Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this randomized trial involving 84,585 participants in Poland, Norway, and Sweden, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among those invited to undergo screening colonoscopy than among those assigned to no screening.

In this 30-year follow-up of the Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study, in which 46,551 participants were randomly assigned to screening with fecal occult-blood testing or usual care, screening reduced colorectal-cancer mortality but did not influence all-cause mortality. Estimates from multiple, large, randomized trials of colorectal-cancer screening with fecal occult-blood testing consistently show a reduction in colorectal-cancer mortality of 15 to 33%. 1 – 4 The longest follow-up reported to date is 18 to 20 years. 5 – 7 Whether the effect of screening on colorectal-cancer mortality is sustained and whether it applies to all age groups and both sexes are unknown. Furthermore, none of the trials have shown a reduction in all-cause mortality, and one meta-analysis showed a significant increase in mortality not related to colorectal cancer. 8 We updated the Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study 9 through 30 years of follow-up to . . .

INTRODUCTION:This study aimed to compare the accuracy of polyp size measurements using a virtual scale endoscope (VSE) with an integrated laser-based adaptive scale function and visual assessment (VA) during colonoscopies.METHODS:We conducted a single-blinded, prospective randomized controlled trial. Eligible patients (aged 45-80 years) undergoing screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopies were randomly assigned (1:1) into 2 groups. In the intervention group, all detected polyps were measured for size using VSE; in the control group, all polyps were measured using VA. Size measurements were compared with a reference standard of digital caliper measurement immediately post polypectomy. The primary outcome was the relative accuracy of real-time VSE measurement compared with VA. Secondary outcomes included the mean differences and the correlations between VSE or VA sizes and the reference standard of measurement.RESULTS:Overall, 230 patients were enrolled and randomized. The relative size measurement accuracy of VSE was 84% in 118 polyps, which was significantly higher than that of VA (105 polyps; 68.4%, P < 0.001). VSE resulted in a significantly higher percentage of size measurements within 25% of true size compared with VA (81.4% vs 41%, P < 0.001). VSE had a significantly lower percentage for >5-mm polyps incorrectly sized as 1-5 mm compared with VA (13.5% vs 57.1%; P < 0.001) and a significantly lower percentage for >3-mm polyps incorrectly sized as 1-3 mm compared with VA (11.3% vs 56.5%; P < 0.001).DISCUSSION:VSE significantly improves the size measurement accuracy of colorectal polyps during colonoscopies compared with VA and results in fewer misclassifications at relevant decision-making size thresholds.

INTRODUCTION:Adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) has recently been proposed as a quality measure for colonoscopy. We evaluated the impact of a novel artificial intelligence (AI) system, compared with standard high-definition colonoscopy, for APC measurement.METHODS:This was a US-based, multicenter, prospective randomized trial examining a novel AI detection system (EW10-EC02) that enables a real-time colorectal polyp detection enabled with the colonoscope (CAD-EYE). Eligible average-risk subjects (45 years or older) undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy were randomized to undergo either CAD-EYE-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) or conventional colonoscopy (CC). Modified intention-to-treat analysis was performed for all patients who completed colonoscopy with the primary outcome of APC. Secondary outcomes included positive predictive value (total number of adenomas divided by total polyps removed) and adenoma detection rate.RESULTS:In modified intention-to-treat analysis, of 1,031 subjects (age: 59.1 ± 9.8 years; 49.9% male), 510 underwent CAC vs 523 underwent CC with no significant differences in age, gender, ethnicity, or colonoscopy indication between the 2 groups. CAC led to a significantly higher APC compared with CC: 0.99 ± 1.6 vs 0.85 ± 1.5, P = 0.02, incidence rate ratio 1.17 (1.03-1.33, P = 0.02) with no significant difference in the withdrawal time: 11.28 ± 4.59 minutes vs 10.8 ± 4.81 minutes; P = 0.11 between the 2 groups. Difference in positive predictive value of a polyp being an adenoma among CAC and CC was less than 10% threshold established: 48.6% vs 54%, 95% CI −9.56% to −1.48%. There were no significant differences in adenoma detection rate (46.9% vs 42.8%), advanced adenoma (6.5% vs 6.3%), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (12.9% vs 10.1%), and polyp detection rate (63.9% vs 59.3%) between the 2 groups. There was a higher polyp per colonoscopy with CAC compared with CC: 1.68 ± 2.1 vs 1.33 ± 1.8 (incidence rate ratio 1.27; 1.15-1.4; P < 0.01).DISCUSSION:Use of a novel AI detection system showed to a significantly higher number of adenomas per colonoscopy compared with conventional high-definition colonoscopy without any increase in colonoscopy withdrawal time, thus supporting the use of AI-assisted colonoscopy to improve colonoscopy quality (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04979962).

