IU Indianapolis ScholarWorks :: Browsing by Author "Repici, Alessandro"

Browsing by Author "Repici, Alessandro"

Now showing 1 - 10 of 16

Combination of Mucosa-Exposure Device and Computer-Aided Detection for Adenoma Detection During Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial
(Elsevier, 2023-07) Spadaccini, Marco; Hassan, Cesare; Rondonotti, Emanuele; Antonelli, Giulio; Andrisani, Gianluca; Lollo, Gianluca; Auriemma, Francesco; Iacopini, Federico; Facciorusso, Antonio; Maselli, Roberta; Fugazza, Alessandro; Bambina Bergna, Irene Maria; Cereatti, Fabrizio; Mangiavillano, Benedetto; Radaelli, Franco; Di Matteo, Francesco; Gross, Seth A.; Sharma, Prateek; Mori, Yuichi; Bretthauer, Michael; Rex, Douglas K.; Repici, Alessandro; Medicine, School of Medicine
Background & Aims Both computer-aided detection (CADe)-assisted and Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy have been found to increase adenoma detection. We investigated the performance of the combination of the 2 tools compared with CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone to detect colorectal neoplasias during colonoscopy in a multicenter randomized trial. Methods Men and women undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, polyp surveillance, or clincial indications at 6 centers in Italy and Switzerland were enrolled. Patients were assigned (1:1) to colonoscopy with the combinations of CADe (GI-Genius; Medtronic) and a mucosal exposure device (Endocuff Vision [ECV]; Olympus) or to CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone (control group). All detected lesions were removed and sent to histopathology for diagnosis. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenomas and serrated lesions detection rate, the rate of unnecessary polypectomies (polyp resection without histologically proven adenomas), and withdrawal time. Results From July 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022, there were 1316 subjects randomized and eligible for analysis; 660 to the ECV group, 656 to the control group). The adenoma detection rate was significantly higher in the ECV group (49.6%) than in the control group (44.0%) (relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00–1.26; P = .04). Adenomas detected per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the ECV group (mean ± SD, 0.94 ± 0.54) than in the control group (0.74 ± 0.21) (incidence rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04–1.54; P = .02). The 2 groups did not differ in term of detection of advanced adenomas and serrated lesions. There was no significant difference between groups in mean ± SD withdrawal time (9.01 ± 2.48 seconds for the ECV group vs 8.96 ± 2.24 seconds for controls; P = .69) or proportion of subjects undergoing unnecessary polypectomies (relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69–1.14; P = .38). Conclusions The combination of CADe and ECV during colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate and adenomas detected per colonoscopy without increasing withdrawal time compared with CADe alone.
Comparative Performance of Artificial Intelligence Optical Diagnosis Systems for Leaving in Situ Colorectal Polyps
(Elsevier, 2023-03) Hassan, Cesare; Sharma, Prateek; Mori, Yuichi; Bretthauer, Michael; Rex, Douglas K.; COMBO Study Group; Repici, Alessandro; Medicine, School of Medicine
Computer-aided detection for colorectal neoplasia in randomized and non-randomized studies
(Thieme, 2024-04-23) Mori, Yuichi; Patel, Harsh K.; Repici, Alessandro; Rex, Douglas K.; Sharma, Prateek; Hassan, Cesare; Medicine, School of Medicine
Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence for screening colonoscopy: a modelling study
(Elsevier, 2022) Areia, Miguel; Mori, Yuichi; Correale, Loredana; Repici, Alessandro; Bretthauer, Michael; Sharma, Prateek; Taveira, Filipe; Spadaccini, Marco; Antonelli, Giulio; Ebigbo, Alanna; Kudo, Shin-ei; Arribas, Julia; Barua, Ishita; Kaminski, Michal F.; Messmann, Helmut; Rex, Douglas K.; Dinis-Ribeiro, Mário; Hassan, Cesare; Medicine, School of Medicine
