计算机辅助大肠息肉检测的临床后果。

IF 23 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Gut Pub Date : 2024-11-11 DOI:10.1136/gutjnl-2024-331943
Pieter Sinonquel, Tom Eelbode, Oliver Pech, Dominiek De Wulf, Pieter Dewint, Helmut Neumann, Giulio Antonelli, Federico Iacopini, David Tate, Arnaud Lemmers, Nastazja Dagny Pilonis, Michal Filip Kaminski, Philip Roelandt, Cesare Hassan, Demedts Ingrid, Frederik Maes, Raf Bisschops
{"title":"计算机辅助大肠息肉检测的临床后果。","authors":"Pieter Sinonquel, Tom Eelbode, Oliver Pech, Dominiek De Wulf, Pieter Dewint, Helmut Neumann, Giulio Antonelli, Federico Iacopini, David Tate, Arnaud Lemmers, Nastazja Dagny Pilonis, Michal Filip Kaminski, Philip Roelandt, Cesare Hassan, Demedts Ingrid, Frederik Maes, Raf Bisschops","doi":"10.1136/gutjnl-2024-331943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>Randomised trials show improved polyp detection with computer-aided detection (CADe), mostly of small lesions. However, operator and selection bias may affect CADe's true benefit. Clinical outcomes of increased detection have not yet been fully elucidated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this multicentre trial, CADe combining convolutional and recurrent neural networks was used for polyp detection. Blinded endoscopists were monitored in real time by a second observer with CADe access. CADe detections prompted reinspection. Adenoma detection rates (ADR) and polyp detection rates were measured prestudy and poststudy. Histological assessments were done by independent histopathologists. The primary outcome compared polyp detection between endoscopists and CADe.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 946 patients (51.9% male, mean age 64), a total of 2141 polyps were identified, including 989 adenomas. CADe was not superior to human polyp detection (sensitivity 94.6% vs 96.0%) but outperformed them when restricted to adenomas. Unblinding led to an additional yield of 86 true positive polyp detections (1.1% ADR increase per patient; 73.8% were <5 mm). CADe also increased non-neoplastic polyp detection by an absolute value of 4.9% of the cases (1.8% increase of entire polyp load). Procedure time increased with 6.6±6.5 min (+42.6%). In 22/946 patients, the additional detection of adenomas changed surveillance intervals (2.3%), mostly by increasing the number of small adenomas beyond the cut-off.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Even if CADe appears to be slightly more sensitive than human endoscopists, the additional gain in ADR was minimal and follow-up intervals rarely changed. Additional inspection of non-neoplastic lesions was increased, adding to the inspection and/or polypectomy workload.</p>","PeriodicalId":12825,"journal":{"name":"Gut","volume":" ","pages":"1974-1983"},"PeriodicalIF":23.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical consequences of computer-aided colorectal polyp detection.\",\"authors\":\"Pieter Sinonquel, Tom Eelbode, Oliver Pech, Dominiek De Wulf, Pieter Dewint, Helmut Neumann, Giulio Antonelli, Federico Iacopini, David Tate, Arnaud Lemmers, Nastazja Dagny Pilonis, Michal Filip Kaminski, Philip Roelandt, Cesare Hassan, Demedts Ingrid, Frederik Maes, Raf Bisschops\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/gutjnl-2024-331943\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>Randomised trials show improved polyp detection with computer-aided detection (CADe), mostly of small lesions. However, operator and selection bias may affect CADe's true benefit. Clinical outcomes of increased detection have not yet been fully elucidated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this multicentre trial, CADe combining convolutional and recurrent neural networks was used for polyp detection. Blinded endoscopists were monitored in real time by a second observer with CADe access. CADe detections prompted reinspection. Adenoma detection rates (ADR) and polyp detection rates were measured prestudy and poststudy. Histological assessments were done by independent histopathologists. The primary outcome compared polyp detection between endoscopists and CADe.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 946 patients (51.9% male, mean age 64), a total of 2141 polyps were identified, including 989 adenomas. CADe was not superior to human polyp detection (sensitivity 94.6% vs 96.0%) but outperformed them when restricted to adenomas. Unblinding led to an additional yield of 86 true positive polyp detections (1.1% ADR increase per patient; 73.8% were <5 mm). CADe also increased non-neoplastic polyp detection by an absolute value of 4.9% of the cases (1.8% increase of entire polyp load). Procedure time increased with 6.6±6.5 min (+42.6%). In 22/946 patients, the additional detection of adenomas changed surveillance intervals (2.3%), mostly by increasing the number of small adenomas beyond the cut-off.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Even if CADe appears to be slightly more sensitive than human endoscopists, the additional gain in ADR was minimal and follow-up intervals rarely changed. Additional inspection of non-neoplastic lesions was increased, adding to the inspection and/or polypectomy workload.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12825,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gut\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1974-1983\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":23.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gut\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2024-331943\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gut","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2024-331943","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:随机试验显示,计算机辅助检测(CADe)提高了息肉的检出率,主要是对小病灶的检出率。然而,操作者和选择偏差可能会影响 CADe 的真正效益。提高检测率的临床效果尚未完全阐明:在这项多中心试验中,结合卷积和递归神经网络的 CADe 被用于息肉检测。盲法内镜医师由另一名可访问 CADe 的观察者进行实时监控。CADe 的检测结果会提示重新检查。腺瘤检出率(ADR)和息肉检出率分别在研究前和研究后进行测量。组织学评估由独立的组织病理学家完成。主要结果是比较内镜医师和 CADe 的息肉检出率:结果:946 名患者(51.9% 为男性,平均年龄 64 岁)共发现 2141 个息肉,其中包括 989 个腺瘤。CADe在息肉检测方面并不优于人体息肉检测(灵敏度为94.6%对96.0%),但如果仅限于腺瘤,CADe的检测结果则优于人体息肉检测。取消盲法可额外检测出 86 个真正阳性的息肉(每个患者的 ADR 增加 1.1%;73.8% 为结肠癌):即使 CADe 似乎比人类内镜医师的灵敏度略高,但在 ADR 方面的额外收益微乎其微,随访间隔也很少发生变化。对非肿瘤病变的额外检查有所增加,增加了检查和/或息肉切除术的工作量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Clinical consequences of computer-aided colorectal polyp detection.

