Cost-effectiveness and environmental impact of artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy with the resect-and-discard strategy: a microsimulation study

Background Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy reduces costs in colorectal cancer screening, but its incremental value relative to non-AI resect-and-discard (RD) strategies for diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm) remain unclear. We aimed to compare the clinical, economic, and environmental outcomes of AI-assisted and non-AI RD strategies with standard of care (SoC). Methods In our Markov model simulating 6 million individuals aged ≥45 years undergoing screening colonoscopy, 4 strategies were evaluated: SoC, non-AI RD, CADe-assisted RD (CADe-RD), and CADe+CADx-assisted RD (CADe+CADx-RD). The primary outcome was total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with secondary outcomes including cost and carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. Results Non-AI RD achieved the lowest total cost ($36.6B) and carbon emissions (0.90 million kg CO₂), while yielding the highest QALYs (51.37 million), although differences in QALYs across strategies were small (<0.01%). CADe-RD and CADe+CADx-RD remained cost-saving relative to SoC ($36.9B and $37.4B vs $37.8B, respectively) but were associated with higher costs than non-AI RD. CADe modestly increased adenoma detection without improving QALYs, while the addition of CADx increased costs and emissions and resulted in slightly lower QALYs. Sensitivity analysis showed that CADe+CADx-RD matched or exceeded CADe-RD QALYs only within a limited region of high diagnostic performance. At currently reported CADx performance levels, CADe+CADx-RD yielded lower QALYs and higher costs than CADe-RD. CADe+CADx-RD achieved non-inferiority in QALYs relative to CADe-RD only within a limited region of high diagnostic performance. Conclusions In our non-deterministic model, non-AI RD provided the optimal balance of clinical benefit, cost savings, and lowest environmental impact.