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools increase detection of precancerous polyps during colonoscopy and might contribute to long-term colorectal cancer prevention. The aim of the study was to investigate the incremental effect of the implementation of AI detection tools in screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, and the cost-effectiveness of such tools. Methods: We conducted Markov model microsimulation of using colonoscopy with and without AI for colorectal cancer screening for individuals at average risk (no personal or family history of colorectal cancer, adenomas, inflammatory bowel disease, or hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome). We ran the microsimulation in a hypothetical cohort of 100 000 individuals in the USA aged 50-100 years. The primary analysis investigated screening colonoscopy with versus without AI every 10 years starting at age 50 years and finishing at age 80 years, with follow-up until age 100 years, assuming 60% screening population uptake. In secondary analyses, we modelled once-in-life screening colonoscopy at age 65 years in adults aged 50-79 years at average risk for colorectal cancer. Post-polypectomy surveillance followed the simplified current guideline. Costs of AI tools and cost for downstream treatment of screening detected disease were estimated with 3% annual discount rates. The main outcome measures included the incremental effect of AI-assisted colonoscopy versus standard (no-AI) colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, and cost-effectiveness of screening projected for the average risk screening US population. Findings: In the primary analyses, compared with no screening, the relative reduction of colorectal cancer incidence with screening colonoscopy without AI tools was 44·2% and with screening colonoscopy with AI tools was 48·9% (4·8% incremental gain). Compared with no screening, the relative reduction in colorectal cancer mortality with screening colonoscopy with no AI was 48·7% and with screening colonoscopy with AI was 52·3% (3·6% incremental gain). AI detection tools decreased the discounted costs per screened individual from $3400 to $3343 (a saving of $57 per individual). Results were similar in the secondary analyses modelling once-in-life colonoscopy. At the US population level, the implementation of AI detection during screening colonoscopy resulted in yearly additional prevention of 7194 colorectal cancer cases and 2089 related deaths, and a yearly saving of US$290 million. Interpretation: Our findings suggest that implementation of AI detection tools in screening colonoscopy is a cost-saving strategy to further prevent colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.
Delphi Initiative for Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer (DIRECt) International Management Guidelines
(Elsevier, 2023) Cavestro, Giulia Martina; Mannucci, Alessandro; Balaguer, Francesc; Hampel, Heather; Kupfer, Sonia S.; Repici, Alessandro; Sartore-Bianchi, Andrea; Seppälä, Toni T.; Valentini, Vincenzo; Boland, Clement Richard; Brand, Randall E.; Buffart, Tineke E.; Burke, Carol A.; Caccialanza, Riccardo; Cannizzaro, Renato; Cascinu, Stefano; Cercek, Andrea; Crosbie, Emma J.; Danese, Silvio; Dekker, Evelien; Daca-Alvarez, Maria; Deni, Francesco; Dominguez-Valentin, Mev; Eng, Cathy; Goel, Ajay; Guillem, Josè G.; Houwen, Britt B. S. L.; Kahi, Charles; Kalady, Matthew F.; Kastrinos, Fay; Kühn, Florian; Laghi, Luigi; Latchford, Andrew; Liska, David; Lynch, Patrick; Malesci, Alberto; Mauri, Gianluca; Meldolesi, Elisa; Møller, Pål; Monahan, Kevin J.; Möslein, Gabriela; Murphy, Caitlin C.; Nass, Karlijn; Ng, Kimmie; Oliani, Cristina; Papaleo, Enrico; Patel, Swati G.; Puzzono, Marta; Remo, Andrea; Ricciardiello, Luigi; Ripamonti, Carla Ida; Siena, Salvatore; Singh, Satish K.; Stadler, Zsofia K.; Stanich, Peter P.; Syngal, Sapna; Turi, Stefano; Urso, Emanuele Damiano; Valle, Laura; Vanni, Valeria Stella; Vilar, Eduardo; Vitellaro, Marco; You, Yi-Qian Nancy; Yurgelun, Matthew B.; Zuppardo, Raffaella Alessia; Stoffel, Elena M.; Associazione Italiana Familiarità Ereditarietà Tumori; Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer; European Hereditary Tumour Group; International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumours; Medicine, School of Medicine
