CClinicalTrials.gg
TerminatedNCT04555135ColonCADeUpdated Apr 1, 2022

A Clinical Study To Measure The Effect Of Use Of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Enabled Computer Aided Detection (CADe) Assistance Software In Detecting Colon Polyps During Standard Colonoscopy Procedures

An interventional study of EndoVigilant Software in Colon Polyp, Colon Neoplasm and Colon Adenoma, sponsored by EndoVigilant Inc. Terminated at 4 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 45 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-04-01.

Sponsored by EndoVigilant Inc · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic

Why this study was terminated
Decision made based on Interim Analysis Results

From the registry’s dates

  • Primary completion was Sep 2021, 5 years ago, and no results have been posted to the registry.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
769
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
45 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

EndoVigilant software device augments existing colonoscopy procedure video in real-time by highlighting colon polyps and mucosal abnormalities. It is intended to assist gastroenterologists in detection of adenomas and serrated polyps. The device is an adjunctive tool and is not intended to replace physicians' decision making related to detection, diagnosis or treatment.

This study with an adaptive design measures the clinical benefit (increase in detection of adenomatous and serrated polyps) and increased risk (increased extraction of non-adenomas) during standard colonoscopy procedures when EndoVigilant software device is used.

Read the detailed description

This study will analyze the clinical benefit and risk of using the EndoVigilant polyp detection assistance software based device during screening and surveillance colonoscopy procedures. The study subjects will be randomized to a procedure with or without the use of EndoVigilant software. While using this device, colonoscopy will continue to be performed in the standard manner as is done without the use of this device. The video signal from the colonoscope will be fed into a computer running the EndoVigilant software in addition to the standard video output to the procedure monitor. The gastroenterologist performing the procedure will therefore be able to observe a standard colonoscopy video on the primary monitor and the augmented video on the second monitor. The gastroenterologist may rely on the second monitor (with augmented video generated from EndoVigilant software) for polyp detection, but the standard procedure monitor with the original feed will always be operational and available for maneuvers such as fast insertion, polypectomy etc.

The study will have an adaptive design with an interim analysis after 700 subjects to re-estimate the final sample size of the study.

The study will include a diverse set of endoscopists across age, sex, years of experience and practice settings. In order to comply with FDA guidance this pivotal study will only include endoscopists with ADR of 25-40% in their routine clinical practice. At the discretion of Endovigilant, endoscopists with an ADR of \<25% or >40% may be included for a separate exploratory analysis to examine the impact of the system on endoscopists with ADR outside of the FDA-mandated range. But in accordance with FDA guidance, the procedures done by these endoscopists will not be included in the primary endpoint analysis.

02

Conditions studied

  • Colon Polyp
  • Colon Neoplasm
  • Colon Adenoma

Keywords

  • Colonoscopy
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Computer Aided Detection
03

In context

Adenoma

657 studies on the registry are indexed under Adenoma; 98 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 769 is above the median of 250 across 412 interventional studies indexed under Adenoma.

Browse Adenoma studies →

Lead sponsor

EndoVigilant Inc is the lead sponsor of 2 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
45 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  1. Patient is 45 years old or older.
  2. Patient is presenting for colon cancer screening or low-risk surveillance colonoscopy. Low risk surveillance is defined as the patient qualifying for a colonoscopy surveillance interval of 5 years based on US Multi-Society Task Force 2020 Guidelines (i.e., up to 4 tubular adenomas \<1cm, up to 4 sessile serrated polyps \<1cm on most recent colonoscopy).
  3. Informed consent document for participating in the study signed by patient or patient's guardian.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Patient has known history of inflammatory bowel disease (ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease).
  2. Patient has known or suspected polyposis or hereditary colon cancer syndrome (such as familial adenomatous polyposis, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer).
  3. Patient referred for diagnostic colonoscopy to work up symptoms (such as abdominal pain or bleeding), laboratory abnormalities (such as anemia) or imaging findings (such as masses found on imaging).
  4. Patient has history of colon resection (not including appendectomy).
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Diagnostic
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Participant)
Enrollment
769 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Colonoscopy Procedure with EndoVigilant Software

    Colonoscopy Procedure is performed with EndoVigilant Software assisting the gastroenterologist during colonoscopy procedure.

    Device: EndoVigilant Software

  • No intervention
    Colonoscopy Procedure without EndoVigilant Software

    Colonoscopy Procedure is performed without EndoVigilant Software assisting the gastroenterologist during colonoscopy procedure.

