Mori, Kensaku

Abstract The environmental impact of computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) in colonoscopy is unknown. The potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by limiting unnecessary polypectomies may be offset by emissions associated with CADx devices. We quantified and compared the carbon footprint of colonoscopy with and without CADx. Life-cycle carbon emissions associated with endoscopic snares, polyp traps, histopathology, and CADx devices were estimated using life-cycle assessment software. The effect of CADx was estimated by the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions related to outcomes from a prospective cohort of patients who underwent colonoscopy with optical diagnosis under a leave-in-situ strategy (i.e. rectosigmoid polyps ≤5 mm predicted as non-neoplastic were not removed) with and without CADx assistance. We analyzed 1134 individuals (median age 67 years, 59% male) with 1716 colorectal polyps. Colonoscopy with CADx reduced the number of snares and polyp traps from 567 to 543 (difference: 24) and histopathology submissions from 1343 to 1278 (difference: 65). However, the total carbon footprint increased from 832 kg CO2e (95%CI 815 to 847) without CADx to 946 kg CO2e (95%CI 927 to 965) with CADx, corresponding to an absolute increase of 114 kg CO2e (95%CI 80 to 150) or 0.10 kg CO2e per colonoscopy. Using CADx under a leave-in-situ strategy increased the environmental burden of colonoscopy.

ObjectivesAchalasia is an esophageal motility disorder that impairs quality of life and is often missed (20–50%) on endoscopy. A newly developed computer‐aided detection (CAD) software has shown high accuracy for achalasia diagnosis in preclinical settings. However, its benefit in a clinical setting remains unclear.MethodsBetween February and August 2023, 83 endoscopists from 27 centers assessed 50 randomized endoscopic videos (25 achalasia, 25 nonachalasia) without and with CAD. Endoscopists assessed videos without CAD, then with CAD after 2 months. The primary end‐point was improvement in sensitivity for nonexperienced endoscopists (no endoscopic experience of achalasia). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy with and without CAD were compared using the McNemar test.ResultsSensitivity for diagnosing achalasia increased significantly with CAD, rising from 74.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 72.2–76.0%) to 91.2% (95% CI 89.9–92.4%) for all readers, showing a difference of 17.1% (95% CI 15.1–19.0%). Specifically, sensitivity improved from 66.9% (95% CI 63.6–70.0%) to 91.9% (95% CI 89.9–93.6%) among nonexperienced endoscopists, resulting in a difference of 25.0% (95% CI 21.7–28.4%), and from 79.5% (95% CI 77.1–81.8%) to 90.8% (95% CI 89.0–92.3%) among experienced endoscopists (endoscopic experience of at least one achalasia case), with a difference of 11.3% (95% CI 8.9–13.6%). Accuracy and specificity improved significantly with CAD assistance, regardless of reader's experience.ConclusionCAD improves achalasia detection by 17%, confirming preclinical results. The benefit was higher for nonexperienced endoscopists. CAD assistance may lead to prompt and effective treatment, minimizing the risk of false‐negative diagnosis in clinical practice.Trial registrationThis study was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry (https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/) number: UMIN000053047.