Artificial Intelligence in Colonoscopy: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Yu Kamitani
,
Nonaka Kouichi
,
Hajime Isomoto

The early endoscopic identification, resection, and treatment of precancerous adenoma and early-stage cancer has been shown to reduce not only the prevalence of colorectal cancer but also its mortality rate. Recent advances in endoscopic devices and imaging technology have dramatically improved the ability to detect colorectal lesions and predict their pathological diagnosis. In addition to this, rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technology mean that AI-related research and development is now progressing in the diagnostic imaging field, particularly colonoscopy, and AIs (i.e., devices that mimic cognitive abilities, such as learning and problem-solving) already approved as medical devices are now being introduced into everyday clinical practice. Today, there is an increasing expectation that sophisticated AIs will be able to provide high-level diagnostic performance irrespective of the level of skill of the endoscopist.

  • artificial intelligence
  • computer-aided detection/diagnosis
  • post colonoscopy colorectal cancer

1. Introduction

The prevalence of colorectal cancer is increasing in Asia, including Japan, and worldwide [1][2]. It generally develops according to the adenoma-carcinoma sequence [3], and the early colonoscopy detection, resection, and treatment of colorectal adenoma have been shown to reduce not only the prevalence of colorectal cancer but also its mortality rate [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Accordingly, in Japan, it is recommended that individuals aged 40 years or over who test positive for fecal occult blood in health checkups undergo further investigation by total colonoscopy (TCS), and in the United States (US), screening by TCS for all individuals aged 50 years or over who have not previously undergone endoscopic examination is recommended as part of a national project [4]. However, post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) that develops after TSC is becoming a problem. Cases of PCCRC resulting from a lesion having been overlooked or incompletely resected have been reported [11], and laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) in the right hemicolon and rapidly-growing de novo cancers are said to be particularly easy to overlook. One study has found that an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of <20% significantly increases the risk of PCCRC compared with an ADR of ≥20% [12], and the importance of the ADR as a quality indicator from the viewpoint of picking up lesions has been noted [13]. This situation highlights the significance of aiming for TCS with a low miss rate, and devices such as extra-wide-angle endoscopes and tip hoods are now being used in the attempt to detect lesions in difficult-to-see blind spots. It has also been suggested that image-enhanced endoscopy, such as high-definition endoscopy and chromoendoscopy, may also be useful for the identification of superficial or depressed lesions that are difficult to see even when they are located within the field of view.
Today, there are increasing expectations for the use of computer-aided diagnosis/detection (CAD) systems that utilize AI. CAD is broadly classified into two categories depending on its purpose: computer-aided detection (CADe) is used to pick up the location of candidate lesions based on the analysis results, and computer-aided detection (CADx) is used to present information on qualitative diagnosis. If sophisticated CAD systems can be developed, in theory, they could provide high-level diagnostic performance irrespective of the level of skill of the endoscopist, and the development of such CAD is thus impatiently awaited.

2. CADe (Computer-Aided Detection)

Computer-aided detection is the use of AI as diagnostic assistance for picking up lesions. As mentioned above, a high ADR is an accepted quality indicator. In one study, a 1% increase in ADR resulted in a 3% decrease in PCCRC and a 5% decrease in fatal PCCRC [13]. Because preventing lesions from being overlooked has been prioritized, it is CADe research that is particularly advanced in AI research in the colorectal field.
Methods of automatically detecting polyps using a range of different imaging feature quantities (such as edge detection, texture analysis, and energy mapping) had been under investigation since the turn of the millennium, but none of these had reliable detection rates of ≥90%, and limitations on computational capacity meant that none were successful in providing a real-time diagnosis. These methods had the further disadvantage that they only responded to lesion morphology. However, this situation was transformed by the advent of deep learning (DL) in the second decade of the century.
By adding temporal elements to DL, Misawa et al. developed a convolutional neural network capable of real-time polyp detection with 90.0% sensitivity and 63.3% specificity [14]. Urban et al. also used a large number of static endoscopic images as training images and succeeded in detecting polyps with very high rates of 93.0% sensitivity and 93.0% specificity [15].
