S212 Comparing Polyp Detection Rate Between Water Exchange and Air Insufflation by a Computer-aided Detection Algorithm: An Analysis of Withdrawal Phase Videos from a Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Introduction: Water exchange (WE) improves polyp (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared with air insufflation [GIE 2021;93:1411], but still misses polyps due to human limitations [JCG 2021, in press]. A computer-aided detection (CADe) algorithm can overcome human omissions, but is limited by false positives (FPs) [Lancet Gastroenterol & Hepatol 2019;4:71], which might be reduced by salvage-cleaning effect provided by insertion WE [Tzu-Chi Med J 2021;33:108]. We hypothesized that the strengths of CADe and WE can complement the weaknesses of each other. Their combination can enhance PDR and ADR and reduce false positive rate (FPR). Methods: We used a locally developed convolutional neural network with YOLOv4 to build a CADe model. Images of polyps (n=15961) were divided in 80% and 20% for training and testing. Prior to real-time application, we validated the model in detecting polyps, using edited and coded withdrawal phase videos of the right colon from a RCT comparing right colon adenoma detection between WE and air insufflation. The polyps detected by the CADe were confirmed by the consensus of 2 blinded reviewers (experienced endoscopists). We also developed a computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) model based on YOLOv4 to characterize the detected polyps as adenomas or not. The primary and secondary outcomes were PDR and the FPR, respectively. Results: A total of 245 coded videos of colonoscopies inserted with WE (n=123) or air insufflation (n=122) were analyzed. CADe achieved significantly higher PDR in the WE group (61.8%) than in the air insufflation group (40.2%), P=0.0009. CADe also had significantly higher additional PDR in the WE group (30.1% vs 12.3%, P=0.001). The CADx assessed ADR was significantly higher in the WE group than that in the air insufflation group (46.3% vs 30.3%, P=0.018), after the detected polyps were characterized by the CADx. (Table a) The mean numbers of FPs related to feces [1.78 (1.67) vs 2.09 (2.09), P=0.007] and bubbles [0.53 (0.89) vs 1.25 (2.45), P=0.001] were significantly lower in the WE group than in the air insufflation group. (Table b). Conclusion: The data confirmed the hypothesis that the strengths of CADe and WE complemented the weaknesses of each other, enhanced PDR and ADR and reduced FPR. The locally developed CADe and CADx are validated for polyp detection and adenoma assignment for real-time application. Furthermore, WE provides an optimal platform for the computer-assisted algorithms.Table 1.: ADR, adenoma detection rate; All the percentages calculated according to respective total number of patients for each group; PDR, polyp detection rate; Total numbers of polyps were based on those found by the performing endoscopist plus those detected by the CADe; Proportion of additional polyps found by CADe equals numbers of additional polyp (adenomas) found by CADe divided by total numbers of polyps (adenomas). Others: ileocecal valve, cecum, polypectomy site, suction marks and drug pills. † Mann-Whitney test; ††Fisher exact test.