Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Apr 1;109(4):946-952.
doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000285.

Effectiveness of artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy in early diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review

Aashna Mehta  1 , Harendra Kumar  2 , Katia Yazji  3 , Andrew A Wireko  4 , Jai Sivanandan Nagarajan  5 , Bikona Ghosh  6 , Ahmad Nahas  1 , Luis Morales Ojeda  7 , Ayush Anand  8 , Medha Sharath  9 , Helen Huang  3 , Tulika Garg  10 , Arda Isik  11
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Effectiveness of artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy in early diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review

Aashna Mehta et al. Int J Surg. .

Abstract

Introduction: As artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted diagnosis gained immense popularity, it is imperative to consider its utility and efficiency in the early diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC), responsible for over 1.8 million cases and 881 000 deaths globally, as reported in 2018. Improved adenoma detection rate, as well as better characterizations of polyps, are significant advantages of AI-assisted colonoscopy (AIC). This systematic review (SR) investigates the effectiveness of AIC in the early diagnosis of CRC as compared to conventional colonoscopy.

Materials and methods: Electronic databases such as PubMed/Medline, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were reviewed for original studies (randomized controlled trials, observational studies), SRs, and meta-analysis between 2017 and 2022 utilizing Medical Subject Headings terminology in a broad search strategy. All searches were performed and analyzed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis methodology and were conducted from November 2022. A data extraction form based on the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review group's extraction template for quality assessment and evidence synthesis was used for data extraction. All included studies considered for bias and ethical criteria and provided valuable evidence to answer the research question.

Results: The database search identified 218 studies, including 87 from PubMed, 60 from SCOPUS, and 71 from Web of Science databases. The retrieved studies from the databases were imported to Rayyan software and a duplicate article check was performed, all duplicate articles were removed after careful evaluation of the data. The abstract and full-text screening was performed in accordance with the following eligibility criteria: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for review articles, ENTREQ for narrative studies; and modified JADAD for randomized controlled trials. This yielded 15 studies that met the requirements for this SR and were finally included in the review.

Conclusion: AIC is a safe, highly effective screening tool that can increase the detection rate of adenomas, and polyps resulting in an early diagnosis of CRC in adults when compared to conventional colonoscopy. The results of this SR prompt further large-scale research to investigate the effectiveness in accordance with sex, race, and socioeconomic status, as well as its influence on prognosis and survival rate.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Illustration representing possible benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) and its applications such as computer-aided detection in diagnoses of colorectal cancer.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Schematic representation of study selection.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Arnold M, Abnet CC, Neale RE, et al. . Global burden of 5 major types of gastrointestinal cancer. Gastroenterol 2020;159:335–349.e15. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Areia M, Mori Y, Correale L, et al. . Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence for screening colonoscopy: a modelling study. Lancet Digit Health 2022;4:e436–e444. - PubMed
    1. Csanádi M, Gini A, de Koning H, et al. . Modeling costs and benefits of the organized colorectal cancer screening programme and its potential future improvements in Hungary. J Med Screen 2021;28:268–276. - PubMed
    1. Rees CJ, Rajasekhar PT, Wilson A, et al. . Narrow band imaging optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps in routine clinical practice: the Detect Inspect Characterise Resect and Discard 2 (DISCARD 2) study. Gut 2017;66:887–895. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. . The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097. - PMC - PubMed