Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in Detecting Tumor Bone Metastases: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal BMC Cancer

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Oncology

Date 2025 Feb 18

PMID 39966724

Authors

Huimin Tao

Xu Hui

Zhihong Zhang

Rongrong Zhu

Ping Wang

Sheng Zhou

Kehu Yang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Bone metastases (BM) represent a prevalent complication of tumors. Early and accurate diagnosis, however, is a significant hurdle for radiologists. Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a valuable tool to assist radiologists in the detection of BM. This meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the AI diagnostic accuracy for BM.

Methods: Two reviewers performed an exhaustive search of several databases, including Wei Pu (VIP) database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Ovid-Embase, Ovid-Medline, Wan Fang database, and China Biology Medicine (CBM), from their inception to December 2024. This search focused on studies that developed and/or validated AI techniques for detecting BM in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT). A hierarchical model was used in the meta-analysis to calculate diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), area under the curve (AUC), specificity (SP), and pooled sensitivity (SE). The risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST), while the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis-artificial intelligence (TRIPOD-AI) was employed for evaluating the quality of evidence.

Result: This review covered 20 articles, among them, 16 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results revealed a pooled SE of 0.88 (0.82-0.92), a pooled SP of 0.89 (0.84-0.93), a pooled AUC of 0.95 (0.92-0.96), PLR of 8.1 (5.57-11.80), NLR of 0.14 (0.09-0.21) and DOR of 58 (31-109). When focusing on imaging algorithms. Based on ML, a pooled SE of 0.88 (0.77-0.92), SP 0.88 (0.82-0.92), and AUC 0.93 (0.91-0.95). Based on DL, a pooled SE of 0.89 (0.81-0.95), SP 0.89 (0.81-0.94), and AUC 0.95 (0.93-0.97).

Conclusion: This meta-analysis underscores the substantial diagnostic value of AI in identifying BM. Nevertheless, in-depth large-scale prospective research should be carried out for confirming AI's clinical utility in BM management.

References

Schulman K, Kohles J . Economic burden of metastatic bone disease in the U.S. Cancer. 2007; 109(11):2334-42. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22678. View

Kim D, Seo J, Lee J, Jeon E, Jeong D, Chae H . Automated Detection and Segmentation of Bone Metastases on Spine MRI Using U-Net: A Multicenter Study. Korean J Radiol. 2024; 25(4):363-373. PMC: 10973735. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2023.0671. View

Ge L, Tian J, Li Y, Pan J, Li G, Wei D . Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 93:45-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.012. View

Sahin T, Ayasun R, Rizzo A, Guven D . Prognostic Value of Neutrophil-to-Eosinophil Ratio (NER) in Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(21). PMC: 11545344. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16213689. View

Ozgul H, Basara Akin I, Mutlu U, Balci A . Diagnostic value of machine learning-based computed tomography texture analysis for differentiating multiple myeloma from osteolytic metastatic bone lesions in the peripheral skeleton. Skeletal Radiol. 2023; 52(9):1703-1711. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-023-04333-4. View

Cui S, Tseng H, Pakela J, Ten Haken R, El Naqa I . Introduction to machine and deep learning for medical physicists. Med Phys. 2020; 47(5):e127-e147. PMC: 7331753. DOI: 10.1002/mp.14140. View

Koike Y, Yui M, Nakamura S, Yoshida A, Takegawa H, Anetai Y . Artificial intelligence-aided lytic spinal bone metastasis classification on CT scans. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2023; 18(10):1867-1874. DOI: 10.1007/s11548-023-02880-8. View

Zhang G, Li Y, Li C, Li N, Li Z, Zhou Q . Assessment on clinical value of prostate health index in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Cancer Med. 2019; 8(11):5089-5096. PMC: 6718540. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.2376. View

Shi J, Huang H, Xu S, Du L, Zeng X, Cao Y . XGBoost-based multiparameters from dual-energy computed tomography for the differentiation of multiple myeloma of the spine from vertebral osteolytic metastases. Eur Radiol. 2023; 33(7):4801-4811. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-09404-7. View

10.

Lin Q, Li T, Cao C, Cao Y, Man Z, Wang H . Deep learning based automated diagnosis of bone metastases with SPECT thoracic bone images. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):4223. PMC: 7896065. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-83083-6. View

11.

Lee S, Lee S, Kim S, Huh Y, Lee J, Lee K . Differentiating Multiple Myeloma and Osteolytic Bone Metastases on Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Scans: The Feasibility of Radiomics Analysis. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(4). PMC: 9955828. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13040755. View

12.

Thrall J, Li X, Li Q, Cruz C, Do S, Dreyer K . Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Radiology: Opportunities, Challenges, Pitfalls, and Criteria for Success. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018; 15(3 Pt B):504-508. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.12.026. View

13.

Filograna L, Lenkowicz J, Cellini F, Dinapoli N, Manfrida S, Magarelli N . Identification of the most significant magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiomic features in oncological patients with vertebral bone marrow metastatic disease: a feasibility study. Radiol Med. 2018; 124(1):50-57. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-018-0935-y. View

14.

Rizzo A, Santoni M, Mollica V, Fiorentino M, Brandi G, Massari F . Microbiota and prostate cancer. Semin Cancer Biol. 2021; 86(Pt 3):1058-1065. DOI: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2021.09.007. View

15.

Knapp B, Devarakonda S, Govindan R . Bone metastases in non-small cell lung cancer: a narrative review. J Thorac Dis. 2022; 14(5):1696-1712. PMC: 9186248. DOI: 10.21037/jtd-21-1502. View

16.

Roodman G . Mechanisms of bone metastasis. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350(16):1655-64. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra030831. View

17.

Zheng Q, Yang L, Zeng B, Li J, Guo K, Liang Y . Artificial intelligence performance in detecting tumor metastasis from medical radiology imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2021; 31:100669. PMC: 7773591. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100669. View

18.

Collins G, Reitsma J, Altman D, Moons K . Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. BMJ. 2015; 350:g7594. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g7594. View

19.

Collins G, Dhiman P, Andaur Navarro C, Ma J, Hooft L, Reitsma J . Protocol for development of a reporting guideline (TRIPOD-AI) and risk of bias tool (PROBAST-AI) for diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies based on artificial intelligence. BMJ Open. 2021; 11(7):e048008. PMC: 8273461. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048008. View

20.

Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372:n71. PMC: 8005924. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71. View