Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopy may increase adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and reduce adenoma miss rates, but it may increase overdiagnosis and overtreatment of nonneoplastic polyps. To quantify the benefits and harms of CADe in randomized trials. Systematic review and meta-analysis. (PROSPERO: CRD42022293181). Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases through February 2023. Randomized trials comparing CADe-assisted with standard colonoscopy for polyp and cancer detection. Adenoma detection rate (proportion of patients with ≥1 adenoma), number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenoma (≥10 mm with high-grade dysplasia and villous histology), number of serrated lesions per colonoscopy, and adenoma miss rate were extracted as benefit outcomes. Number of polypectomies for nonneoplastic lesions and withdrawal time were extracted as harm outcomes. For each outcome, studies were pooled using a random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. Twenty-one randomized trials on 18 232 patients were included. The ADR was higher in the CADe group than in the standard colonoscopy group (44.0% vs. 35.9%; relative risk, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.33]; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to a 55% (risk ratio, 0.45 [CI, 0.35 to 0.58]) relative reduction in miss rate (moderate-certainty evidence). More nonneoplastic polyps were removed in the CADe than the standard group (0.52 vs. 0.34 per colonoscopy; mean difference [MD], 0.18 polypectomy [CI, 0.11 to 0.26 polypectomy]; low-certainty evidence). Mean inspection time increased only marginally with CADe (MD, 0.47 minute [CI, 0.23 to 0.72 minute]; moderate-certainty evidence). This review focused on surrogates of patient-important outcomes. Most patients, however, may consider cancer incidence and cancer-related mortality important outcomes. The effect of CADe on such patient-important outcomes remains unclear. The use of CADe for polyp detection during colonoscopy results in increased detection of adenomas but not advanced adenomas and in higher rates of unnecessary removal of nonneoplastic polyps. European Commission Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major health problem with a high incidence and mortality all over the world. Natural history of HCC is severe and extremely variable, and prognostic factors influencing outcomes are incompletely defined. Over time, many staging and scoring systems have been proposed for the classification and prognosis of patients with HCC. Currently, the non-ideal predictive performance of existing prognostic systems is secondary to their inherent limitations, as well as to a non-universal reproducibility and transportability of the results in different populations. New serological and histological markers are still under evaluation with promising results, but they require further evaluation and external validation. The aim of this review is to highlight the main tools for assessing the prognosis of HCC and the main concerns, pitfalls and warnings regarding its staging systems currently in use.

Summary: Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) and alcohol abuse are the main risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Western countries.Aim: To investigate the role of alcoholic aetiology on clinical presentation, treatment and outcome of HCC as well as on each Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage, as compared to HCV‐related HCCs.Methods: A total of 1642 HCV and 573 alcoholic patients from the Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA) database, diagnosed with HCC between January 2000 and December 2012 were compared for age, gender, type of diagnosis, tumour burden, portal vein thrombosis (PVT), oesophageal varices, liver function tests, alpha‐fetoprotein, BCLC, treatment and survival. Aetiology was tested as predictor of survival in multivariate Cox regression models and according to HCC stages.Results: Cirrhosis was present in 96% of cases in both groups. Alcoholic patients were younger, more likely male, with HCC diagnosed outside surveillance, in intermediate/terminal BCLC stage and had worse liver function. After adjustment for the lead‐time, median (95% CI) overall survival (OS) was 27.4 months (21.5–33.2) in alcoholic and 33.6 months (30.7–36.5) in HCV patients (P = 0.021). The prognostic role of aetiology disappeared when survival was assessed in each BCLC stage and in the Cox regression multivariate models.Conclusions: Alcoholic aetiology affects survival of HCC patients through its negative effects on secondary prevention and cancer presentation but not through a greater cancer aggressiveness or worse treatment result. In fact, survival adjusted for confounding factors was similar in alcoholic and HCV patients.