Copyright
©The Author(s) 2021.
Artif Intell Gastroenterol. Apr 28, 2021; 2(2): 10-26
Published online Apr 28, 2021. doi: 10.35712/aig.v2.i2.10
Published online Apr 28, 2021. doi: 10.35712/aig.v2.i2.10
Ref. | Number of patients | Imaging method | Contouring | Artificial intelligence method | Results |
Wang et al[54], 2018 | 93 | MR (3 Tesla, T2 -weighted) | GTV, CTV | CNN | Between deep learning-based autosegmentation and manual contouring DSC (P = 0.42), JSC (P = 0.35), HD (P = 0.079), and ASD (P = 0.16); Before postprocess process only in HD (P = 0.0027). |
Trebeschi et al[55], 2017 | 140 | Multiparametric MRI (1.5 Tesla, T2- weighted) | GTV | CNN | According to CNN and both radiologists in independent validation data set DSC: 0.68 and 0.70; For both radiologists AUC: 0.99. |
Song et al[56], 2020 | 199 | CT (3 mm section thickness) | CTV and OAR | CNNs (DeepLabv3+ and ResUNet) | CTV segmentation better with DeepLabv3+ than ResUNet (volumetric DSC, 0.88 vs 0.87, P = 0.0005; surface DSC, 0.79 vs 0.78, P = 0.008); DeepLabv3+ model segmentation was better in the small intestine, with the ResUNet model, bladder and femoral heads segmentation results were better. In both models, the OAR manual correction time was 4 min. |
Men et al[60], 2017 | 278 | CT (5 mm section thickness) | CTV and OAR | CNN (DDCNN) | DSC values; CTV: 87.7%, bladder: 93.4%, left femoral head: 92.1%, right femoral head: 92.3%, small intestine: 65.3%, colon 61.8%. |
Men et al[61], 2018 | 100 | CT (3 mm section thickness) | CTV and OAR | CNN | CTV and bladder contouring were better in the model trained in the same position than the model trained in a different position (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference between femoral heads (P > 0.05). No statistical difference between accuracy rates in CTV, bladder, and femoral heads segmentation in the model trained in both positions (P > 0.05). |
Ref. | Number of patients | Parameters evaluated | Imaging method | Technique used | Results |
Shi et al[71], 2019 | 51 (90% cases for training and the remaining 10% for testing) | Tumor volume, mean ADC, radiomic | MRI (Pre-CRT and mid-CRT) (T2-DWI, DCE) | CNN | (1) pCR response prediction: (a) Pre-CRT with MR AUC: 0.80; (b) Mid-CRT with MR AUC: 0.82; and (c) Pre- and mid-CRT MR together AUC: 0.86; and (2) Good response to CRT: predicting yes/no: (a) Pre-CRT with MR AUC: 0.91; (b) Mid-CRT with MR AUC: 0.92; and (c) Pre-- and mid-CRT MR together AUC: 0.93. |
Fu et al[73], 2020 | 43 | Radiomic | MRI (Pre-CRT, DWI) | Handcrafted traditional computer-aided diagnostic method vs deep learning | Deep learning model with handcrafted model CRT response prediction AUC values: 0.64 vs 0.73 (P < 0.05) |
Shayesteh et al[74], 2019 | 98 (53 training and 45 validation set) | Radiomic | MRI (1 wk before CRT) (3 Tesla, T2W-weighted) | Machine learning (SVM, BN, NN, KNN) | AUC for the BN algorithm: 74%, accuracy: 79%; When four algorithms were used together, AUC: 97.8% and accuracy rate 92.8%. |
Yang et al[75], 2019 | 89 (66 training and 23 testing) | Radiomic and clinical features | MRI (Pre-CRT) (3 Tesla, T2W, 3 mm section thickness) | RFC | Predicting the accuracy of tumor resistance with RFC 91.3%, AUC: 0.83. |
Ferrari et al[76], 2019 | 55 (28 training, 27 validation) | Radiomic | MR (Pre, Mid, Post RT) (3 Tesla, T2W, 2 mm section thickness) | RFC | (1) Prediction of cases with pCR by RFC; AUC: 0.86; and (2) Prediction of unresponsive cases with RFC; AUC 0.83. |
Bibault et al[77], 2018 | 95 | Radiomic, clinical variables | CT | DNN, SVM, LR | CRT response prediction accuracy rates; DNN: 80%; SVM: 71.5% LR: 69.5%. |
Huang et al[78], 2020 | 270 (236 training, 34 validation) | Clinical variables | - | ANN, KNN, SVM, NBC, MLR | pCR prediction accuracy rates and AUC values; ANN: 88%, 0.84 KNN: 80%, 0.74 SVM: 71%, 0.76 NBC: 80%, 0.63 MLR: 83%, 0.77. |
- Citation: Yakar M, Etiz D. Artificial intelligence in rectal cancer. Artif Intell Gastroenterol 2021; 2(2): 10-26
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2644-3236/full/v2/i2/10.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.35712/aig.v2.i2.10