyps. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 683-691
• 2 Mori Y, Kudo SE, East JE. et al. Cost savings in colonoscopy with artificial intelligence-aided polyp diagnosis: an add-on analysis of a clinical trial (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 905-911
• 3 Ignativic A, East JE, Suzuki N. et al. Optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps at routine colonoscopy (Detect InSpect ChAracterise Resect and Discard; DISCARD trial): a prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 1171-1178
• 4 Willems P, Djinbachian R, Ditisheim S. et al. Uptake and barriers for implementation of the resect and discard strategy: an international survey. Endosc Int Open 2020; 8: E684-E692
• 5 Rees CJ, Rajasekhar PT, Wilson A. et al. Narrow band imaging optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps in routine clinical practice: the Detect Inspect Characterise Resect and Discard 2 (DISCARD 2) study. Gut 2017; 66: 887-895
• 6 Abu Dayyeh BK, Thosani N. ASGE Technology Committee. et al. ASGE Technology Committee systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the ASGE PIVI thresholds for adopting real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 502.e1-502.e16
• 7 Xu Y, Ding W, Wang Y. et al. Comparison of diagnostic performance between convolutional neural networks and human endoscopists for diagnosis of colorectal polyp: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLos One 2021; 16: e0246892
• 8 Weigt J, Repici A, Antonelli G. et al. Performance of a new integrated computer-assisted system (CADe/CADx) for detection and characterization of colorectal neoplasia. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 180-184
• 9 Chen PJ, Lin MC, Lai MJ. et al. Accurate classification of diminutive colorectal polyps using computer-aided analysis. Gastroenterology 2018; 154: 568-575
• 10 Byrne MF, Chapados N, Soudan F. et al. Real-time differentiation of adenomatous and hyperplastic diminutive colorectal polyps during analysis of unaltered videos of standard colonoscopy using a deep learning model. Gut 2019; 68: 94-100
• 11 Ozawa T, Ishihara S, Fujishiro M. et al. Automated endoscopic detection and classification of colorectal polyps using convolutional neural networks. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2020; DOI: 10.1177/1756284820910659.
• 12 Zachariah R, Samarasena J, Luba D. et al. Prediction of polyp pathology using convolutional neural networks achieves "resect and discard" thresholds. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: 138-144
• 13 Mori Y, Kudo SE, Misawa M. et al. Real-time use of artificial intelligence in identification of diminutive polyps during colonoscopy: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169: 357-366
• 14 Strobe checklists. Available from: Accessed: 20 April 2021. https://www.strobe-statement.org/index.php?id=available-checklists
• 15 Rex DK, Kahi C, O’Brien M. et al. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy PIVI (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations) on real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 419-422
• 16 Shaukat A, Kaltenbach T, Dominitz JA. et al. Endoscopic recognition and management strategies for malignant colorectal polyps: Recommendations of the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: 1751-1767
• 17 Hassan C, Antonelli G, Dumonceau JM. et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2020. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 687-700
• 18 Bisschops R, East JE, Hassan C. et al. Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline – Update 2019. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 1155-1179
• 19 Dekker E, Houven BBSL, Puig I. et al. Curriculum for optical diagnosis training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) position statement. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 899-923
• 20 Bisschops R, Hassan C, Bhandari P. et al. BASIC (BLI Adenoma Serrated International Classification) classification for colorectal polyp characterization with blue light imaging. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 211-220
• 21 Endoscopic Classification Review Group. Update on the Paris classification of superficial neoplastic lesions in the digestive tract. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 570-578
• 22 Schlemper MJ, Riddell RH, Kato Y. et al. The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Gut 2000; 47: 251-255
• 23 Simel DL, Samsa GP, Matchar DB. Likelihood ratios for continuous test results--making the clinicians' job easier or harder?. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 85-93
• 24 Feise RJ. Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment?. BMC Med Res Methodol 2002; 2: 8
• 25 Yoshida N, Inoue K, Tomita Y. et al. An analysis about the function of a new artificial intelligence, CAD EYE with the lesion recognition and diagnosis for colorectal polyps in clinical practice. Int J Colorectal Dis 2021; 36: 2237-2245
• 26 Rondonotti E, Hassan C, Andrealli A. et al. Clinical validation of BASIC classification for the resect and discard strategy for diminutive colorectal polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 2357-2365
• 27 Houwen BSSL, Hassan C, Coupé VHM. et al. Definition of competence standards for optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy position statement. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 88-99
• 28 Elston DM. Confirmation bias in medical decision making. J Am Acad Dermatol 2020; 82: 572
• 29 Glick M. Believing is seeing. J Am Dental Assoc 2017; 148: 131-132