Subsequently, AI research has proceeded by constructing DL algorithms using retrospectively assembled endoscopic test images, and the performance of these AI systems in clinical settings is currently being analyzed in six prospective randomized clinical trials. Five of these six trials have the ADR as the primary endpoint [16][17][18][19][20]. In the other one, the primary endpoint is the adenoma miss rate (AMR) [21]. The most important finding is that in all the trials focusing on a comparison of the ADR, a significant increase in this parameter is evident. To summarize the data from these trials, the ADR increased by 6–15.2% depending on the investigator’s skill and enrollment criteria. In one multicenter joint study using AI, a rate of 40.4% in the control group rose to 54.8% in the CADe group [16]. This suggests that the risk of PCCRC is decreased by assuring a certain ADR [12], and given that the ADR is inversely correlated with mortality [13], the widespread adoption of CAD technology in clinical settings would be highly advantageous.
According to a more detailed analysis of the randomized clinical trials taking the ADR as the primary endpoint, the detection rate of small adenomas measuring ≤5 mm increased significantly in all these trials [22]. In just one of those trials, the detection rate of adenomas measuring 6–9 mm also rose [16]. Despite the increase in the adenoma detection rate, however, in all the studies there was no significant difference in the scope withdrawal time (excluding polyp resection time) depending on whether CADe support was used or not, a result that is encouraging for its use in actual clinical settings where time is limited. These benefits suggest that the tendency in recent years for the ADR to increase [23] will probably continue and that an increasing number of institutions can be expected to introduce CADe in the future.

3. CADx (Computer-Aided Diagnosis)

Computer-aided diagnosis is the use of computer programs for the qualitative diagnosis of lesions and the evaluation of disease activity. Unlike CADe, in which observations are made under normal white light, in CADx not only white-light endoscopy [24][25] but also a wide range of other modalities, including magnifying narrow-band imaging (NBI) [26][27][28][29][30][31], linked-color imaging (LCI) [32], blue-light imaging (BLI) [33][34][35], magnifying chromoendoscopy [36], ultra-high-magnification endoscopy [37][38][39][40][41], confocal laser endoscopy [42][43], autofluorescence spectroscopy [44][45], and autofluorescence imaging (AFI) [46][47][48]. Of these, magnifying NBI has been best studied. The fact that its magnified observations improve diagnostic capability and that time-consuming procedures such as pigment spraying are not required may be an advantage that makes it easy to use in everyday clinical practice.
Triggered by the start of CADx research on the evaluation of pit patterns by chromoendoscopy, which began after the turn of the millennium [36][49], several research groups have published reports targeting magnified NBI images since 2010 [27]. Some of those studies have come close to achieving practical implementation of real-time diagnosis [26][36]. The diagnostic algorithms used are mainly the methods of using machine learning (such as a support vector machine, neural network, or k-NN classifier) to conduct learning and classification by using a large number of characteristics derived from image filters and texture analysis. In a prospective clinical trial conducted by Kominami et al. [26], the researchers validated real-time CADx for 118 lesions in 41 patients, achieving 93.3% sensitivity, and 93.3% specificity. Although that research was small, it is the only prospective research in the research area.
Since then, DL has garnered attention and become predominant in this field of research. Conventional methods of machine learning require high-level technical skills and knowledge of information engineering in the process of numerically converting endoscopic characteristics, and this constitutes a high hurdle for its development. With DL, however, the process of numerical conversion of these characteristics is simplified, greatly lowering the hurdle for its development; as a result, it has come to be frequently used. Chen et al. [31] and Byrne et al. [30] both succeeded in developing CADx systems using DL that distinguish between tumors and other lesions with better than 90% sensitivity while using the comparatively small number of 3000 images and 300 videos, respectively, as training images based on NBI imaging. This accuracy could be further improved by using a larger number of training cases, and its validation in future prospective studies is awaited.
The majority of polyps discovered in screening colonoscopy are small lesions measuring ≤5 mm, and it is rare for these small polyps to exhibit neoplastic growth and malignant transformation [50][51]. Polypectomy and pathological investigations themselves may therefore entail a disproportionate burden in terms of cost and effort [52], and a CADx system with high diagnostic performance might enable the choice between “resect and discard” and “diagnose and leave” to be made from the viewpoints of time and cost as well as complications.
The target of most studies in this field is to distinguish between neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions, but Tamai et al. [53] used 121 colorectal lesions to develop a CADx system to distinguish those with deep submucosal invasion (T1b cancer), reporting that it distinguished them with 83.9% sensitivity and 82.6% specificity. Colorectal T1b cancer is not easy to distinguish, and as the diagnostic accuracy of clinicians is known to be under 80% [54], the practical implementation of this CAD system could be highly beneficial in clinical practice.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/jcm11102923

References

  1. Onyoh, E.F.; Hsu, W.-F.; Chang, L.-C.; Lee, Y.-C.; Wu, M.-S.; Chiu, H.-M. The Rise of Colorectal Cancer in Asia: Epidemiology, Screening, and Management. Curr. Gastroenterol. Rep. 2019, 21, 36.