Interventions

  • DeviceEndoVigilant Software

    While using this device, colonoscopy will continue to be performed in the standard manner as is done without the use of this device. The video signal from the colonoscope will be fed into a computer running the EndoVigilant software in addition to the standard video output to the procedure monitor. The gastroenterologist performing the procedure will therefore be able to observe a standard colonoscopy video on the primary monitor and the augmented video on the second monitor. The gastroenterologist may rely on the second monitor (with augmented video generated from EndoVigilant software) for polyp detection, but the standard procedure monitor with the original feed will always be operational and available for maneuvers such as fast insertion, polypectomy etc.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Average Number of Adenomas Per Colonoscopy

    Average Number of Adenomas Per Colonoscopy for all study subjects undergoing colonoscopy procedures, separately calculated for each of the study arms.

    Time frame: Receipt of pathology results for procedure findings (typically within 2 weeks after the procedure)

  2. Average Number of Adenomas Per Extraction

    Percent of extractions that are adenomas per Colonoscopy for all study subjects undergoing colonoscopy procedures, separately calculated for each of the study arms.

    Time frame: Receipt of pathology results for procedure findings (typically within 2 weeks after the procedure)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Average Number of Serrated Polyps per Colonoscopy

    Average Number of Serrated Polyps per Colonoscopy for all study subjects undergoing colonoscopy procedures, separately calculated for each of the study arms.

    Time frame: Receipt of pathology results for procedure findings (typically within 2 weeks after the procedure)

  2. Average Number of Non-adenomatous, non-serrated polyps per colonoscopy

    Average Number of Non-adenomatous, non-serrated polyps per colonoscopy for all study subjects undergoing colonoscopy procedures, separately calculated for each of the study arms.

    Time frame: Receipt of pathology results for procedure findings (typically within 2 weeks after the procedure)

  3. Adenoma Detection Rate in Screening Colonoscopies

    Adenoma Detection Rate in Screening Colonoscopies for study subjects undergoing screening colonoscopy procedures, separately calculated for each of the study arms.

    Time frame: Receipt of pathology results for procedure findings (typically within 2 weeks after the procedure)

  4. Serrated Polyp Detection Rate in Screening Colonoscopies

    Serrated Polyp Detection Rate in Screening Colonoscopies for study subjects undergoing screening colonoscopy procedures, separately calculated for each of the study arms.

    Time frame: Receipt of pathology results for procedure findings (typically within 2 weeks after the procedure)

  5. Adenoma Detection Rate in All Colonoscopies

    Adenoma Detection Rate in All Colonoscopies for all study subjects undergoing colonoscopy procedures, separately calculated for each of the study arms.

    Time frame: Receipt of pathology results for procedure findings (typically within 2 weeks after the procedure)

  6. Serrated Polyp Detection Rate in All Colonoscopies

    Serrated Polyp Detection Rate in All Colonoscopies for all study subjects undergoing colonoscopy procedures, separately calculated for each of the study arms.

    Time frame: Receipt of pathology results for procedure findings (typically within 2 weeks after the procedure)

  7. Adenomatous Polyp Location Distribution Per Colonoscopy (Distal and Proximal Colon)

    Adenomatous Polyp Location Distribution Per Colonoscopy (Distal and Proximal Colon) for all study subjects undergoing colonoscopy procedures, separately calculated for each of the study arms.

    Time frame: Receipt of pathology results for procedure findings (typically within 2 weeks after the procedure)

  8. Adenomatous Polyp Size Distribution Per Colonoscopy <6mm, 6-10mm, or >=10mm)

    Adenomatous Polyp Size Distribution Per Colonoscopy \<6mm, 6-10mm, or \>=10mm) for all study subjects undergoing colonoscopy procedures, separately calculated for each of the study arms.

    Time frame: Receipt of pathology results for procedure findings (typically within 2 weeks after the procedure)

  9. Adenomatous Polyp Distribution by Paris Classification (Ip/Is, IIa/b/c) Per Colonoscopy

    Adenomatous Polyp Distribution by Paris Classification (Ip/Is, IIa/b/c) Per Colonoscopy for all study subjects undergoing colonoscopy procedures, separately calculated for each of the study arms.

    Time frame: Receipt of pathology results for procedure findings (typically within 2 weeks after the procedure)

  10. Withdrawal Time

    Average time duration from the time when cecum is reached and the end of the colonoscopy procedure for all study subjects undergoing colonoscopy procedures, separately calculated for each of the study arms.

    Time frame: Completion of the procedure (typically less than an hour)

  11. Procedure Time

    Average duration of the entire colonoscopy procedure for all study subjects undergoing colonoscopy procedures, separately calculated for each of the study arms.