Background and aimsArtificial intelligence has been shown to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR) as the main surrogate outcome parameter of colonoscopy quality. To which extent this effect may be related to physician experience is not known. We performed a randomised trial with colonoscopists in their qualification period (AID-2) and compared these data with a previously published randomised trial in expert endoscopists (AID-1).MethodsIn this prospective, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (AID-2), 10 non-expert endoscopists (<2000 colonoscopies) performed screening/surveillance/diagnostic colonoscopies in consecutive 40–80 year-old subjects using high-definition colonoscopy with or without a real-time deep-learning computer-aided detection (CADe) (GI Genius, Medtronic). The primary outcome was ADR in both groups with histology of resected lesions as reference. In a post-hoc analysis, data from this randomised controlled trial (RCT) were compared with data from the previous AID-1 RCT involving six experienced endoscopists in an otherwise similar setting.ResultsIn 660 patients (62.3±10 years; men/women: 330/330) with equal distribution of study parameters, overall ADR was higher in the CADe than in the control group (53.3% vs 44.5%; relative risk (RR): 1.22; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.40; p<0.01 for non-inferiority and p=0.02 for superiority). Similar increases were seen in adenoma numbers per colonoscopy and in small and distal lesions. No differences were observed with regards to detection of non-neoplastic lesions. When pooling these data with those from the AID-1 study, use of CADe (RR 1.29; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.42) and colonoscopy indication, but not the level of examiner experience (RR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.16) were associated with ADR differences in a multivariate analysis.ConclusionsIn less experienced examiners, CADe assistance during colonoscopy increased ADR and a number of related polyp parameters as compared with the control group. Experience appears to play a minor role as determining factor for ADR.Trial registration numberNCT:04260321.

ObjectiveTo investigate the success rate of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for complete resection of 4–9 mm colorectal adenomatous polyps compared with that of hot snare polypectomy (HSP).DesignA prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled, parallel, non-inferiority trial conducted in 12 Japanese endoscopy units. Endoscopically diagnosed sessile adenomatous polyps, 4–9 mm in size, were randomly assigned to the CSP or HSP group. After complete removal of the polyp using the allocated technique, biopsy specimens from the resection margin after polypectomy were obtained. The primary endpoint was the complete resection rate, defined as no evidence of adenomatous tissue in the biopsied specimens, among all pathologically confirmed adenomatous polyps.ResultsA total of 796 eligible polyps were detected in 538 of 912 patients screened for eligibility between September 2015 and August 2016. The complete resection rate for CSP was 98.2% compared with 97.4% for HSP. The non-inferiority of CSP for complete resection compared with HSP was confirmed by the +0.8% (90% CI −1.0 to 2.7) complete resection rate (non-inferiority p<0.0001). Postoperative bleeding requiring endoscopic haemostasis occurred only in the HSP group (0.5%, 2 of 402 polyps).ConclusionsThe complete resection rate for CSP is not inferior to that for HSP. CSP can be one of the standard techniques for 4–9 mm colorectal polyps. (Study registration: UMIN000018328)

INTRODUCTION:The efficacy of texture and color enhancement imaging (TXI) in the novel light-emitting diode endoscopic system for polyp detection has not been examined. We aimed to evaluate the noninferiority of the additional 30-second (Add-30-s) observation of the right-sided colon (cecum/ascending colon) with TXI compared with narrow band imaging (NBI) for detecting missed polyps.METHODS:We enrolled 381 patients ≥40 years old who underwent colonoscopy from September 2021 to June 2022 in 3 institutions and randomly assigned them to either the TXI or NBI groups. The right-sided colon was first observed with white light imaging in both groups. Second, after reinsertion from hepatic flexure to the cecum, the right-sided colon was observed with Add-30-s observation of either TXI or NBI. The primary endpoint was to examine the noninferiority of TXI to NBI using the mean number of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions per patient. The secondary ones were to examine adenoma detection rate, adenoma and sessile serrated lesions detection rates, and polyp detection rates in both groups.RESULTS:The TXI and NBI groups consisted of 177 and 181 patients, respectively, and the noninferiorities of the mean number of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions per patients in the second observation were significant (TXI 0.29 [51/177] vs NBI 0.30 [54/181], P < 0.01). The change in adenoma detection rate, adenoma and sessile serrated lesions detection rate, and polyp detection rate for the right-sided colon between the TXI and NBI groups were not different (10.2%/10.5% [P = 0.81], 13.0%/12.7% [P = 0.71], and 15.3%/13.8% [P = 0.71]), respectively.DISCUSSION:Regarding Add-30-s observation of the right-sided colon, TXI was noninferior to NBI.