  2. Arnold, M.; Sierra, M.S.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global patterns and trends in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Gut 2017, 66, 683–691.
  3. Morson, B.; Day, D.W. The adenoma-carcinoma sequence. Major Probl. Pathol. 1978, 10, 58–71.
  4. Bibbins-Domingo, K.; Grossman, D.C.; Curry, S.J.; Davidson, K.W.; Epling, J.W.; García, F.A.R.; Gillman, M.W.; Harper, D.M.; Kemper, A.R.; US Preventive Services Task Force; et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA-J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2016, 315, 2564–2575.
  5. Doubeni, C.A.; Weinmann, S.; Adams, K.; Kamineni, A.; Buist, D.S.; Ash, A.S.; Rutter, C.M.; Doria-Rose, V.P.; Corley, D.A.; Greenlee, R.T.; et al. Screening Colonoscopy and Risk for Incident Late-Stage Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis in Average-Risk Adults. Ann. Intern. Med. 2013, 158, 312–320. Available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23460054 (accessed on 16 December 2021).
  6. Nishihara, R.; Wu, K.; Lochhead, P.; Morikawa, T.; Liao, X.; Qian, Z.R.; Inamura, K.; Kim, S.A.; Kuchiba, A.; Yamauchi, M.; et al. Long-Term Colorectal-Cancer Incidence and Mortality after Lower Endoscopy. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 369, 1095–1105.
  7. Winawer, S.J.; Zauber, A.G.; Ho, M.N.; O’Brien, M.J.; Gottlieb, L.S.; Sternberg, S.S.; Waye, J.D.; Schapiro, M.; Bond, J.H.; Panish, J.F.; et al. Prevention of Colorectal Cancer by Colonoscopic Polypectomy. Nejm 1993, 329, 96–101.
  8. Zauber, A.G.; Winawer, S.J.; O’Brien, M.J.; Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I.; van Ballegooijen, M.; Hankey, B.; Shi, W.; Bond, J.H.; Schapiro, M.; Panish,, J.H.; et al. Albert Schweitzer Hospital; Institute of Tropical Medicine, University of Tübingen. Colonoscopic Polypectomy and Long-Term Prevention of Colorectal-Cancer Deaths. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011, 365, 687–696.
  9. Doubeni, C.A.; Corley, D.A.; Quinn, V.P.; Jensen, C.D.; Zauber, A.G.; Goodman, M.; Johnson, J.R.; Mehta, S.J.; Becerra, T.A.; Zhao, W.K.; et al. Effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in reducing the risk of death from right and left colon cancer: A large community-based study. Gut 2018, 67, 291–298.
  10. Rex, D.K.; Boland, R.C.; Dominitz, J.A.; Giardiello, F.M.; Johnson, D.A.; Kaltenbach, T.; Levin, T.R.; Lieberman, D.; Robertson, D.J. Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2017, 112, 1016–1030.
  11. Robertson, D.J.; Lieberman, D.A.; Winawer, S.J.; Ahnen, D.J.; Baron, J.; Schatzkin, A.; Cross, A.J.; Zauber, A.G.; Church, T.R.; Lance, P.; et al. Colorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: A pooled multicohort analysis. Gut 2014, 63, 949–956.
  12. Kaminski, M.; Regula, J.; Kraszewska, E.; Polkowski, M.; Wojciechowska, U.; Didkowska, J.; Zwierko, M.; Rupinski, M.; Nowacki, M.P.; Butruk, E. Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy and the Risk of Interval Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 362, 1795–1803.
  13. Corley, D.A.; Jensen, C.D.; Marks, A.; Zhao, W.K.; Lee, J.K.; Doubeni, C.; Zauber, A.G.; De Boer, J.; Fireman, B.H.; Schottinger, J.E.; et al. Adenoma Detection Rate and Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Death. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 370, 1298–1306.
  14. Misawa, M.; Kudo, S.-E.; Mori, Y.; Cho, T.; Kataoka, S.; Yamauchi, A.; Ogawa, Y.; Maeda, Y.; Takeda, K.; Ichimasa, K.; et al. Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Polyp Detection for Colonoscopy: Initial Experience. Gastroenterology 2018, 154, 2027–2029.e3.
