Cargando…

Artificial intelligence in endoscopic ultrasonography: risk stratification of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have identified useful endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) features to predict the malignant potential of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). However, the results of the studies were not consistent. Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results in medicine....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lu, Yi, Chen, Lu, Wu, Jiachuan, Er, Limian, Shi, Huihui, Cheng, Weihui, Chen, Ke, Liu, Yuan, Qiu, Bingfeng, Xu, Qiancheng, Feng, Yue, Tang, Nan, Wan, Fuchuan, Sun, Jiachen, Zhi, Min
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10233610/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37274299
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17562848231177156
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Previous studies have identified useful endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) features to predict the malignant potential of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). However, the results of the studies were not consistent. Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results in medicine. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to build a risk stratification EUS-AI model to predict the malignancy potential of GISTs. DESIGN: This was a retrospective study with external validation. METHODS: We developed two models using EUS images from two hospitals to predict the GIST risk category. Model 1 was the four-category risk EUS-AI model, and Model 2 was the two-category risk EUS-AI model. The diagnostic performance of the models was validated with external cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 1320 images (880 were very low-risk, 269 were low-risk, 68 were intermediate-risk, and 103 were high-risk) were finally chosen for building the models and test sets, and a total of 656 images (211 were very low-risk, 266 were low-risk, 88 were intermediate-risk, and 91 were high-risk) were chosen for external validation. The overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for the four-category risk EUS-AI model in the external validation sets by tumor were 74.50%, 55.00%, 79.05%, 53.49%, and 81.63%, respectively. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the two-category risk EUS-AI model for the prediction of very low-risk GISTs in the external validation sets by tumor were 86.25%, 94.44%, 79.55%, 79.07%, and 94.59%, respectively. CONCLUSION: We developed a EUS-AI model for the risk stratification of GISTs with promising results, which may complement current clinical practice in the management of GISTs. REGISTRATION: The study has been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. ChiCTR2100051191).