Computer aided detection and diagnosis of polyps in adult patients undergoing colonoscopy: a living clinical practice guideline

The BMJ Pub Date : 2025-03-27 DOI:10.1136/bmj-2024-082656
Farid Foroutan, Per Olav Vandvik, Lise M Helsingen, Mette Kalager, Matt Rutter, Kevin Selby, Nastazja Dagny Pilonis, Joseph C Anderson, Annette McKinnon, Jonathan M Fuchs, Casey Quinlan, Maaike Buskermolen, Carlo Senore, Pu Wang, Joseph J Y Sung, Ulrike Haug, Silje Bjerkelund, Konstantinos Triantafyllou, Dennis L Shung, Natalie Halvorsen, Thomas McGinn, Tandekile Lubelwana Hafver, Valerie Reinthaler, Gordon Guyatt, Thomas Agoritsas, Shahnaz Sultan
{"title":"Computer aided detection and diagnosis of polyps in adult patients undergoing colonoscopy: a living clinical practice guideline","authors":"Farid Foroutan, Per Olav Vandvik, Lise M Helsingen, Mette Kalager, Matt Rutter, Kevin Selby, Nastazja Dagny Pilonis, Joseph C Anderson, Annette McKinnon, Jonathan M Fuchs, Casey Quinlan, Maaike Buskermolen, Carlo Senore, Pu Wang, Joseph J Y Sung, Ulrike Haug, Silje Bjerkelund, Konstantinos Triantafyllou, Dennis L Shung, Natalie Halvorsen, Thomas McGinn, Tandekile Lubelwana Hafver, Valerie Reinthaler, Gordon Guyatt, Thomas Agoritsas, Shahnaz Sultan","doi":"10.1136/bmj-2024-082656","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Clinical question In adult patients undergoing colonoscopy for any indication (screening, surveillance, follow-up of positive faecal immunochemical testing, or gastrointestinal symptoms such as blood in the stools) what are the benefits and harms of computer-aided detection (CADe)? Context and current practice Colorectal cancer (CRC), the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death globally, typically arises from adenomatous polyps. Detection and removal of polyps during colonoscopy can reduce the risk of cancer. CADe systems use artificial intelligence (AI) to assist endoscopists by analysing real-time colonoscopy images to detect potential polyps. Despite their increasing use in clinical practice, guideline recommendations that carefully balance all patient-important outcomes remain unavailable. In this first iteration of a living guideline, we address the use of CADe at the level of an individual patient. Evidence Evidence for this recommendation is drawn from a living systematic review of 44 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving more than 30 000 participants and a companion microsimulation study simulating 10 year follow-up for 100 000 individuals aged 60-69 years to assess the impact of CADe on patient-important outcomes. While no direct evidence was found for critical outcomes of colorectal cancer incidence and post-colonoscopy cancer incidence, low certainty data from the trials indicate that CADe may increase positive endoscopy findings. The microsimulation modelling, however, suggests little to no effect on CRC incidence, CRC-related mortality, or colonoscopy-related complications (perforation and bleeding) over the 10 year follow-up period, although low certainty evidence indicates CADe may increase the number of colonoscopies performed per patient. A review of values and preferences identified that patients value mortality reduction and quality of care but worry about increased anxiety, overdiagnosis, and more frequent surveillance. Recommendation For adults who have agreed to undergo colonoscopy, we suggest against the routine use of CADe (weak recommendation). How this guideline was created An international panel, including three patient partners, 11 healthcare providers, and seven methodologists, deemed by MAGIC and The BMJ to have no relevant competing interests, developed this recommendation. For this guideline the panel took an individual patient approach. The panel started by defining the clinical question in PICO format, and prioritised outcomes including CRC incidence and mortality. Based on the linked systematic review and microsimulation study, the panel sought to balance the benefits, harms, and burdens of CADe and assumed patient preferences when making this recommendation Understanding the recommendation The guideline panel found the benefits of CADe on critical outcomes, such as CRC incidence and post-colonoscopy cancer incidence, over a 10 year follow up period to be highly uncertain. Low certainty evidence suggests little to no impact on CRC-related mortality, while the potential burdens—including more frequent surveillance colonoscopies—are likely to affect many patients. Given the small and uncertain benefits and the likelihood of burdens, the panel issued a weak recommendation against routine CADe use. The panel acknowledges the anticipated variability in values and preferences among patients and clinicians when considering these uncertain benefits and potential burdens. In healthcare settings where CADe is available, individual decision making may be appropriate. Updates This is the first iteration of a living practice guideline. The panel will update this living guideline if ongoing evidence surveillance identifies new CADe