  15. Urban, G.; Tripathi, P.; Alkayali, T.; Mittal, M.; Jalali, F.; Karnes, W.; Baldi, P. Deep Learning Localizes and Identifies Polyps in Real Time With 96% Accuracy in Screening Colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2018, 155, 1069–1078.e8.
  16. Repici, A.; Badalamenti, M.; Maselli, R.; Correale, L.; Radaelli, F.; Rondonotti, E.; Ferrara, E.; Spadaccini, M.; Alkandari, A.; Fugazza, A.; et al. Efficacy of Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia in a Randomized Trial. Gastroenterology 2020, 159, 512–520.e7.
  17. Lui, P.; Wang, P.; Brown, J.-R.; Berzin, T.-M.; Zhou, G.; Lui, W.; Xiao, X.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, C.; et al. The single-monitor trail: An embedded CADe system increased adenoma detection during colonoscopy: A prospective randomized study. Ther Adv Gastroenterol 2020, 13, 1–13.
  18. Wang, P.; Liu, X.; Berzin, T.M.; Brown, J.R.G.; Liu, P.; Zhou, C.; Lei, L.; Li, L.; Guo, Z.; Lei, S.; et al. Effect of a deep-learning computer-aided detection system on adenoma detection during colonoscopy (CADe-DB trial): A double-blind randomised study. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 5, 343–351.
  19. Su, J.-R.; Li, Z.; Shao, X.-J.; Ji, C.-R.; Ji, R.; Zhou, R.-C.; Li, G.-C.; Liu, G.-Q.; He, Y.-S.; Zuo, X.-L.; et al. Impact of a real-time automatic quality control system on colorectal polyp and adenoma detection: A prospective randomized controlled study (with videos). Gastrointest. Endosc. 2020, 91, 415–424.e4.
  20. Wang, P.; Berzin, T.M.; Brown, J.R.G.; Bharadwaj, S.; Becq, A.; Xiao, X.; Liu, P.; Li, L.; Song, Y.; Zhang, D.; et al. Real-time automatic detection system increases colonoscopic polyp and adenoma detection rates: A prospective randomised controlled study. Gut 2019, 68, 1813–1819.
  21. Wang, P.; Liu, P.; Brown, J.R.G.; Berzin, T.M.; Zhou, G.; Lei, S.; Liu, X.; Li, L.; Xiao, X. Lower Adenoma Miss Rate of Computer-Aided Detection-Assisted Colonoscopy vs Routine White-Light Colonoscopy in a Prospective Tandem Study. Gastroenterology 2020, 159, 1252–1261.e5.
  22. Hassan, C.; Spadaccini, M.; Iannone, A.; Maselli, R.; Jovani, M.; Chandrasekar, V.T.; Antonelli, G.; Yu, H.; Areia, M.; Dinis-Ribeiro, M.; et al. Performance of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy for adenoma and polyp detection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2021, 93, 77–85.e6.
  23. Brenner, H.; Altenhofen, L.; Kretschmann, J.; Rösch, T.; Pox, C.; Stock, C.; Hoffmeister, M. Trends in adenoma detection rates during the first 10 years of the German screening colonoscopy program. Gastroenterology 2015, 149, 356–366.e1.
  24. Komeda, Y.; Handa, H.; Watanabe, T.; Nomura, T.; Kitahashi, M.; Sakurai, T.; Okamoto, A.; Minami, T.; Kono, M.; Arizumi, T.; et al. Computer-Aided Diagnosis Based on Convolutional Neural Network System for Colorectal Polyp Classification: Preliminary Experience. Oncology 2017, 93, 30–34.
  25. Sánchez-Montes, C.; Sánchez, F.J.; Bernal, J.; Córdova, H.; López-Cerón, M.; Cuatrecasas, M.; de Miguel, C.R.; García-Rodríguez, A.; Garcés-Durán, R.; Pellisé, M.; et al. Computer-aided prediction of polyp histology on white light colonoscopy using surface pattern analysis. Endoscopy 2019, 51, 261–265.
  26. Kominami, Y.; Yoshida, S.; Tanaka, S.; Sanomura, Y.; Hirakawa, T.; Raytchev, B.; Tamaki, T.; Koide, T.; Kaneda, K.; Chayama, K. Computer-aided diagnosis of colorectal polyp histology by using a real-time image recognition system and narrow-band imaging magnifying colonoscopy. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2016, 83, 643–649.