Background & aims: Patients with early-onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC) are managed according to guidelines that are not age-specific. A multidisciplinary international group (DIRECt), composed of 69 experts, was convened to develop the first evidence-based consensus recommendations for eoCRC. Methods: After reviewing the published literature, a Delphi methodology was used to draft and respond to clinically relevant questions. Each statement underwent 3 rounds of voting and reached a consensus level of agreement of ≥80%. Results: The DIRECt group produced 31 statements in 7 areas of interest: diagnosis, risk factors, genetics, pathology-oncology, endoscopy, therapy, and supportive care. There was strong consensus that all individuals younger than 50 should undergo CRC risk stratification and prompt symptom assessment. All newly diagnosed eoCRC patients should receive germline genetic testing, ideally before surgery. On the basis of current evidence, endoscopic, surgical, and oncologic treatment of eoCRC should not differ from later-onset CRC, except for individuals with pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants. The evidence on chemotherapy is not sufficient to recommend changes to established therapeutic protocols. Fertility preservation and sexual health are important to address in eoCRC survivors. The DIRECt group highlighted areas with knowledge gaps that should be prioritized in future research efforts, including age at first screening for the general population, use of fecal immunochemical tests, chemotherapy, endoscopic therapy, and post-treatment surveillance for eoCRC patients. Conclusions: The DIRECt group produced the first consensus recommendations on eoCRC. All statements should be considered together with the accompanying comments and literature reviews. We highlighted areas where research should be prioritized. These guidelines represent a useful tool for clinicians caring for patients with eoCRC.
Diagnostic Yield and Miss Rate of EndoRings in an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: the SMART (Study Methodology for ADR-Related Technology) Trial
(Elsevier, 2018) Hassan, Cesare; Senore, Carlo; Manes, Gianpiero; Fuccio, Lorenzo; Iacopini, Federico; Ricciardiello, Luigi; Anderloni, Andrea; Frazzoni, Leonardo; Ballanti, Riccardo; de Nucci, Germana; Colussi, Dora; Radaelli, Davide; Lorenzetti, Roberto; Devani, Massimo; Arena, Ilaria; Grossi, Cristina; Andrei, Fabio; Balestrazzi, Eleonora; Sharma, Prateek; Rex, Douglas K.; Repici, Alessandro; Medicine, School of Medicine
Background and aims The add-on EndoRings has been claimed to improve adenoma detection at colonoscopy, but available data are inconsistent. When testing a new technology, parallel and crossover methodologies measure different outcomes, leaving uncertainty on their correspondence. Aims of this study were to compare the diagnostic yield and miss rate of the EndoRings for colorectal neoplasia. Methods Consecutive subjects undergoing colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) within organized screening program in 7 Italian centers, were randomized between a parallel (EndoRings or Standard) or a crossover (EndoRings/Standard or Standard/EndoRings) methodology. Outcomes measures were the detection rates of (advanced) adenomas (A-)ADR in the parallel arms and miss rate of adenomas in the crossover arms. Results Of 958 eligible subjects, 927 (317 EndoRings; 317 Standard; 142 EndoRings/Standard; 151 Standard/Endorings) were included in the final analysis. In the parallel arms (mean ADR: 51.3%; mean AADR: 25.4%), no difference between Standard and EndoRings was found for both ADR (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.95-1.28) and A-ADR (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.88-1.51), as well as for the mean number of adenomas and advanced adenomas per patient (EndoRings: 1.9±1.3 and 1.0±1.2; Standard 2.1±1.5 and 1.0±1.2; p=NS for both comparisons). In the crossover arms, no difference in miss rate for adenomas between EndoRings and Standard was found at per-polyp (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.97-2.10), as well as at per-patient analysis (24% vs 26%; p=0.76). Conclusions No statistically significant difference in diagnostic yield and miss rate between EndoRings and Standard colonoscopy was detected in FIT+ patients. A clinically relevant correspondence between miss and detection rates was shown, supporting a cause-effect relationship.
