Artificial intelligence in colposcopic examination: A promising tool to assist junior colposcopists

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%, p = 0.061 and for CIN3 +: 80.0 vs. 90.0%, p = 0.189). The sensitivity of the junior colposcopist was increased significantly with the assistance of CAIADS (for CIN2 +: 95.1 vs. 79.6%, p = 0.002 and for CIN3 +: 97.1 vs. 85.7%, p = 0.039) and was comparable to those of the senior colposcopists (for CIN2 +: 95.1 vs. 91.3%, p = 0.388 and for CIN3 +: 97.1 vs. 90.0%, p = 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.

Keywords: artificial intelligence; biopsy; cervical cancer; colposcopy; diagnostic accuracy.