PurposeValidation metrics are a key prerequisite for the reliable tracking of scientific progress and for deciding on the potential clinical translation of methods. While recent initiatives aim to develop comprehensive theoretical frameworks for understanding metric-related pitfalls in image analysis problems, there is a lack of experimental evidence on the concrete effects of common and rare pitfalls on specific applications. We address this gap in the literature in the context of colon cancer screening.MethodsOur contribution is twofold. Firstly, we present the winning solution of the Endoscopy Computer Vision Challenge on colon cancer detection, conducted in conjunction with the IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging 2022. Secondly, we demonstrate the sensitivity of commonly used metrics to a range of hyperparameters as well as the consequences of poor metric choices.ResultsBased on comprehensive validation studies performed with patient data from six clinical centers, we found all commonly applied object detection metrics to be subject to high inter-center variability. Furthermore, our results clearly demonstrate that the adaptation of standard hyperparameters used in the computer vision community does not generally lead to the clinically most plausible results. Finally, we present localization criteria that correspond well to clinical relevance.ConclusionWe conclude from our study that (1) performance results in polyp detection are highly sensitive to various design choices, (2) common metric configurations do not reflect the clinical need and rely on suboptimal hyperparameters and (3) comparison of performance across datasets can be largely misleading. Our work could be a first step towards reconsidering common validation strategies in deep learning-based colonoscopy and beyond.