| Literature DB >> 33911463 |
Yong Liu1.
Abstract
Esophageal cancer (EC) is a common malignant tumor of the digestive tract and originates from the epithelium of the esophageal mucosa. It has been confirmed that early EC lesions can be cured by endoscopic therapy, and the curative effect is equivalent to that of surgical operation. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is still the gold standard for EC diagnosis. The accuracy of endoscopic examination results largely depends on the professional level of the examiner. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been applied in the screening of early EC and has shown advantages; notably, it is more accurate than less-experienced endoscopists. This paper reviews the application of AI in the field of endoscopic detection of early EC, including squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma, and describes the relevant progress. Although up to now most of the studies evaluating the clinical application of AI in early EC endoscopic detection are focused on still images, AI-assisted real-time detection based on live-stream video may be the next step. ©The Author(s) 2021. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.Entities:
Keywords: Artificial intelligence; Diagnosis; Early esophageal cancer; Endoscopy; Trend
Year: 2021 PMID: 33911463 PMCID: PMC8047537 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i14.1392
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastroenterol ISSN: 1007-9327 Impact factor: 5.742
Artificial intelligence application for esophageal squamous cell cancer
| AI Application | Study design | Data category | Type of Images | AI architecture | Training dataset | Validation Method or dataset | AUC | SEN | SPE | ACC | PPV | NPV | Compared with experts | Ref. |
| Diagnosis | Retrospective | Still image | HRM | 2-class LDA | 104 sites | 167 sites | 0.93 | 84% | 95% | NA | NA | NA | NA | Shin |
| Diagnosis | Prospective | Still image | HRM | Fully automated algorithm | 104 sites | 167 sites | 0.937 | 95% | 91% | NA | NA | NA | NA | Quang |
| Detection | Retrospective | Still image | WCE | JDPCA + CCV | 400 images | 10-fold-CV | 0.9471 | 93.33% | 89.20% | 90.75% | NA | NA | NA | Liu |
| Diagnosis | Retrospective | Still image | WLI/NBI | CNN-SSD | 8428 images | Caffe DL framework/1118 images | NA | 81% (WLI)/89% (NBI) (per-patient) 72% (WLI)/86% (NBI) (per-image) | 79% | 99% | 39% | 95% | NA | Horie |
| Detection | Retrospective | Still image | WLI | DNN-CAD | 2428 images | 187 images | 0.9637 | 97.8% | 85.4% | 91.4% | 86.4% | 97.6% | Superior | Cai |
| Diagnosis | Retrospective | Still image | WLI/NBI/BLI | CNN-SSD | 22562 images | Caffe DL framework/727 images | NA | 100% (Non-ME + NBI/BLI) 90% (Non-ME + WLI) 98% (ME) | 63% (Non-ME + NBI/BLI) 76% (Non-ME + WLI) 56% (ME) | 77% (Non-ME + NBI/BLI) 81% (Non-ME + WLI) 77% (ME) | NA | NA | Equivalent | Ohmori |
| Diagnosis | Retrospective | Still image | ME-NBI | FCN-CAD | 1383 lesions | 3-fold-CV | NA | 87% (lesion level) | 84.1 (lesion level) | 89.2 (lesion level) 93.0 (pixel level) | NA | NA | Equivalent | Zhao |
| Diagnosis | Retrospective | Still image | ME-NBI | CNN | 7046 images | 5-fold-CV | NA | 89.3% | 98% | 93.7% | NA | NA | NA | Everson |
| Diagnosis | Retrospective | Still image | ECS | CNN-GoogLeNet | 4715 images | Caffe DL framework/1520 images | 0.85 | 92.6% | 89.3% | 90.9% | NA | NA | NA | Kumagai |
| Invasion depth measurement | Retrospective | Still image | WLI/NBI/BLI | CNN-SSD | 14338 images | Caffe DL framework/914 images | NA | 90.1% | 95.8% | 91.0% | 99.2% | 63.9% | Equivalent | Nakagawa |
| Invasion depth measurement | Retrospective | Still image | WLI/NBI | CNN-SDD-GoogLeNet | 1751 images | Caffe DL framework/291 images | NA | 84.1% | 73.3% | 80.9% | NA | NA | Superior | Tokai |
| Diagnosis | Retrospective | Still image/Real-time video | NBI | CAD-SegNet | 6473 images | 6671 images/80 videos | 0.989 | 98.04% (per-image) 91.5%(per-frame) | 95.03% (per-image) 99.9%(per-frame) | NA | NA | NA | NA | Guo |
| Diagnosis | Retrospective/ Prospective | Still image/Real-time image | WLI | GRAIDS/DeepLab V.3+ | 4091 images | 3323 images | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | Equivalent | Luo |
| Detection/Invasion depth measurement | Retrospective | Still image/Real-time video | NBI/BLI | CNN-SSD | 17274 images | 5277 images/144 videos | NA | 91.1% | 51.5% | 63.9% | 46.1% | 92.7% | Superior | Fukuda |
| Invasion depth measurement | Retrospective | Still image/video images | WLI/NBI/BLI | CNN-SSD | 23977 images | PyTorch DL framewor/102 video images | NA | 50% (non-ME) 70.8%(ME) | 98.7% (non-ME) 94.9%(ME) | 87.3% (non-ME) 89.2%(ME) | 92.3% (non-ME) 81.0%(ME) | 86.5% (non-ME) 91.4%(ME) | Superior | Shimamoto |
Although no detailed information about the classification of esophageal cancer (EC) was found in the research of Liu et al[20] and Luo et al[31], I prefer to summarize the data in this table because most EC patients in China suffer from esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. AI: Artificial intelligence; AUC: Area under the curve; SEN: Sensitivity; SPE: Specificity; ACC: Accuracy; PPV: Positive predictive value; NPV: Negative predictive value; HRM: High-resolution microendoscopy; 2-class LDA: Two-class linear discriminant analysis; NA: Not available; WCE: Wireless capsule endoscopy; JDPCA: Joint diagonalization principal component analysis; CCV: Color coherence vector; n-fold-CV: n-fold cross-validation; WLI: White light imaging; NBI: Narrow-band imaging; CNN: Convolutional neural network; SSD: Single-Shot Multibox Detector; DNN: Deep neural network; DL: Deep Learning; BLI: Blue Laser Imaging; ME: Magnifying endoscopy; FCN-CAD: Full convolutional network computer-aided detection; ECS: Endocytoscopic system; GRAIDS: Gastrointestinal Artificial Intelligence Diagnostic System.
Artificial intelligence application for esophageal adenocarcinoma
| AI Application | Study design | Data category | Type of Images | AI architecture | Training dataset | Validation Method or dataset | AUC | SEN | SPE | ACC | PPV | NPV | Compared with experts | Ref. |
| Detection | Retrospective | Still image | WLI | CAD-SVM | 64 images | LOOCV | NA | 95% | NA | 75% | NA | NA | NA | van der Sommen |
| Detection | Retrospective | Still image | WLI | CAD-SVM | 100 Images | LOOCV | NA | 83% (per-image) 86% (per-patient) | 83% (per-image) 87% (per-patient) | NA | NA | NA | Inferior | van der Sommen |
| Detection | Retrospective | Still image | VLE | CAD | 60 images | LOOCV | 0.95 | 90% | 93% | NA | NA | NA | Superior | Swager |
| Detection | Retrospective | Still image | VLE | CAD | 60 images | LOOCV | 0.90-0.93 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | Superior | van der Sommen |
| Diagnosis | Retrospective | Still image | WLI/NBI | CNN | 8 patients | Caffe DL framework | NA | 88% (WLI)/88% (NBI) (per-patient) 69% (WLI)/71% (NBI) (per-image) | NA | 90% | NA | NA | NA | Horie |
| Detection | Retrospective | Still image | WLE | CNN-SSD | 100 images/39patients | 20% patients/5-fold-CV/LOOCV | NA | 96% | 92% | NA | NA | NA | NA | Ghatwary |
| Detection | Retrospective | Still image | WLI/NBI | CNN- Inception-ResNet-v2 | 1832 images | 458 images | NA | 96.4% | 94.2% | 95.4% | NA | NA | NA | Hashimoto |
| Detection | Retrospective | Still image | WLI | CAD | 60 images | LOOCV | 0.92 | 95% | 85% | 91.7% | NA | NA | NA | de Groof |
| Detection | Retrospective | Still image | WLI | CAD-ResNet-UNet | 1544 images | 4-fold-CV (internal validation)/160 images (external validation) | NA | 87.6% (internal validation) 92.5% (external validation) | 88.6% (internal validation) 82.5% (external validation) | 88.2% (internal validation) 87.5% (external validation) | NA | NA | NA | de Groof |
| Diagnosis | Retrospective | Still image | WLI/NBI | CAD-ResNet | 248 images | LOOCV | NA | 97% (WLI)/94% (NBI) (Augsburg data)92% (MICCAI) | 88% (WLI)/80% (NBI) (Augsburg data)100% (MICCAI) | NA | NA | NA | NA | Ebigbo |
| Diagnosis | Retrospective | Random images from real-time video | WLI | CAD-ResNet-/DeepLab V.3+ | 129 images | 36 images (real time) | NA | 83.7% | 100% | 89.9% | NA | NA | NA | Ebigbo |
| Surveillance | Prospective | Real-time image | WLI/NBI/VLE | IRIS | NA | Real-time image | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | Trindade |
| Detection | Prospective | Live endoscopic procedure | Live endoscopic procedure | CAD-ResNet/U-Net | 1544 images | 48 levels/144 images/20 live endoscopic procedure | NA | 90.9% (per level) 75.8% (per image) 90% (per patient) | 89.2% (per level) 86.5% (per image) 90% (per patient) | 89.6% (per level) 84.0% (per image) 90% (per patient) | NA | NA | NA | de Groof |
AI: Artificial intelligence; AUC: Area under the curve; SEN: Sensitivity; SPE: Specificity; ACC: Accuracy; PPV: Positive predictive value; NPV: Negative predictive value; WLI: White light imaging; CAD: Computer-aided diagnosis; SVM: Support vector machines; LOOCV: Leave-one-out cross-validation; NA: Not available; VLE: Volume laser endoscopy; NBI: Narrow-band imaging; CNN: Convolutional neural network; DL: Deep learning; SSD: Single-Shot Multibox Detector; n-fold-CV: n-fold cross-validation; MICCAI: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted-Intervention; IRIS: Intelligent real-time image segmentation.