Background and aim: Randomised trials show improved polyp detection with computer-aided detection (CADe), mostly of small lesions. However, operator and selection bias may affect CADe's true benefit. Clinical outcomes of increased detection have not yet been fully elucidated.

Methods: In this multicentre trial, CADe combining convolutional and recurrent neural networks was used for polyp detection. Blinded endoscopists were monitored in real time by a second observer with CADe access. CADe detections prompted reinspection. Adenoma detection rates (ADR) and polyp detection rates were measured prestudy and poststudy. Histological assessments were done by independent histopathologists. The primary outcome compared polyp detection between endoscopists and CADe.

Results: In 946 patients (51.9% male, mean age 64), a total of 2141 polyps were identified, including 989 adenomas. CADe was not superior to human polyp detection (sensitivity 94.6% vs 96.0%) but outperformed them when restricted to adenomas. Unblinding led to an additional yield of 86 true positive polyp detections (1.1% ADR increase per patient; 73.8% were <5 mm). CADe also increased non-neoplastic polyp detection by an absolute value of 4.9% of the cases (1.8% increase of entire polyp load). Procedure time increased with 6.6±6.5 min (+42.6%). In 22/946 patients, the additional detection of adenomas changed surveillance intervals (2.3%), mostly by increasing the number of small adenomas beyond the cut-off.

Conclusion: Even if CADe appears to be slightly more sensitive than human endoscopists, the additional gain in ADR was minimal and follow-up intervals rarely changed. Additional inspection of non-neoplastic lesions was increased, adding to the inspection and/or polypectomy workload.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Gut
Gut 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
45.70
自引率
2.40%
发文量
284
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Gut is a renowned international journal specializing in gastroenterology and hepatology, known for its high-quality clinical research covering the alimentary tract, liver, biliary tree, and pancreas. It offers authoritative and current coverage across all aspects of gastroenterology and hepatology, featuring articles on emerging disease mechanisms and innovative diagnostic and therapeutic approaches authored by leading experts. As the flagship journal of BMJ's gastroenterology portfolio, Gut is accompanied by two companion journals: Frontline Gastroenterology, focusing on education and practice-oriented papers, and BMJ Open Gastroenterology for open access original research.
期刊最新文献
Correction: The road to a world-unified approach to the management of patients with gastric intestinal metaplasia: a review of current guidelines Divergent lineage trajectories and genetic landscapes in human gastric intestinal metaplasia organoids associated with early neoplastic progression Faecal phageome transplantation alleviates intermittent intestinal inflammation in IBD and the timing of transplantation matters: a preclinical proof-of-concept study in mice Identifying colorectal cancer-specific vulnerabilities in the Wnt-driven long non-coding transcriptome Liquid biopsy to identify Barrett’s oesophagus, dysplasia and oesophageal adenocarcinoma: the EMERALD multicentre study
×
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:481959085
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