Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

CADe colonoscopy fails to raise adenoma detection overall; benefit seen only in low performersComputer-aided detection may help less experienced doctors find polyps

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider CADe only for low performing endoscopists; no overall ADR benefit was seen.

This randomized controlled trial evaluated whether computer-aided detection (CADe) assisted colonoscopy improves adenoma detection compared with standard high definition colonoscopy in 4824 patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy within the Galician colorectal cancer screening program. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR).

Overall, CADe did not increase ADR: 58.8% with CADe versus 57.4% with standard colonoscopy (aRR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95-1.10). In a prespecified subgroup analysis by endoscopist performance, CADe increased ADR among low performing endoscopists (ADR <54.5%): 52.1% versus 45.5% (aRR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01-1.30). Among high performing endoscopists, there was no difference: 63.5% versus 65.9% (aRR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88-1.05).

Safety outcomes, including adverse events, serious adverse events, discontinuations, and tolerability, were not reported. Follow-up duration was not reported. A key limitation is the exclusion of incomplete examinations (5309 randomized versus 4824 analyzed). Funding and conflicts of interest were not reported.

The findings suggest that CADe benefit may be limited to lower performing endoscopists in a high performing screening program. Clinicians should interpret these results in the context of local endoscopist performance and the absence of safety data.

How this fits prior evidence

This trial extends prior coverage of colorectal cancer detection and treatment. Previous evidence showed that volumetric FDG-PET parameters can identify microsatellite instability, and that CT-derived visceral fat area predicts anastomotic leakage, highlighting ongoing efforts to refine risk stratification and detection. In contrast to these positive signals, this RCT found no overall ADR benefit with CADe, mirroring other negative findings covered here, such as aspirin failing to improve survival in colorectal cancer and FOLFOXIRI plus cetuximab not improving outcomes in mCRC. The subgroup benefit among low performing endoscopists addresses a gap by suggesting CADe may have a targeted role, though this requires confirmation.

When a doctor performs a colonoscopy to screen for colorectal cancer, finding polyps early is the best way to prevent cancer from developing. Some doctors are more experienced at spotting these tiny growths than others. A large study of over 4,800 patients looked at whether using a computer-aided detection (CADe) tool could help doctors find more polyps during the procedure.

While the tool did not change the overall number of polyps found across the entire group of doctors, it did make a difference for a specific group. For doctors who were identified as lower performing, the use of the computer tool increased the rate of polyps found from 45.5% to 52.1%. For doctors who were already high performing, the tool did not change the results.

This suggests that while the technology might not be necessary for every doctor, it could be a helpful extra set of eyes for those who need more support. Because the study excluded some incomplete exams, the results are based on the 4,824 procedures that were fully completed.

What this means for you:
Computer-aided tools may specifically help less experienced doctors find more polyps during colonoscopies.

Common questions

Does the computer tool help every doctor find more polyps?

No, the tool did not increase the number of polyps found in the overall group or among high-performing doctors. It only showed a significant increase for doctors who were identified as lower performing, where the detection rate rose from 45.5% to 52.1%.

What is the difference between standard and computer-assisted colonoscopies?

In this study, the standard colonoscopy and the computer-assisted version showed no difference in the overall number of polyps found. The difference was only seen in the specific group of lower-performing endoscopists who used the computer-aided detection tool.

Is it safe to use computer-aided detection during a colonoscopy?

The study did not report any specific safety data, adverse events, or issues with how well patients tolerated the use of the computer-aided detection tool during their procedures.

Study Details

Study typeRct
EvidenceLevel 2
PublishedOct 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Computer-aided detection (CADe) increases adenoma detection in colonoscopy, but its effectiveness in postpolypectomy surveillance remains uncertain. This study compared the adenoma detection rate (ADR) of CADe-assisted versus standard high definition colonoscopy during surveillance. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, randomized controlled trial in the Galician colorectal cancer screening program. Colonoscopy days were randomized in a 1 : 1 ratio to high definition colonoscopy with or without CADe. The primary end point was the ADR. Prespecified subgroup analyses evaluated endoscopist baseline performance (median ADR in the standard arm). Effect estimates are reported as adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) with 95%CI. RESULTS: Of 5309 randomized surveillance colonoscopies, 4824 surveillance colonoscopies were included in the final analysis (2469 standard; 2355 CADe-assisted) after exclusion of incomplete examinations. The ADR did not differ between the groups (57.4% vs. 58.8%; aRR 1.02, 95%CI 0.95-1.10). CADe increased ADR among low performing (ADR <54.5%) endoscopists (45.5% vs. 52.1%; aRR 1.15, 95%CI 1.01-1.30), but not among high performing endoscopists (65.9% vs. 63.5%; aRR 0.96, 95%CI 0.88-1.05). CONCLUSIONS: In a high performing screening program, CADe did not increase ADR in surveillance colonoscopy. Its benefit may be limited to lower performing endoscopists.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.