Dataset Information

Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence and Computer-Aided Diagnosis for the Detection and Characterization of Colorectal Polyps: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Colonoscopy reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) by allowing detection and resection of neoplastic polyps. Evidence shows that many small polyps are missed on a single colonoscopy. There has been a successful adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to tackle the issues around missed polyps and as tools to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).

Objective

The aim of this review was to examine the diagnostic accuracy of AI-based technologies in assessing colorectal polyps.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was undertaken using the databases of Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Studies reporting the use of computer-aided diagnosis for polyp detection or characterization during colonoscopy were included. Independent proportions and their differences were calculated and pooled through DerSimonian and Laird random-effects modeling.

Results

A total of 48 studies were included. The meta-analysis showed a significant increase in pooled polyp detection rate in patients with the use of AI for polyp detection during colonoscopy compared with patients who had standard colonoscopy (odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% CI 1.56-1.96; P<.001). When comparing patients undergoing colonoscopy with the use of AI to those without, there was also a significant increase in ADR (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.32-1.77; P<.001).

Conclusions

With the aid of machine learning, there is potential to improve ADR and, consequently, reduce the incidence of CRC. The current generation of AI-based systems demonstrate impressive accuracy for the detection and characterization of colorectal polyps. However, this is an evolving field and before its adoption into a clinical setting, AI systems must prove worthy to patients and clinicians.

Trial registration

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020169786; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020169786.

SUBMITTER: Nazarian S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8319784 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:After the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved computer-aided detection (CAD) for mammography in 1998, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) provided increased payment in 2002, CAD technology disseminated rapidly. Despite sparse evidence that CAD improves accuracy of mammographic interpretations and costs over $400 million a year, CAD is currently used for most screening mammograms in the United States.To measure performance of digital screening mammography with and without CAD in US community practice.We compared the accuracy of digital screening mammography interpreted with (n = 495 818) vs without (n = 129 807) CAD from 2003 through 2009 in 323 973 women. Mammograms were interpreted by 271 radiologists from 66 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Linkage with tumor registries identified 3159 breast cancers in 323 973 women within 1 year of the screening.Mammography performance (sensitivity, specificity, and screen-detected and interval cancers per 1000 women) was modeled using logistic regression with radiologist-specific random effects to account for correlation among examinations interpreted by the same radiologist, adjusting for patient age, race/ethnicity, time since prior mammogram, examination year, and registry. Conditional logistic regression was used to compare performance among 107 radiologists who interpreted mammograms both with and without CAD.Screening performance was not improved with CAD on any metric assessed. Mammography sensitivity was 85.3% (95% CI, 83.6%-86.9%) with and 87.3% (95% CI, 84.5%-89.7%) without CAD. Specificity was 91.6% (95% CI, 91.0%-92.2%) with and 91.4% (95% CI, 90.6%-92.0%) without CAD. There was no difference in cancer detection rate (4.1 in 1000 women screened with and without CAD). Computer-aided detection did not improve intraradiologist performance. Sensitivity was significantly decreased for mammograms interpreted with vs without CAD in the subset of radiologists who interpreted both with and without CAD (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97).Computer-aided detection does not improve diagnostic accuracy of mammography. These results suggest that insurers pay more for CAD with no established benefit to women.

Project description:BACKGROUND : We aimed to compare the accuracy of the optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps, including sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), between a computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) system and endoscopists during real-time colonoscopy. METHODS : We developed the POLyp Artificial Recognition (POLAR) system, which was capable of performing real-time characterization of diminutive colorectal polyps. For pretraining, the Microsoft-COCO dataset with over 300 000 nonpolyp object images was used. For training, eight hospitals prospectively collected 2637 annotated images from 1339 polyps (i. e. publicly available online POLAR database). For clinical validation, POLAR was tested during colonoscopy in patients with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and compared with the performance of 20 endoscopists from eight hospitals. Endoscopists were blinded to the POLAR output. Primary outcome was the comparison of accuracy of the optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps between POLAR and endoscopists (neoplastic [adenomas and SSLs] versus non-neoplastic [hyperplastic polyps]). Histopathology served as the reference standard. RESULTS : During clinical validation, 423 diminutive polyps detected in 194 FIT-positive individuals were included for analysis (300 adenomas, 41 SSLs, 82 hyperplastic polyps). POLAR distinguished neoplastic from non-neoplastic lesions with 79 % accuracy, 89 % sensitivity, and 38 % specificity. The endoscopists achieved 83 % accuracy, 92 % sensitivity, and 44 % specificity. The optical diagnosis accuracy between POLAR and endoscopists was not significantly different (P = 0.10). The proportion of polyps in which POLAR was able to provide an optical diagnosis was 98 % (i. e. success rate). CONCLUSIONS : We developed a CADx system that differentiated neoplastic from non-neoplastic diminutive polyps during endoscopy, with an accuracy comparable to that of screening endoscopists and near-perfect success rate.