Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence-Centred Systems in the Diagnosis and Postoperative Surveillance of Upper Gastrointestinal Malignancies Using Computed Tomography Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy

Abstract

Background: Upper gastrointestinal cancers are aggressive malignancies with poor prognosis, even following multimodality therapy. As such, they require timely and accurate diagnostic and surveillance strategies; however, such radiological workflows necessitate considerable expertise and resource to maintain. In order to lessen the workload upon already stretched health systems, there has been increasing focus on the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI)-centred diagnostic systems. This systematic review summarizes the clinical applicability and diagnostic performance of AI-centred systems in the diagnosis and surveillance of esophagogastric cancers.

Methods: A systematic review was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Review, and Scopus databases. Articles on the use of AI and radiomics for the diagnosis and surveillance of patients with esophageal cancer were evaluated, and quality assessment of studies was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of sequencing methodologies.

Results: Thirty-six studies that described the use of AI were included in the qualitative synthesis and six studies involving 1352 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Of these six studies, four studies assessed the utility of AI in gastric cancer diagnosis, one study assessed its utility for diagnosing esophageal cancer, and one study assessed its utility for surveillance. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 73.4% (64.6-80.7) and 89.7% (82.7-94.1), respectively.

Conclusions: AI systems have shown promise in diagnosing and monitoring esophageal and gastric cancer, particularly when combined with existing diagnostic methods. Further work is needed to further develop systems of greater accuracy and greater consideration of the clinical workflows that they aim to integrate within.

Fig. 1

PRISMA diagram showing the sequence of the study screening and selection process. PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Fig. 2

Forest plot of diagnostic accuracy for machine learning platforms. TP true positive, FP false positive, FN false negative, TN true negative, CI confidence interval

Fig. 3

Summary receiver operating characteristic curve for diagnostic accuracy for machine learning platforms