Artificial intelligence for polyp detection during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:151
作者
Barua, Ishita [1 ,2 ]
Vinsard, Daniela Guerrero [3 ,4 ]
Jodal, Henriette C. [1 ,2 ]
Loberg, Magnus [1 ,2 ]
Kalager, Mette [1 ,2 ]
Holme, Oyvind [1 ,2 ]
Misawa, Masashi [5 ]
Bretthauer, Michael [1 ,2 ]
Mori, Yuichi [1 ,2 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Oslo, Inst Hlth & Soc, Clin Effectiveness Res Grp, Oslo, Norway
[2] Oslo Univ Hosp, Dept Transplantat Med, Oslo, Norway
[3] Univ Connecticut, Ctr Hlth, Dept Internal Med, Storrs, CT USA
[4] Mayo Clin, Dept Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Rochester, MN USA
[5] Showa Univ, Northern Yokohama Hosp, Ctr Digest Dis, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
关键词
CANCER; RISK;
D O I
10.1055/a-1201-7165
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Artificial intelligence (AI)-based polyp detection systems are used during colonoscopy with the aim of increasing lesion detection and improving colonoscopy quality. Patients and methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials to determine the value of AI-based polyp detection systems for detection of polyps and colorectal cancer. We performed systematic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Independent reviewers screened studies and assessed eligibility, certainty of evidence, and risk of bias. We compared colonoscopy with and without AI by calculating relative and absolute risks and mean differences for detection of polyps, adenomas, and colorectal cancer. Results: Five randomized trials were eligible for analysis. Colonoscopy with AI increased adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and polyp detection rates (PDRs) compared to colonoscopy without AI (values given with 95%CI). ADR with AI was 29.6% (22.2%-37.0%) versus 19.3% (12.7%-25.9%) without AI; relative risk (RR] 1.52 (1.31-1.77), with high certainty. PDR was 45.4% (41.1%-49.8%) with AI versus 30.6% (26.5%-34.6%) without AI; RR 1.48 (1.37-1.60), with high certainty. There was no difference in detection of advanced adenomas (mean advanced adenomas per colonoscopy 0.03 for each group, high certainty). Mean adenomas detected per colonoscopy was higher for small adenomas (<= 5mm) for AI versus non-AI (mean difference 0.15 [0.12-0.18]), but not for larger adenomas (>5-<= 10mm, mean difference 0.03 [0.01-0.05];>10mm, mean difference 0.01 [0.00-0.02]; high certainty). Data on cancer are unavailable. Conclusions: AI-based polyp detection systems during colonoscopy increase detection of small nonadvanced adenomas and polyps, but not of advanced adenomas.
引用
收藏
页码:277 / 284
页数:8
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]   Specific instructions for estimating unclearly reported blinding status in randomized trials were reliable and valid [J].
Akl, Elie A. ;
Sun, Xin ;
Busse, Jason W. ;
Johnston, Bradley C. ;
Briel, Matthias ;
Mulla, Sohail ;
You, John J. ;
Bassler, Dirk ;
Lamontagne, Francois ;
Vera, Claudio ;
Alshurafa, Mohamad ;
Katsios, Christina M. ;
Heels-Ansdell, Diane ;
Zhou, Qi ;
Mills, Ed ;
Guyatt, Gordon H. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2012, 65 (03) :262-267
[2]  
Berzin TM, 2020, LANCET, V395, P485, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30294-4
[3]  
CAI B, 2015, LANCET GASTROENTEROL, V9, P2073
[4]  
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, IMP AUT POL DET SYST, DOI [10.1002/central/CN-01933143/full, DOI 10.1002/CENTRAL/CN-01933143/FULL]
[5]  
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EFF COL REAL TIM DET, DOI [10.1002/central/CN-01908583/full, DOI 10.1002/CENTRAL/CN-01908583/FULL]
[6]  
Dawwas MF, 2014, NEW ENGL J MED, V370, P2539, DOI [10.1056/NEJMc1405329, 10.1056/NEJMoa1309086]
[7]  
GONG D, 2020, PLOS MED, V5, P352
[8]  
GOTTLIEB K, 2015, GUT, V15, P6
[9]   GRADE:: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations [J].
Guyatt, Gordon H. ;
Oxman, Andrew D. ;
Vist, Gunn E. ;
Kunz, Regina ;
Falck-Ytter, Yngve ;
Alonso-Coello, Pablo ;
Schuenemann, Holger J. .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2008, 336 (7650) :924-926
[10]  
Jemal A, 2010, CA-CANCER J CLIN, V60, P277, DOI [10.3322/caac.20073, 10.3322/caac.21254]