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:Importance:The recent advances in the field of machine learning have raised expectations that computer-aided diagnosis will become the standard for the diagnosis of melanoma. Objective:To critically review the current literature and compare the diagnostic accuracy of computer-aided diagnosis with that of human experts. Data Sources:The MEDLINE, arXiv, and PubMed Central databases were searched to identify eligible studies published between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2018. Study Selection:Studies that reported on the accuracy of automated systems for melanoma were selected. Search terms included melanoma, diagnosis, detection, computer aided, and artificial intelligence. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Evaluation of the risk of bias was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool, and quality assessment was based on predefined criteria. Data were analyzed from February 1 to March 10, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were the primary outcomes. Results:The literature search yielded 1694 potentially eligible studies, of which 132 were included and 70 offered sufficient information for a quantitative analysis. Most studies came from the field of computer science. Prospective clinical studies were rare. Combining the results for automated systems gave a melanoma sensitivity of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.80) and a specificity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.88). Sensitivity was lower in studies that used independent test sets than in those that did not (0.51; 95% CI, 0.34-0.69 vs 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.86; P?<?.001); however, the specificity was similar (0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.91 vs 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.88; P?=?.67). In comparison with dermatologists' diagnosis, computer-aided diagnosis showed similar sensitivities and a 10 percentage points lower specificity, but the difference was not statistically significant. Studies were heterogeneous and substantial risk of bias was found in all but 4 of the 70 studies included in the quantitative analysis. Conclusions and Relevance:Although the accuracy of computer-aided diagnosis for melanoma detection is comparable to that of experts, the real-world applicability of these systems is unknown and potentially limited owing to overfitting and the risk of bias of the studies at hand.

Project description:Prostate cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality for adult males in the US. The diagnosis of prostate carcinoma is usually made on prostate core needle biopsies obtained through a transrectal approach. These biopsies may account for a significant portion of the pathologists' workload, yet variability in the experience and expertise, as well as fatigue of the pathologist may adversely affect the reliability of cancer detection. Machine-learning algorithms are increasingly being developed as tools to aid and improve diagnostic accuracy in anatomic pathology. The Paige Prostate AI-based digital diagnostic is one such tool trained on the digital slide archive of New York's Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) that categorizes a prostate biopsy whole-slide image as either "Suspicious" or "Not Suspicious" for prostatic adenocarcinoma. To evaluate the performance of this program on prostate biopsies secured, processed, and independently diagnosed at an unrelated institution, we used Paige Prostate to review 1876 prostate core biopsy whole-slide images (WSIs) from our practice at Yale Medicine. Paige Prostate categorizations were compared to the pathology diagnosis originally rendered on the glass slides for each core biopsy. Discrepancies between the rendered diagnosis and categorization by Paige Prostate were each manually reviewed by pathologists with specialized genitourinary pathology expertise. Paige Prostate showed a sensitivity of 97.7% and positive predictive value of 97.9%, and a specificity of 99.3% and negative predictive value of 99.2% in identifying core biopsies with cancer in a data set derived from an independent institution. Areas for improvement were identified in Paige Prostate's handling of poor quality scans. Overall, these results demonstrate the feasibility of porting a machine-learning algorithm to an institution remote from its training set, and highlight the potential of such algorithms as a powerful workflow tool for the evaluation of prostate core biopsies in surgical pathology practices.

Project description:Backgroundartificial intelligence (AI) for cellular phenotyping diagnosis of nasal polyps by whole-slide imaging (WSI) is lacking. We aim to establish an AI chronic rhinosinusitis evaluation platform 2.0 (AICEP 2.0) to obtain the proportion of inflammatory cells for cellular phenotyping diagnosis of nasal polyps and to explore the clinical significance of different phenotypes of nasal polyps on the WSI.Methodsa total of 453 patients were enrolled in our study. For the development of AICEP 2.0, 179 patients (WSIs) were obtained from the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University (3HSYSU) from January 2008 to December 2018. A total of 24,625 patches were automatically extracted from the regions of interest under a 400× HPF by Openslide and the number of inflammatory cells in these patches was counted by two pathologists. For the application of AICEP 2.0 in a prospective cohort, 158 patients aged 14-70 years old with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) who had undergone endoscopic sinus surgery at 3HSYSU from June 2020 to December 2020 were included for preoperative demographic characteristics. For the application of AICEP 2.0 in a retrospective cohort, 116 patients with CRSwNP who had undergone endoscopic sinus surgery from May 2016 to June 2017 were enrolled for the recurrence rate. The proportion of inflammatory cells of these patients on WSI was calculated by our AICEP 2.0.Findingsfor AICEP 2.0, the mean absolute errors of the ratios of eosinophils, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and plasma cells were 1.64%, 2.13%, 1.06%, and 1.22%, respectively. The four phenotypes of nasal polyps were significantly different in clinical characteristics (including asthma, itching, sneezing, total IgE, peripheral eosinophils%, tissue eosinophils%, tissue neutrophils%, tissue lymphocytes%, tissue plasma cells%, and recurrence rate; P <0.05), but there were no significant differences in age distribution, onset time, total VAS score, Lund-Kennedy score, or Lund-Mackay score. The percentage of peripheral eosinophils was positively correlated with the percentage of tissue eosinophils (r = 0.560, P <0.001) and negatively correlated with tissue lymphocytes% (r = -0.489, P <0.001), tissue neutrophils% (r = -0.225, P = 0.005), and tissue plasma cells% (r = -0.266, P = 0.001) in WSIs.