  27. Tischendorf, J.; Gross, S.; Winograd, R.; Hecker, H.; Auer, R.; Behrens, A.; Trautwein, C.; Aach, T.; Stehle, T. Computer-aided classification of colorectal polyps based on vascular patterns: A pilot study. Endoscopy 2010, 42, 203–207.
  28. Gross, S.; Trautwein, C.; Behrens, A.; Winograd, R.; Palm, S.; Lutz, H.H.; Schirin-Sokhan, R.; Hecker, H.; Aach, T.; Tischendorf, J.J. Computer-based classification of small colorectal polyps by using narrow-band imaging with optical magnification. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2011, 74, 1354–1359.
  29. Takemura, Y.; Yoshida, S.; Tanaka, S.; Kawase, R.; Onji, K.; Oka, S.; Tamaki, T.; Raytchev, B.; Kaneda, K.; Yoshihara, M.; et al. Computer-aided system for predicting the histology of colorectal tumors by using narrow-band imaging magnifying colonoscopy (with video). Gastrointest. Endosc. 2012, 75, 179–185.
  30. Byrne, M.F.; Chapados, N.; Soudan, F.; Oertel, C.; Pérez, M.L.; Kelly, R.; Iqbal, N.; Chandelier, F.; Rex, D.K. Real-time differentiation of adenomatous and hyperplastic diminutive colorectal polyps during analysis of unaltered videos of standard colonoscopy using a deep learning model. Gut 2019, 68, 94–100.
  31. Chen, P.J.; Lin, M.C.; Lai, M.J.; Lin, J.C.; Lu, H.H.S.; Tseng, V.S. Accurate Classification of Diminutive Colorectal Polyps Using Computer-Aided Analysis. Gastroenterology 2018, 154, 568–575.
  32. Min, M.; Su, S.; He, W.; Bi, Y.; Ma, Z.; Liu, Y. Computer-aided diagnosis of colorectal polyps using linked color imaging colonoscopy to predict histology. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 2881.
  33. Yoshida, N.; Inoue, K.; Tomita, Y.; Kobayashi, R.; Hashimoto, H.; Sugino, S.; Hirose, R.; Dohi, O.; Yasuda, H.; Morinaga, Y.; et al. An analysis about the function of a new artificial intelligence, CAD EYE with the lesion recognition and diagnosis for colorectal polyps in clinical practice. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 2021, 36, 2237–2245.
  34. Weigt, J.; Repici, A.; Antonelli, G.; Afifi, A.; Kliegis, L.; Correale, L.; Hassan, C.; Neumann, H. Performance of a new integrated computer-assisted system (CADe/CADx) for detection and characterization of colorectal neoplasia. Endoscopy 2021, 54, 180–184.
  35. Sakamoto, T.; Nakashima, H.; Nakamura, K.; Nagahama, R.; Saito, Y. Performance of Computer-Aided Detection and Diagnosis of Colorectal Polyps Compares to That of Experienced Endoscopists. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2021.
  36. Takemura, Y.; Yoshida, S.; Tanaka, S.; Onji, K.; Oka, S.; Tamaki, T.; Kaneda, K.; Yoshihara, M.; Chayama, K. Quantitative analysis and development of a computer-aided system for identification of regular pit patterns of colorectal lesions. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2010, 72, 1047–1051.
  37. Mori, Y.; Kudo, S.-E.; Misawa, M.; Saito, Y.; Ikematsu, H.; Hotta, K.; Ohtsuka, K.; Urushibara, F.; Kataoka, S.; Ogawa, Y.; et al. Real-time use of artificial intelligence in identification of diminutive polyps during colonoscopy a prospective study. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 357–366.
  38. Misawa, M.; Kudo, S.-E.; Mori, Y.; Nakamura, H.; Kataoka, S.; Maeda, Y.; Kudo, T.; Hayashi, T.; Wakamura, K.; Miyachi, H.; et al. Characterization of Colorectal Lesions Using a Computer-Aided Diagnostic System for Narrow-Band Imaging Endocytoscopy. Gastroenterology 2016, 150, 1531–1532.e3.
  39. Mori, Y.; Kudo, S.-E.; Chiu, P.W.Y.; Singh, R.; Misawa, M.; Wakamura, K.; Kudo, T.; Hayashi, T.; Katagiri, A.; Miyachi, H.; et al. Impact of an automated system for endocytoscopic diagnosis of small colorectal lesions: An international web-based study. Endoscopy 2016, 48, 1110–1118.
