Artificial Intelligence Model for a Distinction between Early-Stage Gastric Cancer Invasive Depth T1a and T1b

• Published in: Journal of Cancer Vol. 15; no. 10; pp. 3085 - 3094
• Main Authors: Chen, Tsung-Hsing, Kuo, Chang-Fu, Lee, Chieh, Yeh, Ta-Sen, Lan, Jui, Huang, Shih-Chiang
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Australia Ivyspring International Publisher 01.01.2024
• Subjects: Research Paper; endoscopic submucosal dissection; artificial intelligence model; image classification; endoscopic ultrasound; tumor invasion depth; early gastric cancer
• ISSN: 1837-9664; 1837-9664
• DOI: 10.7150/jca.94772

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely accepted treatment for patients with mucosa (T1a) disease without lymph node metastasis. However, the inconsistency of inspection quality of tumor staging under the standard tool combining endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with computed tomography (CT) scanning makes it restrictive. We conducted a study using data augmentation and artificial intelligence (AI) to address the early gastric cancer (EGC) staging problem. The proposed AI model simplifies early cancer treatment by eliminating the need for ultrasound or other staging methods. We developed an AI model utilizing data augmentation and the You-Only-Look-Once (YOLO) approach. We collected a white-light image dataset of 351 stage T1a and 542 T1b images to build, test, and validate the model. An external white-light images dataset that consists of 47 T1a and 9 T1b images was then collected to validate our AI model. The result of the external dataset validation indicated that our model also applies to other peer health institutes. The results of -fold cross-validation using the original dataset demonstrated that the proposed model had a sensitivity of 85.08% and an average specificity of 87.17%. Additionally, the -fold cross-validation model had an average accuracy rate of 86.18%; the external data set demonstrated similar validation results with a sensitivity of 82.98%, a specificity of 77.78%, and an overall accuracy of 82.14%. Our findings suggest that the AI model can effectively replace EUS and CT in early GC staging, with an average validation accuracy rate of 86.18% for the original dataset from Linkou Cheng Gun Memorial Hospital and 82.14% for the external validation dataset from Kaohsiung Cheng Gun Memorial Hospital. Moreover, our AI model's accuracy rate outperformed the average EUS and CT rates in previous literature (around 70%).