» Articles » PMID: 37056736

Artificial Intelligence in Colposcopic Examination: A Promising Tool to Assist Junior Colposcopists

Overview
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2023 Apr 14
PMID 37056736
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Well-trained colposcopists are in huge shortage worldwide, especially in low-resource areas. Here, we aimed to evaluate the Colposcopic Artificial Intelligence Auxiliary Diagnostic System (CAIADS) to detect abnormalities based on digital colposcopy images, especially focusing on its role in assisting junior colposcopist to correctly identify the lesion areas where biopsy should be performed.

Materials And Methods: This is a hospital-based retrospective study, which recruited the women who visited colposcopy clinics between September 2021 to January 2022. A total of 366 of 1,146 women with complete medical information recorded by a senior colposcopist and valid histology results were included. Anonymized colposcopy images were reviewed by CAIADS and a junior colposcopist separately, and the junior colposcopist reviewed the colposcopy images with CAIADS results (named CAIADS-Junior). The diagnostic accuracy and biopsy efficiency of CAIADS and CAIADS-Junior were assessed in detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), CIN3+, and cancer in comparison with the senior and junior colposcipists. The factors influencing the accuracy of CAIADS were explored.

Results: For CIN2 + and CIN3 + detection, CAIADS showed a sensitivity at ~80%, which was not significantly lower than the sensitivity achieved by the senior colposcopist (for CIN2 +: 80.6 vs. 91.3%,  = 0.061 and for CIN3 +: 80.0 vs. 90.0%,  = 0.189). The sensitivity of the junior colposcopist was increased significantly with the assistance of CAIADS (for CIN2 +: 95.1 vs. 79.6%,  = 0.002 and for CIN3 +: 97.1 vs. 85.7%,  = 0.039) and was comparable to those of the senior colposcopists (for CIN2 +: 95.1 vs. 91.3%,  = 0.388 and for CIN3 +: 97.1 vs. 90.0%,  = 0.125). In detecting cervical cancer, CAIADS achieved the highest sensitivity at 100%. For all endpoints, CAIADS showed the highest specificity (55-64%) and positive predictive values compared to both senior and junior colposcopists. When CIN grades became higher, the average biopsy numbers decreased for the subspecialists and CAIADS required a minimum number of biopsies to detect per case (2.2-2.6 cut-points). Meanwhile, the biopsy sensitivity of the junior colposcopist was the lowest, but the CAIADS-assisted junior colposcopist achieved a higher biopsy sensitivity.

Conclusion: Colposcopic Artificial Intelligence Auxiliary Diagnostic System could assist junior colposcopists to improve diagnostic accuracy and biopsy efficiency, which might be a promising solution to improve the quality of cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings.

Citing Articles

Performance of artificial intelligence for diagnosing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liu L, Liu J, Su Q, Chu Y, Xia H, Xu R EClinicalMedicine. 2025; 80():102992.

PMID: 39834510 PMC: 11743870. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102992.


Artificial intelligence strengthens cervical cancer screening - present and future.

Wu T, Lucas E, Zhao F, Basu P, Qiao Y Cancer Biol Med. 2024; 21(10.

PMID: 39297572 PMC: 11523278. DOI: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2024.0198.


Development and validation of artificial intelligence-based analysis software to support screening system of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

Ouh Y, Kim T, Ju W, Kim S, Jeon S, Kim S Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):1957.

PMID: 38263154 PMC: 10806233. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-51880-4.


A segmentation model to detect cevical lesions based on machine learning of colposcopic images.

Li Z, Zeng C, Dong Y, Cao Y, Yu L, Liu H Heliyon. 2023; 9(11):e21043.

PMID: 37928028 PMC: 10623278. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21043.

References
1.
Arbyn M, Smith S, Temin S, Sultana F, Castle P . Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses. BMJ. 2018; 363:k4823. PMC: 6278587. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k4823. View

2.
Autier P, Coibion M, Huet F, Grivegnee A . Transformation zone location and intraepithelial neoplasia of the cervix uteri. Br J Cancer. 1996; 74(3):488-90. PMC: 2074626. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1996.388. View

3.
Miyagi Y, Takehara K, Nagayasu Y, Miyake T . Application of deep learning to the classification of uterine cervical squamous epithelial lesion from colposcopy images combined with HPV types. Oncol Lett. 2020; 19(2):1602-1610. PMC: 6956417. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2019.11214. View

4.
Fan A, Wang C, Zhang L, Yan Y, Han C, Xue F . Diagnostic value of the 2011 International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy Terminology in predicting cervical lesions. Oncotarget. 2018; 9(10):9166-9176. PMC: 5823637. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.24074. View

5.
Valasoulis G, Pouliakis A, Michail G, Daponte A, Galazios G, Panayiotides I . The Influence of Sexual Behavior and Demographic Characteristics in the Expression of HPV-Related Biomarkers in a Colposcopy Population of Reproductive Age Greek Women. Biology (Basel). 2021; 10(8). PMC: 8389230. DOI: 10.3390/biology10080713. View