  40. Mori, Y.; Kudo, S.E.; Mori, K. Potential of artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy using an endocytoscope (with video). Dig. Endosc. 2018, 30, 52–53.
  41. Takeda, K.; Kudo, S.-E.; Mori, Y.; Misawa, M.; Kudo, T.; Wakamura, K.; Katagiri, A.; Baba, T.; Hidaka, E.; Ishida, F.; et al. Accuracy of diagnosing invasive colorectal cancer using computer-aided endocytoscopy. Endoscopy 2017, 49, 798–802.
  42. André, B.; Vercauteren, T.; Buchner, A.M.; Krishna, M.; Ayache, N.; Wallac, M.B. Software for automated classification of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy videos of colorectal polyps. World J. Gastroenterol. 2012, 18, 5560–5569.
  43. Ştefănescu, D.; Streba, C.; Cârţână, E.T.; Săftoiu, A.; Gruionu, G.; Gruionu, L.G. Computer aided diagnosis for confocal laser endomicroscopy in advanced colorectal adenocarcinoma. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0154863.
  44. Rahmi, G. In vivo real-time assessment of colorectal polyp histology using an optical biopsy forceps system based on laser-induced fluorescence spectroscopy. Endoscopy 2016, 48, 603–604.
  45. Kuiper, T.; Alderlieste, Y.A.; Tytgat, K.M.A.J.; Vlug, M.S.; Nabuurs, J.A.; Bastiaansen, B.A.J.; Löwenberg, M.; Fockens, P.; Dekker, E. Automatic optical diagnosis of small colorectal lesions by laser-induced autofluorescence. Endoscopy 2015, 47, 56–62.
  46. Aihara, H.; Saito, S.; Inomata, H.; Ide, D.; Tamai, N.; Ohya, T.R.; Kato, T.; Amitani, S.; Tajiri, H. Computer-aided diagnosis of neoplastic colorectal lesions using ‘real-time’ numerical color analysis during autofluorescence endoscopy. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2013, 25, 488–494.
  47. Inomata, H.; Tamai, N.; Aihara, H.; Sumiyama, K.; Saito, S.; Kato, T.; Tajiri, H. Efficacy of a novel auto-fluorescence imaging system with computer-assisted color analysis for assessment of colorectal lesions. World J. Gastroenterol. 2013, 19, 7146–7153.
  48. Aihara, H.; Sumiyama, K.; Saito, S.; Tajiri, H.; Ikegami, M. Numerical analysis of the autofluorescence intensity of neoplastic and non-neoplastic colorectal lesions by using a novel videoendoscopy system. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2009, 69, 726–733.e1.
  49. Häfner, M.; Liedlgruber, M.; Uhl, A.; Vécsei, A.; Wrba, F. Delaunay triangulation-based pit density estimation for the classification of polyps in high-magnification chromo-colonoscopy. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 2012, 107, 565–581.
  50. Butterly, L.F.; Chase, M.P.; Pohl, H.; Fiarman, G.S. Prevalence of clinically important histology in small adenomas. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2006, 4, 343–348.
  51. Ponugoti, P.L.; Cummings, O.W.; Rex, D.K. Risk of cancer in small and diminutive colorectal polyps. Dig. Liver Dis. 2017, 49, 34–37.
  52. Hassan, C.; Pickhardt, P.J.; Rex, D.K. A resect and discard strategy would improve cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2010, 8, 865–869.e3.
  53. Tamai, N.; Saito, Y.; Sakamoto, T.; Nakajima, T.; Matsuda, T.; Sumiyama, K.; Tajiri, H.; Koyama, R.; Kido, S. Effectiveness of computer-aided diagnosis of colorectal lesions using novel software for magnifying narrow-band imaging: A pilot study. Endosc. Int. Open 2017, 5, 690–694.
  54. Shimura, T.; Ebi, M.; Yamada, T.; Hirata, Y.; Nishiwaki, H.; Mizushima, T.; Asukai, K.; Togawa, S.; Takahashi, S.; Joh, T. Magnifying Chromoendoscopy and Endoscopic Ultrasonography Measure Invasion Depth of Early Stage Colorectal Cancer With Equal Accuracy on the Basis of a Prospective Trial. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014, 12, 662–668.e2.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback