A convolutional neural network-based system for detecting early gastric cancer in white-light endoscopy

Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Detection and Management of Premalignant and Malignant Lesions of the Esophagus and Stomach

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning algorithms, particularly convolutional neural networks, promises to address pitfalls, bridging the care for patients at high risk with improved detection (computer-aided detection [CADe]) and characterization (computer-aided diagnosis [CADx]) of lesions. This review describes the available artificial intelligence (AI) technology and the current data on AI tools for screening esophageal squamous cell cancer, Barret's esophagus-related neoplasia, and gastric cancer. These tools outperformed endoscopists in many situations. Recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the successful application of AI tools in clinical practice with improved outcomes.

Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and early neoplasia of the stomach (MAPS III): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG) and European Society of Pathology (ESP) Guideline update 2025

At a population level, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) suggest endoscopic screening for gastric cancer (and precancerous conditions) in high-risk regions (age-standardized rate [ASR] > 20 per 100 000 person-years) every 2 to 3 years or, if cost-effectiveness has been proven, in intermediate risk regions (ASR 10-20 per 100 000 person-years) every 5 years, but not in low-risk regions (ASR < 10).ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that irrespective of country of origin, individual gastric risk assessment and stratification of precancerous conditions is recommended for first-time gastroscopy. ESGE/EHMSG/ESP suggest that gastric cancer screening or surveillance in asymptomatic individuals over 80 should be discontinued or not started, and that patients' comorbidities should be considered when treatment of superficial lesions is planned.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that a high quality endoscopy including the use of virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE), after proper training, is performed for screening, diagnosis, and staging of precancerous conditions (atrophy and intestinal metaplasia) and lesions (dysplasia or cancer), as well as after endoscopic therapy. VCE should be used to guide the sampling site for biopsies in the case of suspected neoplastic lesions as well as to guide biopsies for diagnosis and staging of gastric precancerous conditions, with random biopsies to be taken in the absence of endoscopically suspected changes. When there is a suspected early gastric neoplastic lesion, it should be properly described (location, size, Paris classification, vascular and mucosal pattern), photodocumented, and two targeted biopsies taken.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP do not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection unless there are signs of deep submucosal invasion or if the lesion is not considered suitable for endoscopic resection.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for differentiated gastric lesions clinically staged as dysplastic (low grade and high grade) or as intramucosal carcinoma (of any size if not ulcerated or ≤ 30 mm if ulcerated), with EMR being an alternative for Paris 0-IIa lesions of size ≤ 10 mm with low likelihood of malignancy.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP suggest that a decision about ESD can be considered for malignant lesions clinically staged as having minimal submucosal invasion if differentiated and ≤ 30 mm; or for malignant lesions clinically staged as intramucosal, undifferentiated and ≤ 20 mm; and in both cases with no ulcerative findings.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommends patient management based on the following histological risk after endoscopic resection: Curative/very low-risk resection (lymph node metastasis [LNM] risk < 0.5 %-1 %): en bloc R0 resection; dysplastic/pT1a, differentiated lesion, no lymphovascular invasion, independent of size if no ulceration and ≤ 30 mm if ulcerated. No further staging procedure or treatment is recommended.Curative/low-risk resection (LNM risk < 3 %): en bloc R0 resection; lesion with no lymphovascular invasion and: a) pT1b, invasion ≤ 500 µm, differentiated, size ≤ 30 mm; or b) pT1a, undifferentiated, size ≤ 20 mm and no ulceration. Staging should be completed, and further treatment is generally not necessary, but a multidisciplinary discussion is required. Local-risk resection (very low risk of LNM but increased risk of local persistence/recurrence): Piecemeal resection or tumor-positive horizontal margin of a lesion otherwise meeting curative/very low-risk criteria (or meeting low-risk criteria provided that there is no submucosal invasive tumor at the resection margin in the case of piecemeal resection or tumor-positive horizontal margin for pT1b lesions [invasion ≤ 500 µm; well-differentiated; size ≤ 30 mm, and VM0]). Endoscopic surveillance/re-treatment is recommended rather than other additional treatment. High-risk resection (noncurative): Any lesion with any of the following: (a) a positive vertical margin (if carcinoma) or lymphovascular invasion or deep submucosal invasion (> 500 µm from the muscularis mucosae); (b) poorly differentiated lesions if ulceration or size > 20 mm; (c) pT1b differentiated lesions with submucosal invasion ≤ 500 µm with size > 30 mm; or (d) intramucosal ulcerative lesion with size > 30 mm. Complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments (surgery) in multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP suggest the use of validated endoscopic classifications of atrophy (e. g. Kimura-Takemoto) or intestinal metaplasia (e. g. endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia [EGGIM]) to endoscopically stage precancerous conditions and stratify the risk for gastric cancer.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that biopsies should be taken from at least two topographic sites (2 biopsies from the antrum/incisura and 2 from the corpus, guided by VCE) in two separate, clearly labeled vials. Additional biopsy from the incisura is optional.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that patients with extensive endoscopic changes (Kimura C3 + or EGGIM 5 +) or advanced histological stages of atrophic gastritis (severe atrophic changes or intestinal metaplasia, or changes in both antrum and corpus, operative link on gastritis assessment/operative link on gastric intestinal metaplasia [OLGA/OLGIM] III/IV) should be followed up with high quality endoscopy every 3 years, irrespective of the individual's country of origin.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that no surveillance is proposed for patients with mild to moderate atrophy or intestinal metaplasia restricted to the antrum, in the absence of endoscopic signs of extensive lesions or other risk factors (family history, incomplete intestinal metaplasia, persistent H. pylori infection). This group constitutes most individuals found in clinical practice.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend H. pylori eradication for patients with precancerous conditions and after endoscopic or surgical therapy.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that patients should be advised to stop smoking and low-dose daily aspirin use may be considered for the prevention of gastric cancer in selected individuals with high risk for cardiovascular events.

Transformative artificial intelligence in gastric cancer: Advancements in diagnostic techniques

Gastric cancer represents a significant global health challenge with elevated incidence and mortality rates, highlighting the need for advancements in diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. This review paper addresses the critical need for a thorough synthesis of the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in the management of gastric cancer. It provides an in-depth analysis of current AI applications, focusing on their contributions to early diagnosis, treatment planning, and outcome prediction. The review identifies key gaps and limitations in the existing literature by examining recent studies and technological developments. It aims to clarify the evolution of AI-driven methods and their impact on enhancing diagnostic accuracy, personalizing treatment strategies, and improving patient outcomes. The paper emphasizes the transformative potential of AI in overcoming the challenges associated with gastric cancer management and proposes future research directions to further harness AI's capabilities. Through this synthesis, the review underscores the importance of integrating AI technologies into clinical practice to revolutionize gastric cancer management.

Endoscopic Artificial Intelligence for Image Analysis in Gastrointestinal Neoplasms

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) using deep learning systems has recently been utilized in various medical fields. In the field of gastroenterology, AI is primarily implemented in image recognition and utilized in the realm of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. In GI endoscopy, computer-aided detection/diagnosis (CAD) systems assist endoscopists in GI neoplasm detection or differentiation of cancerous or noncancerous lesions. Several AI systems for colorectal polyps have already been applied in colonoscopy clinical practices. In esophagogastroduodenoscopy, a few CAD systems for upper GI neoplasms have been launched in Asian countries. The usefulness of these CAD systems in GI endoscopy has been gradually elucidated.

SUMMARY

In this review, we outline recent articles on several studies of endoscopic AI systems for GI neoplasms, focusing on esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), gastric cancer (GC), and colorectal polyps. In ESCC and EAC, computer-aided detection (CADe) systems were mainly developed, and a recent meta-analysis study showed sensitivities of 91.2% and 93.1% and specificities of 80% and 86.9%, respectively. In GC, a recent meta-analysis study on CADe systems demonstrated that their sensitivity and specificity were as high as 90%. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) also showed that the use of the CADe system reduced the miss rate. Regarding computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) systems for GC, although RCTs have not yet been conducted, most studies have demonstrated expert-level performance. In colorectal polyps, multiple RCTs have shown the usefulness of the CADe system for improving the polyp detection rate, and several CADx systems have been shown to have high accuracy in colorectal polyp differentiation.

KEY MESSAGES

Most analyses of endoscopic AI systems suggested that their performance was better than that of nonexpert endoscopists and equivalent to that of expert endoscopists. Thus, endoscopic AI systems may be useful for reducing the risk of overlooking lesions and improving the diagnostic ability of endoscopists.

The value of machine learning approaches in the diagnosis of early gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The application of machine learning (ML) for identifying early gastric cancer (EGC) has drawn increasing attention. However, there lacks evidence-based support for its specific diagnostic performance. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis was implemented to assess the performance of image-based ML in EGC diagnosis.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive electronic search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to September 25, 2022. QUADAS-2 was selected to judge the risk of bias of included articles. We did the meta-analysis using a bivariant mixed-effect model. Sensitivity analysis and heterogeneity test were performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles were enrolled. The sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), and SROC of ML-based models were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87-0.94), 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.89), and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.39-1.00) in the training set and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86-0.93), 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86-0.92), and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.19-1.00) in the validation set. The SEN, SPE, and SROC of EGC diagnosis by non-specialist clinicians were 0.64 (95% CI: 0.56-0.71), 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77-0.89), and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.29-0.97), and those by specialist clinicians were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74-0.85), 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.91), and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.37-0.99). With the assistance of ML models, the SEN of non-specialist physicians in the diagnosis of EGC was significantly improved (0.76 vs 0.64).

CONCLUSION

ML-based diagnostic models have greater performance in the identification of EGC. The diagnostic accuracy of non-specialist clinicians can be improved to the level of the specialists with the assistance of ML models. The results suggest that ML models can better assist less experienced clinicians in diagnosing EGC under endoscopy and have broad clinical application value.

Deep Learning and Gastric Cancer: Systematic Review of AI-Assisted Endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer (GC), a significant health burden worldwide, is typically diagnosed in the advanced stages due to its non-specific symptoms and complex morphological features. Deep learning (DL) has shown potential for improving and standardizing early GC detection. This systematic review aims to evaluate the current status of DL in pre-malignant, early-stage, and gastric neoplasia analysis.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE for original studies implementing DL algorithms for gastric neoplasia detection using endoscopic images. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The focus was on studies providing quantitative diagnostic performance measures and those comparing AI performance with human endoscopists.

RESULTS

Our review encompasses 42 studies that utilize a variety of DL techniques. The findings demonstrate the utility of DL in GC classification, detection, tumor invasion depth assessment, cancer margin delineation, lesion segmentation, and detection of early-stage and pre-malignant lesions. Notably, DL models frequently matched or outperformed human endoscopists in diagnostic accuracy. However, heterogeneity in DL algorithms, imaging techniques, and study designs precluded a definitive conclusion about the best algorithmic approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The promise of artificial intelligence in improving and standardizing gastric neoplasia detection, diagnosis, and segmentation is significant. This review is limited by predominantly single-center studies and undisclosed datasets used in AI training, impacting generalizability and demographic representation. Further, retrospective algorithm training may not reflect actual clinical performance, and a lack of model details hinders replication efforts. More research is needed to substantiate these findings, including larger-scale multi-center studies, prospective clinical trials, and comprehensive technical reporting of DL algorithms and datasets, particularly regarding the heterogeneity in DL algorithms and study designs.