Cited by 62Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionAI in cancer detectionColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments

Effect of Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection of Colorectal Adenoma in Routine Colonoscopy (COLO-GENIUS): A Single-Centre Randomised Controlled Trial

Karsenti, David, Tharsis, Gaëlle, Perrot, Bastien, Cattan, Philippe, Percie du Sert, Alice, Venezia, Franck, Zrihen, Elie, Gillet, Agnès +3 more·2023·The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology

Abstract

Background Artificial intelligence systems have been developed to improve polyp detection. We aimed to evaluate the effect of real-time computer-aided detection (CADe) on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in routine colonoscopy.Methods This single-centre randomised controlled trial (COLO-GENIUS) was done at the Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Pôle Digestif Paris-Bercy, Clinique Paris-Bercy, Charenton-le-Pont, France. All consecutive individuals aged 18 years or older who were scheduled for a total colonoscopy and had an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 1-3 were screened for inclusion. After the caecum was reached and the colonic preparation was appropriate, eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1; computer-generated random numbers list) to either standard colonoscopy or CADe-assisted colonoscopy (GI Genius 2.0.2; Medtronic). Participants and cytopathologists were masked to study assignment, whereas endoscopists were not. The primary outcome was ADR, which was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned participants except those with misplaced consent forms). Safety was analysed in all included patients. According to statistical calculations, 20 endoscopists from the Clinique Paris-Bercy had to include approximately 2100 participants with 1:1 randomisation. The trial is complete and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04440865.Findings Between May 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022, 2592 participants were assessed for eligibility, of whom 2039 were randomly assigned to standard colonoscopy (n=1026) or CADe-assisted colonoscopy (n=1013). 14 participants in the standard group and ten participants in the CADe group were then excluded due to misplaced consent forms, leaving 2015 participants (979 [48·6%] men and 1036 [51·4%] women) in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. ADR was 33·7% (341 of 1012 colonoscopies) in the standard group and 37·5% (376 of 1003 colonoscopies) in the CADe group (estimated mean absolute difference 4·1 percentage points [95% CI 0·0-8·1]; p=0·051). One bleeding event without deglobulisation occurred in the CADe group after a large (>2 cm) polyp resection and resolved after a haemostasis clip was placed during a second colonoscopy.Interpretation Our findings support the benefits of CADe, even in a non-academic centre. Systematic use of CADe in routine colonoscopy should be considered.Funding None.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2468-1253(23)00104-8

Cites

41 of 41 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
Karsenti, D., Tharsis, G., Perrot, B., Cattan, P., Percie du Sert, A., Venezia, F., Zrihen, E., Gillet, A., Lab, J.-P., Tordjman, G., & Cavicchi, M.
Affiliations
Inserm (FR)
Corresponding author
Karsenti, David
Venue
The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-08
Volume
8
Issue
8
Pages
726-734
ISSN
  • 2468-1156 (ISSN-L)
  • 2468-1253
OpenAlex
W4379014664
Cited by
62
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 7
FWCI
7.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
Medtronic
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, colorectal adenoma, adenoma detection rate, routine colonoscopy, artificial intelligence, GI Genius, colorectal cancer screening, colorectal polyp detection, colorectal cancer prevention, colorectal cancer risk stratification, endoscopist training
MeSH terms
Adenoma, Artificial Intelligence, Colonic Polyps, Colonoscopy, Computers, Female, Humans, Male, Colorectal Neoplasms

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