Background Mouse and human studies support the promise of dry beans to improve metabolic health and to lower cancer risk. In overweight/obese patients with a history of colorectal polyps or cancer, the Beans to Enrich the Gut microbiome vs. Obesity’s Negative Effects (BE GONE) trial will test whether and how an increase in the consumption of pre-cooked, canned dry beans within the context of usual diet and lifestyle can enhance the gut landscape to improve metabolic health and reduce cancer risk. Methods/design This randomized crossover trial is designed to characterize changes in (1) host markers spanning lipid metabolism, inflammation, and obesity-related cancer risk; (2) compositional and functional profiles of the fecal microbiome; and (3) host and microbial metabolites. With each subject serving as their own control, the trial will compare the participant’s usual diet with (intervention) and without (control) dry beans. Canned, pre-cooked dry beans are provided to participants and the usual diet continually assessed and monitored. Following a 4-week run-in and equilibration period, each participant provides a total of 5 fasting blood and 6 stool samples over a total period of 16 weeks. The intervention consists of a 2-week ramp-up of dry bean intake to 1 cup/d, which is then continued for an additional 6 weeks. Intra- and inter-individual outcomes are assessed across each crossover period with consideration of the joint or modifying effects of the usual diet and baseline microbiome. Discussion The BE GONE trial is evaluating a scalable dietary prevention strategy targeting the gut microbiome of high-risk patients to mitigate the metabolic and inflammatory effects of adiposity that influence colorectal cancer risk, recurrence, and survival. The overarching scientific goal is to further elucidate interactions between diet, the gut microbiome, and host metabolism. Improved understanding of the diet-microbiota interplay and effective means to target these relationships will be key to the future of clinical and public health approaches to cancer and other major diet- and obesity-related diseases. Trial registration This protocol is registered with the U.S. National Institutes of Health trial registry, ClinicalTrials.gov , under the identifier NCT02843425. First posted July 25, 2016; last verified January 25, 2019.

INTRODUCTION:Both artificial intelligence (AI) and distal attachment devices have been shown to improve adenoma detection rate and reduce miss rate during colonoscopy. We studied the combined effect of Endocuff and AI on enhancing detection rates of various colonic lesions.METHODS:This was a 3-arm prospective randomized colonoscopy study involving patients aged 40 years or older. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to undergo Endocuff with AI, AI alone, or standard high-definition (HD) colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) between the Endocuff-AI and AI groups while secondary outcomes included detection rates of polyp (PDR), sessile serrated lesion (sessile detection rate [SDR]), and advanced adenoma (advanced adenoma detection rate) between the 2 groups.RESULTS:A total of 682 patients were included (mean age 65.4 years, 52.3% male), with 53.7% undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. The ADR for the Endocuff-AI, AI, and HD groups was 58.7%, 53.8%, and 46.3%, respectively, while the corresponding PDR was 77.0%, 74.0%, and 61.2%. A significant increase in ADR, PDR, and SDR was observed between the Endocuff-AI and AI groups (ADR difference: 4.9%, 95% CI: 1.4%-8.2%, P = 0.03; PDR difference: 3.0%, 95% CI: 0.4%-5.8%, P = 0.04; SDR difference: 6.4%, 95% CI: 3.4%-9.7%, P < 0.01). Both Endocuff-AI and AI groups had a higher ADR, PDR, SDR, and advanced adenoma detection rate than the HD group (all P < 0.01).DISCUSSION:Endocuff in combination with AI further improves various colonic lesion detection rates when compared with AI alone.

There has been increasing interest in artificial intelligence in gastroenterology. To reduce miss rates during colonoscopy, there has been significant exploration in computer-aided detection (CADe) devices. In this study, we evaluate the use of CADe in colonoscopy in community-based, nonacademic practices. Between September 28, 2020, and September 24, 2021, a randomized controlled trial (AI-SEE) was performed evaluating the impact of CADe on polyp detection in 4 community-based endoscopy centers in the United States Patients were block-randomized to undergoing colonoscopy with or without CADe (EndoVigilant). Primary outcomes measured were adenomas per colonoscopy and adenomas per extraction (the percentage of polyps removed that are adenomas). Secondary end points included serrated polyps per colonoscopy; nonadenomatous, nonserrated polyps per colonoscopy; adenoma and serrated polyp detection rates; and procedural time. A total of 769 patients were enrolled (387 with CADe), with similar patient demographics between the 2 groups. There was no significant difference in adenomas per colonoscopy in the CADe and non-CADe groups (0.73 vs 0.67, P = 0.496). Although the use of CADe did not improve identification of serrated polyps per colonoscopy (0.08 vs 0.08, P = 0.965), the use of CADe increased identification of nonadenomatous, nonserrated polyps per colonoscopy (0.90 vs 0.51, P < 0.0001), resulting in detection of fewer adenomas per extraction in the CADe group. The adenoma detection rate (35.9 vs 37.2%, P = 0.774) and serrated polyp detection rate (6.5 vs 6.3%, P = 1.000) were similar in the CADe and non-CADe groups. Mean withdrawal time was longer in the CADe group compared with the non-CADe group (11.7 vs 10.7 minutes, P = 0.003). However, when no polyps were identified, there was similar mean withdrawal time (9.1 vs 8.8 minutes, P = 0.288). There were no adverse events. The use of CADe did not result in a statistically significant difference in the number of adenomas detected. Additional studies are needed to better understand why some endoscopists derive substantial benefits from CADe and others do not. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04555135.