    Time frame: Completion of the procedure (typically less than an hour)

07

Study locations

4 sites
  • Pacific Gastroenterology Endoscopy Center
    Mission Viejo, California 92691, United States
  • Naugatuck Valley Surgical Center
    Waterbury, Connecticut 06708, United States
  • Greenbelt Endoscopy Center
    Greenbelt, Maryland 20706, United States
  • Dr. Satya Kastuar Gastroenterology Practice
    North Brunswick, New Jersey 08902, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, van Ballegooijen M, Hankey BF, Shi W, Bond JH, Schapiro M, Panish JF, Stewart ET, Waye JD. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med. 2012 Feb 23;366(8):687-96. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1100370. PubMed 22356322 ↗
  • Klare P, Sander C, Prinzen M, Haller B, Nowack S, Abdelhafez M, Poszler A, Brown H, Wilhelm D, Schmid RM, von Delius S, Wittenberg T. Automated polyp detection in the colorectum: a prospective study (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Mar;89(3):576-582.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.09.042. Epub 2018 Oct 17. PubMed 30342029 ↗
  • Singh S, Singh PP, Murad MH, Singh H, Samadder NJ. Prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of interval colorectal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Sep;109(9):1375-89. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2014.171. Epub 2014 Jun 24. PubMed 24957158 ↗
  • Zhao S, Wang S, Pan P, Xia T, Chang X, Yang X, Guo L, Meng Q, Yang F, Qian W, Xu Z, Wang Y, Wang Z, Gu L, Wang R, Jia F, Yao J, Li Z, Bai Y. Magnitude, Risk Factors, and Factors Associated With Adenoma Miss Rate of Tandem Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2019 May;156(6):1661-1674.e11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.260. Epub 2019 Feb 6. PubMed 30738046 ↗
  • Fernandez-Esparrach G, Bernal J, Lopez-Ceron M, Cordova H, Sanchez-Montes C, Rodriguez de Miguel C, Sanchez FJ. Exploring the clinical potential of an automatic colonic polyp detection method based on the creation of energy maps. Endoscopy. 2016 Sep;48(9):837-42. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-108434. Epub 2016 Jun 10. PubMed 27285900 ↗
  • Misawa M, Kudo SE, Mori Y, Cho T, Kataoka S, Yamauchi A, Ogawa Y, Maeda Y, Takeda K, Ichimasa K, Nakamura H, Yagawa Y, Toyoshima N, Ogata N, Kudo T, Hisayuki T, Hayashi T, Wakamura K, Baba T, Ishida F, Itoh H, Roth H, Oda M, Mori K. Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Polyp Detection for Colonoscopy: Initial Experience. Gastroenterology. 2018 Jun;154(8):2027-2029.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.04.003. Epub 2018 Apr 11. No abstract available. PubMed 29653147 ↗
  • Urban G, Tripathi P, Alkayali T, Mittal M, Jalali F, Karnes W, Baldi P. Deep Learning Localizes and Identifies Polyps in Real Time With 96% Accuracy in Screening Colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2018 Oct;155(4):1069-1078.e8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.06.037. Epub 2018 Jun 18. PubMed 29928897 ↗
  • Wang P, Xiao X, Glissen Brown JR, Berzin TM, Tu M, Xiong F, Hu X, Liu P, Song Y, Zhang D, Yang X, Li L, He J, Yi X, Liu J, Liu X. Development and validation of a deep-learning algorithm for the detection of polyps during colonoscopy. Nat Biomed Eng. 2018 Oct;2(10):741-748. doi: 10.1038/s41551-018-0301-3. Epub 2018 Oct 10. PubMed 31015647 ↗
  • Wang P, Berzin TM, Glissen Brown JR, Bharadwaj S, Becq A, Xiao X, Liu P, Li L, Song Y, Zhang D, Li Y, Xu G, Tu M, Liu X. Real-time automatic detection system increases colonoscopic polyp and adenoma detection rates: a prospective randomised controlled study. Gut. 2019 Oct;68(10):1813-1819. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317500. Epub 2019 Feb 27. PubMed 30814121 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 1, 2022, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04555135
Lead sponsor
EndoVigilant Inc
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Sep 18, 2020
Start date
Sep 28, 2020
Primary completion
Sep 24, 2021
Completion
Nov 30, 2021
Last update
Apr 1, 2022

Study contacts

Shai Friedland, MD
principal investigator · VA Palo Alto Health Care System

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is terminated, as verified in Mar 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion