Skip to content

Comparison of Flat Colorectal Lesion Detection by Artificial Intelligence-assisted Colonoscopy Versus Endoscopists

Comparison of Flat Colorectal Lesion Detection by Artificial Intelligence-assisted Colonoscopy Versus Endoscopists: AIChallenge - Medtronic

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05942677
Acronym
AIChallengeMed
Enrollment
160
Registered
2023-07-12
Start date
2022-01-01
Completion date
2023-12-30
Last updated
2023-11-13

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Flat Colorectal Lesion

Keywords

detection, AI, CAD, colorectal cancer, LST, adenoma, SSL

Brief summary

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in the field of colorectal endoscopy is currently booming, colorectal cancer being, by its frequency and severity, a real public health problem. In terms of image analysis, AI is indeed able to perform many tasks simultaneously (lesion detection, classification, and segmentation) and to combine them. Lesion detection is thus the starting point of the whole chain to choose at the end the most appropriate treatment for the patient. Large-scale studies have demonstrated the superiority of artificial intelligence-assisted detection over the usual detection by gastroenterologists, mainly for the detection of sub-centimeter polyps. However, the investigators have shown that a recent computer-aided detection system (CADe) such as the ENDO-AID software in combination with the EVIS X1 video column (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) may present difficulties in the detection of flat lesions such as sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) and non-granular laterally spreading tumors (LST-NGs). This represents a major challenge because in addition to their shape being difficult to identify for the human eye in practice and where AI assistance would be of great value, these rare lesions are associated with advanced histology. In addition, the investigators recently described the case of a worrisome false negative of AI-assisted colonoscopy, which failed to detect a flat adenocarcinoma in the transverse colon. Therefore, it is important to measure the false negative rate of AI detection based on the macroscopic shape of the lesion. Comparing this rate to the human endoscopist's false negatives would improve the performance of AI for this specific lesion subtype in the future.

Interventions

PROCEDUREproportion of colorectal lesions

Evaluation of the proportion of colorectal lesions detected by a computer-aided detection system (CADe) compared with experienced endoscopists.

Sponsors

Hospices Civils de Lyon
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* both gender patients even or older than 18 years old * patient with French Health Insurance coverage * obtaining of oral non opposition to research after loyal, clear and complete delivery of information * patients addressed to our center for colorectal lesion resection * patients presenting a colorectal lesion discovered during a diagnostic colonoscopy

Exclusion criteria

* patients with health disorders needing short procedure times * patients with no colorectal lesion * difficulty continuing colonoscopy due to poor sedation * difficulty continuing colonoscopy due to a serious adverse event * inappropriate participation after colonoscopy is completed * unwillingness to participate after colonoscopy is completed

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Evaluation of the proportion of colorectal lesionsTime point can be reached either 2 weeks after endoscopic resection or between 2-4 months later in case of surgeryEvaluation of the proportion of colorectal lesions detected by a computer-aided detection system (CADe) compared with experienced endoscopists and correlation with final histology reading.

Countries

France

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026