Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Colonoscopy Surveillance After Polyp Removal: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials

Background and AimsArtificial intelligence (AI) tools aimed at improving polyp detection have been shown to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. However, it is unknown how increased polyp detection rates by AI affect the burden of patient surveillance after polyp removal.MethodsWe conducted a pooled analysis of 9 randomized controlled trials (5 in China, 2 in Italy, 1 in Japan, and 1 in the United States) comparing colonoscopy with or without AI detection aids. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients recommended to undergo intensive surveillance (ie, 3-year interval). We analyzed intervals for AI and non-AI colonoscopies for the U.S. and European recommendations separately. We estimated proportions by calculating relative risks using the Mantel-Haenszel method.ResultsA total of 5796 patients (51% male, mean 53 years of age) were included; 2894 underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy and 2902 non-AI colonoscopy. When following U.S. guidelines, the proportion of patients recommended intensive surveillance increased from 8.4% (95% CI, 7.4%–9.5%) in the non-AI group to 11.3% (95% CI, 10.2%–12.6%) in the AI group (absolute difference, 2.9% 95% CI, 1.4%–4.4%; risk ratio, 1.35 95% CI, 1.16–1.57). When following European guidelines, it increased from 6.1% (95% CI, 5.3%–7.0%) to 7.4% (95% CI, 6.5%–8.4%) (absolute difference, 1.3% 95% CI, 0.01%–2.6%; risk ratio, 1.22 95% CI, 1.01–1.47).ConclusionsThe use of AI during colonoscopy increased the proportion of patients requiring intensive colonoscopy surveillance by approximately 35% in the United States and 20% in Europe (absolute increases of 2.9% and 1.3%, respectively). While this may contribute to improved cancer prevention, it significantly adds patient burden and healthcare costs. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools aimed at improving polyp detection have been shown to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. However, it is unknown how increased polyp detection rates by AI affect the burden of patient surveillance after polyp removal. We conducted a pooled analysis of 9 randomized controlled trials (5 in China, 2 in Italy, 1 in Japan, and 1 in the United States) comparing colonoscopy with or without AI detection aids. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients recommended to undergo intensive surveillance (ie, 3-year interval). We analyzed intervals for AI and non-AI colonoscopies for the U.S. and European recommendations separately. We estimated proportions by calculating relative risks using the Mantel-Haenszel method. A total of 5796 patients (51% male, mean 53 years of age) were included; 2894 underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy and 2902 non-AI colonoscopy. When following U.S. guidelines, the proportion of patients recommended intensive surveillance increased from 8.4% (95% CI, 7.4%–9.5%) in the non-AI group to 11.3% (95% CI, 10.2%–12.6%) in the AI group (absolute difference, 2.9% 95% CI, 1.4%–4.4%; risk ratio, 1.35 95% CI, 1.16–1.57). When following European guidelines, it increased from 6.1% (95% CI, 5.3%–7.0%) to 7.4% (95% CI, 6.5%–8.4%) (absolute difference, 1.3% 95% CI, 0.01%–2.6%; risk ratio, 1.22 95% CI, 1.01–1.47). The use of AI during colonoscopy increased the proportion of patients requiring intensive colonoscopy surveillance by approximately 35% in the United States and 20% in Europe (absolute increases of 2.9% and 1.3%, respectively). While this may contribute to improved cancer prevention, it significantly adds patient burden and healthcare costs.