J Urol Oncol > Volume 22(3); 2024 > Article |
|
Study | Method | Performance | Context | Dataset | Evaluation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eminaga et al. [8] (Xception model) | CNN | Achieved an F1 score of 99.52%, demonstrating extremely high performance in identifying cancerous features in cystoscopy images. | Particularly useful for real-time cystoscopy image interpretation, achieving sensitivity and specificity comparable to expert urologists. | - | - |
Ikeda et al. [11] (CNN algorithm) | - | Performance: sensitivity of 89.7% and specificity of 94%, making it a strong diagnostic tool but slightly less accurate than some other CNN-based models. | The balance of sensitivity and specificity is crucial for early detection and minimizing false positives. | 2102 Cystoscopy images | - |
Yang et al. [12] (EasyDL) | - | EasyDL achieved the highest accuracy at 96.9%. | Best suited for general artificial intelligence application platforms and workflows, delivering a high balance of sensitivity and accuracy in cystoscopy image recognition. | - | Tested CNN architectures such as LeNet, AlexNet, and GoogLeNet on cystoscopy images. |
Du et al. [13] (CNN-DL algorithm) | Similar to Yang et al., 96.9% accuracy using EasyDL. | High accuracy in clinical cystoscopy images, particularly in detecting small lesions, with future potential in enhancing automated diagnostic processes. | Images from 175 bladder cancer patients. | - |
Study | Method | Performance | Context | Dataset |
---|---|---|---|---|
Nojima et al. [14] (16VGG CNN) | 16-layer CNN applied to urinary cytology. | AUC of 0.9890 for distinguishing benign from cancerous tissue, F1 score of 0.9002 for cancer detection, and 0.8628 for invasive bladder cancer detection. | Highly effective for cytology-based diagnostics, automating and improving accuracy in distinguishing cancer grades and tissue types. | - |
Awan et al. [15] (Xception model) | - | AUC of 0.99 for automatic identification of atypical and neoplastic cells in cytology. | This model excels in cell-level analysis for cytopathology, with applications in automating cytology workflows and improving speed and accuracy. | - |
Sanghvi et al. [17] (CNN for ThinPrep glass slides) | - | AUC of 0.88 with a sensitivity of 79.5% and specificity of 84.5% for high-grade urothelial carcinoma. | While less accurate than some models, it provides robust performance in cytology-based high-grade cancer detection. | 2405 ThinPrep glass slides |
Study | Method | Performance | Context | Key finding |
---|---|---|---|---|
Shao et al. [18] (ML and decision tree) | Urine metabolomics with ML | Accuracy of 76.60%, sensitivity of 71.88%, and specificity of 86.67% using metabolomic biomarkers (e.g., imidazoleacetic acid). | Early-stage bladder cancer diagnosis using noninvasive urine tests, with potential for expansion into multiomics integration. | - |
Kouznetsova et al. [19] (ML with urine metabolites) | - | Provided an alternative biomarker detection approach, although specific metrics were not reported. | Offers potential for highly specific and sensitive noninvasive urine-based tests in the future. | Early-stage biomarkers such as D-glucose were linked to neoplastic genes (e.g., AKT, EGFR, MAPK3). |
Study | Method | Performance | Context | Dataset |
---|---|---|---|---|
Garapati et al. [20] (CT urography) | Automated ML for tumor classification based on CT urography. | Strong performance in classifying bladder tumors (T2 or higher), though detailed accuracy was not provided. | Enhances imaging-based staging, helping clinicians decide treatment strategies. | - |
Xu et al. [21] (SVM-RFE with MRI radiomics) | - | AUC of 0.9857, outperforming expert diagnostic accuracy at 96.30%. | Excellent for preoperative staging, providing highly accurate differentiation between non-muscle-invasive and muscle-invasive bladder cancer. | 1,104 Radiomic features from 54 patients |
Yin et al. [22] (ML-CNN on histopathology) | - | Accuracy between 91% and 96% for differentiating Ta and T1 bladder cancer. | Promising for histopathology analysis, with high accuracy in grading and staging cancer based on tissue samples. | 1,177 Tissue images |
Study | Study type | AI model | Sample size | Risk of bias | Reason for bias |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eminaga et al. [8] | Retrospective | CNN (Xception) | 2,102 images | Low | Sufficient dataset, robust methodology |
Lorencin et al. [9] | Cross-sectional | Artificial neural network | 1,997 images | Moderate | Moderate sample size, model validation insufficient |
Ikeda et al. [11] | Retrospective | CNN | 2,983 images | Low | Large dataset, good validation |
Yang et al. [12] | Cross-sectional | Various CNNs (LeNet) | 175 patients | High | Small sample size |
Du et al. [13] | Prospective | CNN-DL | 175 patients | High | Small dataset, needs further validation |
Nojima et al. [14] | Retrospective | 16VGG CNN | 87 bladder cancer samples | Moderate | Small dataset, unclear methodology validation |
Kouznetsova et al. [19] | Prospective | Machine learning model | 1,104 radiomic features | Low | Robust dataset and feature selection process |
Study | Study | Design | Outcome | Significance | Dataset |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yang et al. [12] (2020) | Evaluated CNN-based models for bladder cancer detection using a prospective clinical trial. | Patients undergoing cystoscopy were enrolled, and their cystoscopy images were analyzed by both AI models and human experts. | AI models achieved similar accuracy to expert urologists, validating the robustness of AI in real-world diagnostic workflows. | This was one of the early prospective trials that assessed AI performance in routine clinical practice. | - |
Eminaga et al. [8] (2021) | Retrospective validation of a deep learning model using cystoscopy images. | - | The AI model’s sensitivity and specificity were comparable to those of experienced urologists, but the study highlighted the need for larger-scale prospective validation before widespread clinical adoption. | - | 2102 Cystoscopy images were used for training and testing the CNN-based AI model. |
Lorencin et al. [9] (2019) | Tested AI models on bladder cancer images from multiple sources to validate model generalizability. | The team retrospectively analyzed cystoscopy images from multiple hospitals and conducted cross-institutional validation. | High accuracy in cross-validation trials, but the authors emphasized the importance of conducting multicenter prospective trials to ensure that AI models are applicable across different patient populations and healthcare settings. | - | - |
Nojima et al. [14] (2021) | The team performed an extensive validation of a CNN model in urine cytology. | This retrospective study used a large dataset of cytology slides, but the authors suggested that prospective validation is needed to account for variability in slide preparation and human factors in routine clinical use. | - | - | - |
Satyendra Singh
https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4307-0563
Ram Mohan Shukla
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7328-0662
Trimodal Therapy in the Treatment of Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer2024 November;22(3)
Emerging Diagnostic Tools for Bladder Cancer2013 April;11(1)