Beyond White-Light Colonoscopy: Water Exchange, Image-Enhanced Endoscopy, and Artificial Intelligence for Colorectal Neoplasia Detection—From Single Tools to Combined Strategies: A Scoping Review

Background: Water exchange, image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE), and computer-aided detection (CADe) address different reasons why colorectal lesions may be missed. Whether their benefits add up when the techniques are combined remains unclear. Objective: We mapped clinical and video-based evidence on combinations of these techniques for colorectal neoplasia detection. Methods: We conducted a scoping review following JBI methodology and PRISMA-ScR, with a protocol registered on the Open Science Framework. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists through September 2026. Eligible studies evaluated at least two techniques together in adults and reported a detection outcome. Large language model tools assisted screening, with reviewer verification. We summarized findings descriptively and added a structured, domain-based critical appraisal during revision. Results: From 644 database records, we included 18 studies: 13 patient-level clinical studies, nine randomized, and five lesion- or video-level studies. Most examined IEE with CADe. One trial directly added CADe to water exchange; one tested all three technique groups. No included clinical study used water immersion. Randomized incremental comparisons showed inconsistent adenoma detection rate (ADR) gains, while multicomponent trials could not isolate component effects. Historical controls, discretionary technique selection, selected video material, and incomplete reporting constrained other comparisons. Evidence on advanced and serrated lesions, procedural burden, and patient-important outcomes was limited. Conclusions: Combined strategies improved detection in some settings, but comparative effectiveness and net clinical benefit remain uncertain. Trials should isolate component effects and measure clinically relevant detection alongside procedural burden.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cancers
Published
2026-11-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18213553
Primary Topic
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
article

Beyond White-Light Colonoscopy: Water Exchange, Image-Enhanced Endoscopy, and Artificial Intelligence for Colorectal Neoplasia Detection—From Single Tools to Combined Strategies: A Scoping Review

Lucian M Negreanu, Remus Popescu, M. C. Cozma, Teodora Spataru et al.
Cancers
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
article

Beyond White-Light Colonoscopy: Water Exchange, Image-Enhanced Endoscopy, and Artificial Intelligence for Colorectal Neoplasia Detection—From Single Tools to Combined Strategies: A Scoping Review

Lucian M Negreanu, Remus Popescu, M. C. Cozma, Teodora Spataru, Alina Pistritu
article en

Abstract

Background: Water exchange, image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE), and computer-aided detection (CADe) address different reasons why colorectal lesions may be missed. Whether their benefits add up when the techniques are combined remains unclear. Objective: We mapped clinical and video-based evidence on combinations of these techniques for colorectal neoplasia detection. Methods: We conducted a scoping review following JBI methodology and PRISMA-ScR, with a protocol registered on the Open Science Framework. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists through September 2026. Eligible studies evaluated at least two techniques together in adults and reported a detection outcome. Large language model tools assisted screening, with reviewer verification. We summarized findings descriptively and added a structured, domain-based critical appraisal during revision. Results: From 644 database records, we included 18 studies: 13 patient-level clinical studies, nine randomized, and five lesion- or video-level studies. Most examined IEE with CADe. One trial directly added CADe to water exchange; one tested all three technique groups. No included clinical study used water immersion. Randomized incremental comparisons showed inconsistent adenoma detection rate (ADR) gains, while multicomponent trials could not isolate component effects. Historical controls, discretionary technique selection, selected video material, and incomplete reporting constrained other comparisons. Evidence on advanced and serrated lesions, procedural burden, and patient-important outcomes was limited. Conclusions: Combined strategies improved detection in some settings, but comparative effectiveness and net clinical benefit remain uncertain. Trials should isolate component effects and measure clinically relevant detection alongside procedural burden.

CancersVol. 18(21)
Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy (RO), Clinical Emergency Hospital Bucharest (RO), Bucharest Emergency University Hospital (RO)
Openalex Percentile: Top 16%
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon