| Literature DB >> 35359358 |
Xin Hou1, Guangyang Shen1, Liqiang Zhou2, Yinuo Li1, Tian Wang1, Xiangyi Ma1.
Abstract
Cervical cancer remains a leading cause of cancer death in women, seriously threatening their physical and mental health. It is an easily preventable cancer with early screening and diagnosis. Although technical advancements have significantly improved the early diagnosis of cervical cancer, accurate diagnosis remains difficult owing to various factors. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI)-based medical diagnostic applications have been on the rise and have excellent applicability in the screening and diagnosis of cervical cancer. Their benefits include reduced time consumption, reduced need for professional and technical personnel, and no bias owing to subjective factors. We, thus, aimed to discuss how AI can be used in cervical cancer screening and diagnosis, particularly to improve the accuracy of early diagnosis. The application and challenges of using AI in the diagnosis and treatment of cervical cancer are also discussed.Entities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence; cervical cancer; cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN); colposcopy; cytology; deep learning; early screening and diagnosis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35359358 PMCID: PMC8963491 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.851367
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Evolution of cervical cancer screening methods. The figure shows major milestones in the evolution of cervical cancer screening. The main screening methods for cervical cancer are HPV testing and TCT (cytology) nowadays.
The Bethesda system.
| Cell types | Classification |
|---|---|
| Normal | |
| Atypical squamous cells (ASC) | (1) atypical squamous cells of uncertain significance (ASC-US) |
| Atypical glandular cells (AGC) | (1) Atypical glandular cells, not otherwise specified (AGC-NOS); (specify endocervical, endometrial, or not otherwise specified) |
Figure 2Cervical cancer screening procedures are recommended for women aged 25 to 65. The American Cancer Society recommends screening starting at age 25 Colposcopy is recommended for HPV16/18 +, ASC-US and high risk HPV+ cytology with cytological results above ASC-H. Re-screening is recommended after 1 year for other abnormalities, and after 3 years for normal ones.
Application of AI in HPV testing.
| Reference | Year | Aim of study | Number of subjects | Methods | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wong et al. ( | 2019 | Identifying high-grade lesions and in triaging equivocal smears | 605 cervical cytology samples | Decision tree, random forest SVM-linear SVM-nonlinear | Specificity: 94.32% |
| Pathania D et al. ( | 2019 | Point-of-care HPV screening | Training sets: 13000 images Validation: 35 cervical specimens | CNN | Sensitivity: down to a single cell specificity: 100% |
| Tian R et al. ( | 2019 | Predicting cervical lesion grades | 10 HPV+ cases | Random forest unsupervised clustering | Accuracy 0.814 |
HPV, human papillomavirus; CIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; SVM, support vector machine; CNN, convolutional neural network.
Figure 3A example segmentation model based on Mask-RCNN architecture. Reproduced with the permission of ref. (51), copyright@IEEE, 2019. In training phase, input was pap smear slide image and nucleus ground truth mask with class label was preprocessed and then trained in Mask R-CNN. In testing phase, pap smear slide image was preprocessed. Mask RCNN was used to specify bounding box, nucleus mask, and class of each cell.
Application of AI in cervical cell segmentation.
| Reference | Year | Number of subjects | Methods | Datasets | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wang et al. ( | 2014 | 362 cervical cell images | Mean-Shift clustering algorithm | Private | Sensitivity: 94.25% |
| Song et al. ( | 2019 | 8 cervical cell images | CNN | ISBI2015 | DSC: 0.84 |
| Zhao et al. ( | 2016 | 917 single-cell images | Superpixel-based | Herlev | Herlev |
| Gautam et al. ( | 2018 | 917 single-cell images | Patch-based CNN | Herlev | DSC: 0.90 |
CNN, convolutional neural network; DSC, dice similarity coefficient; ZSI, zijdenbos similarity index.
Application of AI in cervical cell classification.
| Reference | Year | Methods | Datasets (Num. of images) | Classes | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chankong et al. ( | 2014 | Bayesian classifier KNN ANN | ERUDIT (552) | 4-class | Accuracy 96.20% |
| 2-class | Accuracy 97.83% | ||||
| Herlev (917) | 7-class | Accuracy 93.78% | |||
| 2-class | Accuracy 99.27% | ||||
| LCH (300) | 4-class | Accuracy 95.00% | |||
| 2-class | Accuracy 97.00% | ||||
| Borakden et al. ( | 2017 | Ensemble classifier: LSSVM MLP RF | Cell level (1610) | 2-class | Accuracy 99.07% |
| Specificity 98.90% | |||||
| Smear level (1320) | 3-class | Accuracy 98.11% | |||
| Specificity 99.35% | |||||
| Hervel (917) | 2-class | Accuracy 96.51% | |||
| Specificity 89.67% | |||||
| Zhang et al. ( | 2017 | CNN; Transfer learning | Herlev (917) | 7-class | Accuracy 98.30% |
| Specificity 98.30% | |||||
| HEMLBC (2370) | 2-class | Accuracy 98.60% | |||
| Specificity 99.00% | |||||
| sensitivity 98.30% | |||||
| Hussain et al. ( | 2020 | CNN; Transfer learning | LBC (own) (1670), Conventional(own) (1320) | 4-class | Accuracy 98.90% |
| Sensitivity 79.80% | |||||
| Specificity 97.90% | |||||
| Shi J et al. ( | 2020 | CGN | SIPAKMeD (4049) | 5-class | Accuracy 98.37% |
| Sensitivity 99.80% | |||||
| MOTIC (25378) | 7-class | Accuracy 94.93% | |||
| Sensitivity 92.98% | |||||
| Rahaman et al. ( | 2021 | HDFF | Herlev (917) | 2-class | Accuracy 98.32% |
| 7-class | Accuracy 90.32% | ||||
| SIPAKMeD (4049) | 2-class | Accuracy 90.32% | |||
| 5-class | Accuracy 99.14% |
KNN, K- Nearest Neighbor; ANN, Artificial Neural Network; LSSVM, Least Squares Support Vector Machine.
CNN, convolutional neural network; CGN, graph convolution network; HDFF, hybrid deep feature fusion techniques.
Application of AI in cytology to detect CIN.
| Reference | Year | N | Methods | Databases | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yu et al. ( | 2018 | 1839 | Risk score algorithm | Cytological image HPV testing | CIN2+ AUC 0.710CIN3+ AUC 0.740 |
| Bao et al. ( | 2020 | 703103 | DL | Cytological image | CIN1+ Sensitivity 88.9%Specificity 95.8%CIN2+ Sensitivity 90.10%Specificity 94.80%CIN3+Sensitivity 90.90%Specificity 94.40% |
| Bao et al. ( | 2020 | 2145 | ResNet | Cytological image | CIN2+ AUC 0.762CIN3+ AUC 0.755 |
| Wang et al. ( | 2020 | 143 | DL | whole slide images (WSIs) | precision 93.00%recall 90.00%, F-measure 88.00% |
| Holmström O et al. ( | 2021 | 740 | DL | Cytological image | HSIL+ AUC 0.970Sensitivity 85.7%Specificity 98.5% |
| Zhu et al. ( | 2021 | 980 | AIATBS | Cytological imageBiopsy diagnosis results | Sensitivity 94.74% |
DL, deep learning; CNN, convolutional neural network; AIATBS, artificial intelligence-assisted TBS; CIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; AUC, area under the curve; HSIL, high squamous intraepithelial lesion.
Figure 4Schematic representation of application of Convolutional Neural Network in colposcopy images. Schematic depicting that a CNN pre-trained on other large-scale image datasets can be adapted to significantly increase the accuracy and shorten the training duration of a network trained on a novel dataset of colposcopy images.
Application of AI in colposcopy.
| Reference | Year | Aim of the study | Number of subjects | Methods | Images | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kim E et al. ( | 2013 | Detection of CIN2+ | 2000images | SVM | Cervicography | Sensitivity 75.00%Specificity 75.00% |
| Song et al. ( | 2015 | Detection of CIN2+ | 7669patients | MCNN | Cervicography | Accuracy 80.00%Sensitivity 83.21%Specificity 94.79% |
| Hu et al. ( | 2019 | Detection of CIN2+ | 9406patients | Faster-CNN | Cervicography | AUC 0.91 |
| Chao et al. ( | 2020 | Detection lesions need to biopsy and classification | 791 patients | CNN | Optical colposcopy image | Sensitivity 85.20%Specificity 88.20%AUC 0.947 |
| Asiedu et al. ( | 2019 | Classification of cervical lesions | 134 patients | SVM | Digital colposcopy images | Accuracy 80.00%Sensitivity 81.30%Specificity 78.60% |
| Yuan et al. ( | 2020 | Classification of cervical lesions | 22330images | CNN | Digital colposcopy images | Sensitivity 85.38%Specificity 82.62% |
| Miyagi et al. ( | 2019 | Classification of cervical lesions | 253patients | CNN | Traditional colposcopy images | Accuracy 83.30%Sensitivity 95.60% |
| Miyagi et al. (23) | 2019 | Classification of cervical lesions | 310images | CNN | Traditional colposcopy images | Accuracy 82.30%Sensitivity 80.00%Specificity 88.20% |
| Xue et al. ( | 2020 | Classification of cervical lesions | 19435patients | CAIADS | Digital colposcopy images | LSIL Sensitivity 90.50%Specificity 51.80%HSIL Sensitivity 71.90%Specificity 93.90% |
| Yue et al. ( | 2020 | Classification of cervical lesions | 4753images | CNN, | cervigram images | Accuracy 96.13%Sensitivity 95.09%Specificity 98.22%AUC 0.94 |
| Venkatesan et al. ( | 2021 | Classification of cervical lesions | 5679images | CNN | colposcopy photographs | Accuracy 83.30%Sensitivity 95.60% |
| Peng et al. ( | 2021 | Classification of cervical lesions | 300images | VGG16 | colposcopy images | Accuracy 86.30%Sensitivity 84.10%Specificity 89.80% |
CAIADS, Colposcopic Artificial Intelligence Auxiliary Diagnostic System.
Application of AI in MRI to diagnosis cervical cancer.
| Reference | Year | Aim of study | Number of cases | Methods | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lin et al. ( | 2020 | Cervical Cancer MRI Image segmentation and location | 169 patients (training set 144; validation set 25) | DL Radiomics | A dice coefficient: 0.82; Sensitivity: 0.89, PPV:0.92 |
| Wang et al. ( | 2020 | Segmentation: Prediction of parametrial invasion | 137 patients (training set 91; validation set 46) | Radiomics | Training set AUC T2WI: 0.797 T2WI and DWI0.780 (95% CI)Validation set T2WI 0.946 (95% CI) T2WI and DWI 0.921 (95% CI) |
| Peng et al. ( | 2019 | Enhancing Cervical Cancer MRI Image Segmentation | Not mention | Wireless network; DL | AUC 0.980 |
| Yu et al. ( | 2019 | Assisting diagnosis of lymph node metastasis | 153 patients (training set 102; validation set 51) | Radiomics | Training set AUC: 0.870Validation set AUC 0.864 |
| Wu et al. ( | 2019 | Assisting diagnosis of lymph node metastasis | 189 patients (training set 126; validation set 63) | Radiomics | Training set AUC 0.895 Sensitivity 94.3%Validation set AUC 0.847 Sensitivity 100% |
| Wang et al. ( | 2019 | Assisting diagnosis of lymph node metastasis | 96 patients (training set 96; validation set 96) | RadiomicsSVM | Training set C-index 0.893(P=4.311*10-5)Validation set C-index 0.922(P=3.412*10-2) |
| Xiao et al. ( | 2020 | Assisting diagnosis of lymph node metastasis | 233 patients (training set 155; validation set 78) | Radiomics | Training set C-index 0.856 (95% CI)Validation set C-index 0.883 (95% CI) |
| Wu et al. ( | 2020 | Assisting diagnosis of lymph node metastasis | 479 patients (training set 338; validation set 141) | DL | AUC 0.933 (95% CI) |