Cited by 415Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionAI in cancer detectionColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments

Effect of a deep-learning computer-aided detection system on adenoma detection during colonoscopy (CADe-DB trial): a double-blind randomised study

Wang, Pu, Liu, Xiaogang, Berzin, Tyler M, Glissen Brown, Jeremy R, Liu, Peixi, Zhou, Chao, Lei, Lei, Li, Liangping +7 more·2020·The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology

Abstract

Background Colonoscopy with computer-aided detection (CADe) has been shown in non-blinded trials to improve detection of colon polyps and adenomas by providing visual alarms during the procedure. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a CADe system that avoids potential operational bias.Methods We did a double-blind randomised trial at the endoscopy centre in Caotang branch hospital of Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital in China. We enrolled consecutive patients (aged 18-75 years) presenting for diagnostic and screening colonoscopy. We excluded patients with a history of inflammatory bowel disease, colorectal cancer, or colorectal surgery or who had a contraindication for biopsy; we also excluded patients who had previously had an unsuccessful colonoscopy and who had a high suspicion for polyposis syndromes, inflammatory bowel disease, and colorectal cancer. We allocated patients (1:1) to colonoscopy with either the CADe system or a sham system. Randomisation was by computer-generated random number allocation. Patients and the endoscopist were unaware of the random assignment. To achieve masking, the output of the system was shown on a second monitor that was only visible to an observer who was responsible for reporting the alerts. The primary outcome was the adenoma detection rate (ADR), which is the proportion of individuals having a complete colonoscopy, from caecum to rectum, who had one or more adenomas detected. The primary analysis was per protocol. We also analysed characteristics of polyps and adenomas missed initially by endoscopists but detected by the CADe system. This trial is complete and is registered with http://www.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR1800017675.Findings Between Sept 3, 2018, and Jan 11, 2019, 1046 patients were enrolled to the study, of whom 36 were excluded before randomisation, 508 were allocated colonoscopy with polyp detection using the CADe system, and 502 were allocated colonoscopy with the sham system. After further excluding patients who met exclusion criteria, 484 patients in the CADe group and 478 in the sham group were included in analyses. The ADR was significantly greater in the CADe group than in the sham group, with 165 (34%) of 484 patients allocated to the CADe system having one or more adenomas detected versus 132 (28%) of 478 allocated to the sham system (odds ratio 1·36, 95% CI 1·03-1·79; p=0·030). No complications were reported among all colonoscopy procedures. Polyps initially missed by the endoscopist but identified by the CADe system were generally small in size, isochromatic, flat in shape, had an unclear boundary, were partly behind colon folds, and were on the edge of the visual field.Interpretation Polyps initially missed by the endoscopist had characteristics that are sometimes difficult for skilled endoscopists to recognise. Such polyps could be detected using a high-performance CADe system during colonoscopy. The effect of CADe during colonoscopy on the incidence of interval colorectal cancer should be investigated.Funding None.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2468-1253(19)30411-x

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, P., Liu, X., Berzin, T. M., Glissen Brown, J. R., Liu, P., Zhou, C., Lei, L., Li, L., Guo, Z., Lei, S., Xiong, F., Wang, H., Song, Y., Pan, Y., & Zhou, G.
Affiliations
  • Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital (CN)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Zhou, Guanyu
Venue
The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-04
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
343-351
ISSN
  • 2468-1156 (ISSN-L)
  • 2468-1253
OpenAlex
W3001365238
Cited by
415
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 55
FWCI
24.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2020-04-01)
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Keywords
computer-aided detection, colonoscopy, colorectal adenoma detection, deep learning, polyp detection, colorectal cancer screening, missed adenomas, colorectal cancer prevention, colorectal polyps, colorectal cancer screening guidelines
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Adenoma, Adult, China, Colonic Polyps, Colonoscopy, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Colorectal Neoplasms, Observer Variation, Incidence, Case-Control Studies, Early Diagnosis, Clinical Alarms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review