ObjectiveThis study was performed to evaluate whether the use of CAD EYE (Fujifilm, Tokyo, Japan) for colonoscopy improves colonoscopy quality in gastroenterology trainees.MethodsThe patients in this multicenter randomized controlled trial were divided into Group A (observation using CAD EYE) and Group B (standard observation). Six trainees performed colonoscopies using a back‐to‐back method in pairs with gastroenterology experts. The primary end‐point was the trainees' adenoma detection rate (ADR), and the secondary end‐points were the trainees' adenoma miss rate (AMR) and Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool scores. Each trainee's learning curve was evaluated using a cumulative sum (CUSUM) control chart.ResultsWe analyzed data for 231 patients (Group A, n = 113; Group B, n = 118). The ADR was not significantly different between the two groups. Group A had a significantly lower AMR (25.6% vs. 38.6%, P = 0.033) and number of missed adenomas per patient (0.5 vs. 0.9, P = 0.004) than Group B. Group A also had significantly higher ACE tool scores for pathology identification (2.26 vs. 2.07, P = 0.030) and interpretation and identification of pathology location (2.18 vs. 2.00, P = 0.038). For the CUSUM learning curve, Group A showed a trend toward a lower number of cases of missed multiple adenomas by the six trainees.ConclusionCAD EYE did not improve ADR but decreased the AMR and improved the ability to accurately locate and identify colorectal adenomas. CAD EYE can be assumed to be beneficial for improving colonoscopy quality in gastroenterology trainees.Trial registrationUniversity Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000044031).

No abstract

No abstract

Background and Aim The present study aimed to compare the utility and safety of the colonic self‐expandable metallic stent between patients with obstructive primary colorectal cancer who underwent chemotherapy or palliative treatment care and patients bridging for surgery. Methods The cases of 71 patients with colonic obstructive stenosis and in‐dwelling stents who were hospitalized between May 2012 and April 2020 at Karatsu Red Cross Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were classified into three groups: bridging for curative surgery (group I), receiving systemic chemotherapy (group II‐A), and receiving only palliative treatment (group II‐B). Technical and clinical success rates and complication rates after stenting were evaluated. Results No significant differences were observed in the technical (procedure) success rates (group I: 100%; group II, 97.6% [II‐A: 100%; II‐B: 95.8%]). The total clinical success rate was 85.9% (61/71) and did not vary significantly among the groups (group I: 82.8%; group II 88.0% [II‐A: 83.3%; II‐B: 91.6%]). No significant differences were observed in the early complication rates between groups I and II and in the late complication rates between groups II‐A and II‐B. Nutrition status, general condition, tumor staging, and 1‐year survival were poorer in group II than in group I. Conclusion The findings show that colonic stenting for malignant obstruction was performed successfully and safely both in patients who received systemic chemotherapy or palliative therapy and in patients bridging for curative surgery, regardless of risk status for malnutrition, poor general condition, cancer stage progression, and short survival.