trial data that substantially alters our conclusions about CRC incidence, mortality, or burdens, or studies that increase our certainty in values and preferences of individual patients. Updates will provide recommendations on the use of CADe from a healthcare systems perspective (including resource use, acceptability, feasibility, and equity), as well as the combined use of CADe and computer aided diagnosis (CADx). Users can access the latest guideline version and supporting evidence on MAGICapp, with updates periodically published in The BMJ .","PeriodicalId":22388,"journal":{"name":"The BMJ","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The BMJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-082656","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Clinical question In adult patients undergoing colonoscopy for any indication (screening, surveillance, follow-up of positive faecal immunochemical testing, or gastrointestinal symptoms such as blood in the stools) what are the benefits and harms of computer-aided detection (CADe)? Context and current practice Colorectal cancer (CRC), the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death globally, typically arises from adenomatous polyps. Detection and removal of polyps during colonoscopy can reduce the risk of cancer. CADe systems use artificial intelligence (AI) to assist endoscopists by analysing real-time colonoscopy images to detect potential polyps. Despite their increasing use in clinical practice, guideline recommendations that carefully balance all patient-important outcomes remain unavailable. In this first iteration of a living guideline, we address the use of CADe at the level of an individual patient. Evidence Evidence for this recommendation is drawn from a living systematic review of 44 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving more than 30 000 participants and a companion microsimulation study simulating 10 year follow-up for 100 000 individuals aged 60-69 years to assess the impact of CADe on patient-important outcomes. While no direct evidence was found for critical outcomes of colorectal cancer incidence and post-colonoscopy cancer incidence, low certainty data from the trials indicate that CADe may increase positive endoscopy findings. The microsimulation modelling, however, suggests little to no effect on CRC incidence, CRC-related mortality, or colonoscopy-related complications (perforation and bleeding) over the 10 year follow-up period, although low certainty evidence indicates CADe may increase the number of colonoscopies performed per patient. A review of values and preferences identified that patients value mortality reduction and quality of care but worry about increased anxiety, overdiagnosis, and more frequent surveillance. Recommendation For adults who have agreed to undergo colonoscopy, we suggest against the routine use of CADe (weak recommendation). How this guideline was created An international panel, including three patient partners, 11 healthcare providers, and seven methodologists, deemed by MAGIC and The BMJ to have no relevant competing interests, developed this recommendation. For this guideline the panel took an individual patient approach. The panel started by defining the clinical question in PICO format, and prioritised outcomes including CRC incidence and mortality. Based on the linked systematic review and microsimulation study, the panel sought to balance the benefits, harms, and burdens of CADe and assumed patient preferences when making this recommendation Understanding the recommendation The guideline panel found the benefits of CADe on critical outcomes, such as CRC incidence and post-colonoscopy cancer incidence, over a 10 year follow up period to be highly uncertain. Low certainty evidence suggests little to no impact on CRC-related mortality, while the potential burdens—including more frequent surveillance colonoscopies—are likely to affect many patients. Given the small and uncertain benefits and the likelihood of burdens, the panel issued a weak recommendation against routine CADe use. The panel acknowledges the anticipated variability in values and preferences among patients and clinicians when considering these uncertain benefits and potential burdens. In healthcare settings where CADe is available, individual decision making may be appropriate. Updates This is the first iteration of a living practice guideline. The panel will update this living guideline if ongoing evidence surveillance identifies new CADe trial data that substantially alters our conclusions about CRC incidence, mortality, or burdens, or studies that increase our certainty in values and preferences of individual patients. Updates will provide recommendations on the use of CADe from a healthcare systems perspective (including resource use, acceptability, feasibility, and equity), as well as the combined use of CADe and computer aided diagnosis (CADx). Users can access the latest guideline version and supporting evidence on MAGICapp, with updates periodically published in The BMJ .
