Machine learning applications in gynecological cancer: A critical review

Deep-learning models for image-based gynecological cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and meta- analysis

Introduction

Gynecological cancers pose a significant threat to women worldwide, especially those in resource-limited settings. Human analysis of images remains the primary method of diagnosis, but it can be inconsistent and inaccurate. Deep learning (DL) can potentially enhance image-based diagnosis by providing objective and accurate results. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the recent advances of deep learning (DL) techniques for gynecological cancer diagnosis using various images and explore their future implications.

Methods

The study followed the PRISMA-2 guidelines, and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO. Five databases were searched for articles published from January 2018 to December 2022. Articles that focused on five types of gynecological cancer and used DL for diagnosis were selected. Two reviewers assessed the articles for eligibility and quality using the QUADAS-2 tool. Data was extracted from each study, and the performance of DL techniques for gynecological cancer classification was estimated by pooling and transforming sensitivity and specificity values using a random-effects model.

Results

The review included 48 studies, and the meta-analysis included 24 studies. The studies used different images and models to diagnose different gynecological cancers. The most popular models were ResNet, VGGNet, and UNet. DL algorithms showed more sensitivity but less specificity compared to machine learning (ML) methods. The AUC of the summary receiver operating characteristic plot was higher for DL algorithms than for ML methods. Of the 48 studies included, 41 were at low risk of bias.

Conclusion

This review highlights the potential of DL in improving the screening and diagnosis of gynecological cancer, particularly in resource-limited settings. However, the high heterogeneity and quality of the studies could affect the validity of the results. Further research is necessary to validate the findings of this study and to explore the potential of DL in improving gynecological cancer diagnosis.

Bibliometric analysis of the global scientific production on machine learning applied to different cancer types

Cancer disease is one of the main causes of death in the world, with million annual cases in the last decades. The need to find a cure has stimulated the search for efficient treatments and diagnostic procedures. One of the most promising tools that has emerged against cancer in recent years is machine learning (ML), which has raised a huge number of scientific papers published in a relatively short period of time. The present study analyzes global scientific production on ML applied to the most relevant cancer types through various bibliometric indicators. We find that over 30,000 studies have been published so far and observe that cancers with the highest number of published studies using ML (breast, lung, and colon cancer) are those with the highest incidence, being the USA and China the main scientific producers on the subject. Interestingly, the role of China and Japan in stomach cancer is correlated with the number of cases of this cancer type in Asia (78% of the worldwide cases). Knowing the countries and institutions that most study each area can be of great help for improving international collaborations between research groups and countries. Our analysis shows that medical and computer science journals lead the number of publications on the subject and could be useful for researchers in the field. Finally, keyword co-occurrence analysis suggests that ML-cancer research trends are focused not only on the use of ML as an effective diagnostic method, but also for the improvement of radiotherapy- and chemotherapy-based treatments.

Artificial intelligence in ovarian cancer histopathology: a systematic review

This study evaluates the quality of published research using artificial intelligence (AI) for ovarian cancer diagnosis or prognosis using histopathology data. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and WHO-ICTRP was conducted up to May 19, 2023. Inclusion criteria required that AI was used for prognostic or diagnostic inferences in human ovarian cancer histopathology images. Risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST. Information about each model was tabulated and summary statistics were reported. The study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022334730) and PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines were followed. Searches identified 1573 records, of which 45 were eligible for inclusion. These studies contained 80 models of interest, including 37 diagnostic models, 22 prognostic models, and 21 other diagnostically relevant models. Common tasks included treatment response prediction (11/80), malignancy status classification (10/80), stain quantification (9/80), and histological subtyping (7/80). Models were developed using 1-1375 histopathology slides from 1-776 ovarian cancer patients. A high or unclear risk of bias was found in all studies, most frequently due to limited analysis and incomplete reporting regarding participant recruitment. Limited research has been conducted on the application of AI to histopathology images for diagnostic or prognostic purposes in ovarian cancer, and none of the models have been demonstrated to be ready for real-world implementation. Key aspects to accelerate clinical translation include transparent and comprehensive reporting of data provenance and modelling approaches, and improved quantitative evaluation using cross-validation and external validations. This work was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

Gynecological cancer prognosis using machine learning techniques: A systematic review of last three decades (1990–2022)

OBJECTIVE

Many Computer Aided Prognostic (CAP) systems based on machine learning techniques have been proposed in the field of oncology. The objective of this systematic review was to assess and critically appraise the methodologies and approaches used in predicting the prognosis of gynecological cancers using CAPs.

METHODS

Electronic databases were used to systematically search for studies utilizing machine learning methods in gynecological cancers. Study risk of bias (ROB) and applicability were assessed using the PROBAST tool. 139 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 71 predicted outcomes for ovarian cancer patients, 41 predicted outcomes for cervical cancer patients, 28 predicted outcomes for uterine cancer patients, and 2 predicted outcomes for gynecological malignancies broadly.

RESULTS

Random forest (22.30 %) and support vector machine (21.58 %) classifiers were used most commonly. Use of clinicopathological, genomic and radiomic data as predictors was observed in 48.20 %, 51.08 % and 17.27 % of studies, respectively, with some studies using multiple modalities. 21.58 % of studies were externally validated. Twenty-three individual studies compared ML and non-ML methods. Study quality was highly variable and methodologies, statistical reporting and outcome measures were inconsistent, preventing generalized commentary or meta-analysis of performance outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There is significant variability in model development when prognosticating gynecological malignancies with respect to variable selection, machine learning (ML) methods and endpoint selection. This heterogeneity prevents meta-analysis and conclusions regarding the superiority of ML methods. Furthermore, PROBAST-mediated ROB and applicability analysis demonstrates concern for the translatability of existing models. This review identifies ways that this can be improved upon in future works to develop robust, clinically translatable models within this promising field.