Dye-based chromoendoscopy for the detection of colorectal neoplasia: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
(Elsevier, 2022) Antonelli, Giulio; Correale, Loredana; Spadaccini, Marco; Maselli, Roberta; Bhandari, Pradeep; Bisschops, Raf; Cereatti, Fabrizio; Dekker, Evelien; East, James E.; Iacopini, Federico; Jover, Rodrigo; Kiesslich, Ralph; Pellise, Maria; Sharma, Prateek; Rex, Douglas K.; Repici, Alessandro; Hassan, Cesare; Medicine, School of Medicine
Background and Aims Dye-Based chromoendoscopy (DBC) could be effective in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR) in patients undergoing colonoscopy, but the technique is time-consuming and its uptake is limited. We aimed to assess the effect of DBC on ADR based on available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods Four databases were searched up to April 2022, for RCTs comparing DBC with conventional colonoscopy (CC) in terms of ADR, advanced ADR, and sessile serrated adenoma (SSA) detection rates as well as the mean number of adenomas per patient (MAP) and non-neoplastic lesions. Relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes were calculated using random-effect models. I2 test was used for quantifying heterogeneity. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane tool. Results Overall, 10 RCTs (5,334 patients) were included. Indication for colonoscopy was screening or surveillance (3 studies), and mixed (7 studies). Pooled ADR was higher in the DBC group vs. CC group, (48.1%[41.4-54.8%] vs 39.3%[33.5-46.4%]; RR=1.20[1.11- 1.29]), with low heterogeneity (I2=29%). This effect was consistent for advanced ADR (RR=1.21[1.03-1.42] I2=0.0%), and for SSA (6.1% vs 3.5%; RR, 1.68; [1.15-2.47]; I2=9.8%), as well as for MAP (MD 0.24 [0.17–0.31]) overall and in the right colon (MD, 0.28 [0.14-0.43]. High-definition white-light colonoscopy (HDWL) was more effective than standard white-light colonoscopy (SDWL) for detection of adenomas (51.6% 95% CI:47.1-56.1% vs. 34.2%; 95% CI:28.5-40.4%) and DBC (59.1%; 95% CI:54.7-63.3%) was more effective than HDWL (RR=1.14; 95% CI:1.06-1.23, I2= 0.0%]. Conclusions Meta-analysis of RCTs showed that DBC increases key quality parameters in colonoscopy, supporting its use in every-day clinical practice.
Efficacy and Tolerability of High- vs Low-Volume Split-Dose Bowel Cleansing Regimens for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
(Elsevier, 2019) Spadaccini, Marco; Frazzoni, Leonardo; Vanella, Giuseppe; East, James; Radaelli, Franco; Spada, Cristiano; Fuccio, Lorenzo; Benamouzig, Robert; Bisschops, Raf; Bretthauer, Michael; Dekker, Evelien; Dinis-Ribeiro, Mario; Ferlitsch, Monika; Gralnek, Ian; Jover, Rodrigo; Kaminski, Michael F.; Pellisé, Maria; Triantafyllou, Konstantinos; Van Hooft, Jeanin E.; Dumonceau, Jean-Marc; Marmo, Clelia; Alfieri, Sergio; Chandrasekar, Viveksandeep Thoguluva; Sharma, Prateek; Rex, Doug K.; Repici, Alessandro; Hassan, Cesare; Medicine, School of Medicine
Background & Aims Efficacy of bowel preparation is an important determinant of outcomes of colonoscopy. It is not clear whether approved low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and non-PEG regimens are as effective as high-volume PEG regimens when taken in a split dose. Methods In a systematic review of multiple electronic databases through January 31, 2019 with a registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019128067), we identified randomized controlled trials that compared low- vs high-volume bowel cleansing regimens, administered in a split dose, for colonoscopy. The primary efficacy outcome was rate of adequate bowel cleansing, and the secondary efficacy outcome was adenoma detection rate. Primary tolerability outcomes were compliance, tolerability, and willingness to repeat. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95% CI values and assessed heterogeneity among studies by using the I2 statistic. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. Results In an analysis of data from 17 randomized controlled trials, comprising 7528 patients, we found no significant differences in adequacy of bowel cleansing between the low- vs high-volume split-dose regimens (86.1% vs 87.4%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98–1.02) and there was minimal heterogeneity (I2 = 17%). There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87–1.08) among 4 randomized controlled trials. Compared with high-volume, split-dose regimens, low-volume split-dose regimens had higher odds for compliance or completion (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02–1.10), tolerability (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12–1.74), and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20–1.66). The overall quality of evidence was moderate. Conclusions Based on a systematic review of 17 randomized controlled trials, low-volume, split-dose regimens appear to be as effective as high-volume, split-dose regimens in bowel cleansing and are better tolerated, with superior compliance.