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
成年结肠镜检查患者息肉的计算机辅助检测和诊断:一个活生生的临床实践指南
临床问题对于接受结肠镜检查的任何适应症(筛查、监测、粪便免疫化学检测阳性的随访或大便带血等胃肠道症状)的成年患者,计算机辅助检测(CADe)的益处和危害是什么?背景和当前实践结直肠癌(CRC)是全球第三大常见癌症和第二大癌症相关死亡原因,通常由腺瘤性息肉引起。在结肠镜检查中发现和切除息肉可以降低患癌症的风险。CADe系统使用人工智能(AI)通过分析实时结肠镜检查图像来帮助内窥镜医生检测潜在的息肉。尽管它们在临床实践中的应用越来越多,但仍然没有仔细平衡所有患者重要结果的指南建议。在生活指南的第一次迭代中,我们在个体患者的水平上处理CADe的使用。这一建议的证据来自44项随机对照试验(RCTs)的实时系统评价,涉及3万多名参与者,以及一项伴随的微观模拟研究,模拟10万名年龄在60-69岁之间的个体的10年随访,以评估CADe对患者重要结局的影响。虽然没有直接证据表明结直肠癌发病率和结肠镜检查后癌症发病率的关键结果,但来自试验的低确定性数据表明,CADe可能会增加内镜检查的阳性结果。然而,微观模拟模型显示,在10年的随访期间,CADe对CRC发病率、CRC相关死亡率或结肠镜相关并发症(穿孔和出血)几乎没有影响,尽管低确定性证据表明CADe可能会增加每位患者进行结肠镜检查的次数。对价值观和偏好的回顾发现,患者重视降低死亡率和护理质量,但担心增加焦虑、过度诊断和更频繁的监测。对于同意接受结肠镜检查的成年人,我们不建议常规使用CADe(弱推荐)。一个国际小组,包括3名患者合作伙伴、11名医疗保健提供者和7名方法学家,被MAGIC和BMJ认为没有相关的竞争利益,制定了这一建议。对于这一指南,专家组采取了个别患者的方法。该小组首先以PICO格式定义临床问题,并优先考虑包括CRC发病率和死亡率在内的结果。在相关的系统评价和微观模拟研究的基础上,专家组试图平衡CADe的益处、危害和负担,并在提出这一建议时假设了患者的偏好。指南专家组发现,在10年随访期间,CADe对关键结局(如CRC发病率和结肠镜检查后癌症发病率)的益处是高度不确定的。低确定性证据表明,对crc相关死亡率几乎没有影响,而潜在的负担——包括更频繁的结肠镜检查——可能会影响许多患者。考虑到小而不确定的益处和可能带来的负担,专家组发布了一个不太有力的建议,反对常规使用CADe。专家组承认,在考虑这些不确定的益处和潜在负担时,患者和临床医生之间的价值观和偏好可能存在差异。在可使用CADe的医疗保健环境中,个人决策可能是合适的。这是生活实践指南的第一次迭代。如果正在进行的证据监测发现新的CADe试验数据实质性地改变了我们关于CRC发病率、死亡率或负担的结论,或者研究增加了我们对个体患者价值和偏好的确定性,专家组将更新本生活指南。更新将从医疗保健系统的角度(包括资源利用、可接受性、可行性和公平性)提供关于CADe使用的建议,以及CADe和计算机辅助诊断(CADx)的联合使用。用户可以在MAGICapp上访问最新的指南版本和支持证据,并定期在BMJ上发布更新。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Consultants demand action to protect their freedom of speech in wake of Abu-Sitta case. Iran: WHO calls for protection for health workers as conflict sweeps the Middle East. UKRI's funding reforms: universities and researchers should be valued collaborators, not an afterthought. NHS England defines "corridor care" for first time. Trump's glyphosate order infuriates MAHA movement, leaving RFK Jr exposed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1