OP07.10: Artificial intelligence weights the importance of clinical and sonographic factors predicting nodal metastasis in endometrial cancer
Open accessAbstract
To determine whether artificial intelligence might be useful in weighting the importance of clinical and sonographic (US) preoperative variables predicting the risk of lymph node metastases in patients (pts) undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer. Retrospective study evaluating the last 100 consecutive endometrial cancer pts undergoing US examination before surgery between 2017 and 2019 at National Cancer Institute of Milan. Using artificial neuronal network (ANN) analysis we estimated the importance of different variables predicting the risk of nodal involvement. Clinical, histological (at pre-operative endometrial biopsy) and US variables were evaluated. ANN simulates a biological neuronal system and similarly to neurons, ANN acquires knowledge through a learning-phase process allowing weighting the importance of covariates, thus establishing how much a variable influences a multifactorial phenomenon. The prevalence of pts diagnosed with nodal disease at surgical staging was 16%. Using ANN we observed that the three main US factors predicting nodal metastasis were: myometrial invasion at US (importance: 0.212), echogenicity of the tumour at US defined as uniform or not-uniform (importance: 0.131) and histology at pre-operative biopsy defined as endometrioid or not (importance: 0.099). Overall, 79% (79/100) of pts had endometrial endometrioid tumour detected at pre-operative biopsy; among this subgroup of pts the main factors predicting nodal spread were: myometrial invasion at US (importance 0.218), echogenicity of the tumour (importance 0.170) and cervical invasion at US (importance 0.147). According to our results, myometrial invasion at US and echogenicity of the tumour should be considered the most important factors predicting nodal involvement in endometrial cancer patients. These data are confirmed in the subgroup analysis of endometrioid tumours only. Further studies are needed to estimate the clinical utility of AI in providing help in decision-making processes. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Introduction to artificial intelligence in ultrasound imaging in obstetrics and gynecology
Drukker, L., Noble, J. A., & Papageorghiou, A. T. (2020) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.22122 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chiappa, V., Bogani, G., Ditto, A., Martinelli, F., Murru, G., & Raspagliesi, F.
- Affiliations
- Gynecologic Oncology National Cancer Institute of Milan Milan Italy
- Venue
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-09-30
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- S1
- Pages
- 107-107
- ISSN
- 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-0705
- OpenAlex
- W2978594669
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2020: 1
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Keywords
- endometrial cancer, lymph node metastasis, preoperative ultrasound, artificial neural networks, myometrial invasion, endometrioid histology, cervical invasion, preoperative biopsy, risk prediction, surgical staging
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review