High-definition colonoscopy versus Endocuff versus EndoRings versus Full-Spectrum Endoscopy for adenoma detection at colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized trial
(Elsevier, 2018) Rex, Douglas K.; Repici, Alessandro; Gross, Seth A.; Hassan, Cesare; Ponugoti, Prasanna L.; Garcia, Jonathan R.; Broadley, Heather M.; Thygesen, Jack C.; Sullivan, Andrew W.; Tippins, William W.; Main, Samuel A.; Eckert, George J.; Vemulapalli, Krishna C.; Medicine, School of Medicine
Background Devices used to improve polyp detection during colonoscopy have seldom been compared with each other. Methods We performed a 3-center prospective randomized trial comparing high-definition (HD) forward-viewing colonoscopy alone to HD with Endocuff to HD with EndoRings to the Full Spectrum Endoscopy (FUSE) system. Patients were age ≥50 years and had routine indications and intact colons. The study colonoscopists were all proven high-level detectors. The primary endpoint was adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) Results Among 1,188 patients who completed the study, APC with Endocuff (APC Mean ± SD 1.82 ± 2.58), EndoRings (1.55 ± 2.42), and standard HD colonoscopy (1.53 ± 2.33) were all higher than FUSE (1.30 ± 1.96,) (p<0.001 for APC). Endocuff was higher than standard HD colonoscopy for APC (p=0.014) . Mean cecal insertion times with FUSE (468 ± 311 seconds) and EndoRings (403 ± 263 seconds) were both longer than with Endocuff (354 ± 216 seconds) (p=0.006 and 0.018, respectively). Conclusions For high-level detectors at colonoscopy, forward-viewing HD instruments dominate the FUSE system, indicating that for these examiners image resolution trumps angle of view. Further, Endocuff is a dominant strategy over EndoRings and no mucosal exposure device on a forward-viewing HD colonoscope.
Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Colonoscopy Surveillance After Polyp Removal: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials
(Elsevier, 2023) Mori, Yuichi; Wang, Pu; Løberg, Magnus; Misawa, Masashi; Repici, Alessandro; Spadaccini, Marco; Correale, Loredana; Antonelli, Giulio; Yu, Honggang; Gong, Dexin; Ishiyama, Misaki; Kudo, Shin-ei; Kamba, Shunsuke; Sumiyama, Kazuki; Saito, Yutaka; Nishino, Haruo; Liu, Peixi; Glissen Brown, Jeremy R.; Mansour, Nabil M.; Gross, Seth A.; Kalager, Mette; Bretthauer, Michael; Rex, Douglas K.; Sharma, Prateek; Berzin, Tyler M.; Hassan, Cesare; Medicine, School of Medicine
Background and aims: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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]). Conclusions: 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.

Browsing by Author "Repici, Alessandro"

Results Per Page

Sort Options