4.7 Article

Polyp detection and false-positive rates by computer-aided analysis of withdrawal-phase videos of colonoscopy of the right-sided colon segment in a randomized controlled trial comparing water exchange and air insufflation

Journal

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Volume 95, Issue 6, Pages 1198-+

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.12.020

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. VA Clinical Merit
  2. Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation [DTCRD109-E-11]
  3. Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) of Taiwan [109-2314-B-303-013]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Water exchange improves polyp detection rate and reduces false positive numbers. Computer-aided detection complements water exchange, optimizing polyp detection.
Background and Aims: Water exchange (WE) improves lesion detection but misses polyps because of human limitations. Computer-aided detection (CADe) identifies additional polyps overlooked by the colonoscopist. Additional polyp detection rate (APDR) is the proportion of patients with at least 1 additional polyp detected by CADe. The number of false positives (because of feces and air bubble) per colonoscopy (FPPC) is a major CADe limitation, which might be reduced by salvage cleaning with WE. We compared the APDR and FPPC by CADe between videos of WE and air insufflation in the right-sided colon. Methods: CADe used a convolutional neural network with transfer learning. We edited and coded withdrawal-phase videos in a randomized controlled trial that compared right-sided colon findings between air insufflation and WE. Two experienced blinded endoscopists analyzed the CADe-overlaid videos and identified additional polyps by consensus. An artifact triggered by CADe but not considered a polyp by the reviewers was defined as a false positive. The primary outcome was APDR. Results: Two hundred forty-five coded videos of colonoscopies inserted with WE (n = 123) and air insufflation (n = 122) methods were analyzed. The APDR in the WE group was significantly higher (37 [30.1%] vs 15 [12.3%], P = .001). The mean [standard deviation] FPPC related to feces (1.78 [1.67] vs 2.09 [2.09], P = .007) and bubbles (.53 [.89] vs 1.25 [2.45], P = .001) in the WE group were significantly lower. Conclusions: CADe showed significantly higher APDR and lower number of FPPC related to feces and bubbles in the WE group. The results support the hypothesis that the strengths of CADe and WE complement the weaknesses of each other in optimizing polyp detection.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available