19 Comparison of a Classification Software Based on Image Retrieval With the Off-Line Diagnosis of Expert Endoscopists for Probe-Based Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy (pCLE) of Colorectal Polyps

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS pCLE (Cellvizio, Mauna Kea Technologies) enables in vivo microscopic imaging of the epithelium in real-time during ongoing endoscopy. An image retrieval software prototype for automatic classification of pCLE images, recently developed to assist the endoscopists in the in vivo pCLE diagnosis of colorectal polyps, has the great potential of decreasing inter-observer agreement while increasing diagnostic performance of endoscopists. This study aims at comparing the performances of the classification software with the performance of pCLE diagnosis established off-line by expert endoscopists. METHODS Intravenous fluorescein pCLE imaging of colorectal lesions was performed on patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopies, followed by polypectomies. Histopathology was used as gold standard for the differentiation between neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions. The pCLE sequences, recorded for each polyp, were analyzed off-line by 2 expert endoscopists, blinded to the endoscopic characteristics and histopathology. These pCLE videos, along with their histopathology diagnosis, were used to train the classification software which is a content-based image retrieval technique followed by k-nearest neighbor classification. All evaluations were performed using leave-onepatient- out (LOPO) cross-validation to avoid bias. RESULTS 135 colorectal lesions, including 6 serrated adenoma cases, were imaged in 71 patients. Based on histopathology, 93 of these 135 lesions were neoplastic and 42 were non-neoplastic. No statistical significance was found for the difference between the performance of software classification (accuracy 89.6%, sensitivity 92.5%, specificity 83.3%, using LOPO) and the performance of off-line diagnosis of pCLE established by the expert endoscopists (accuracy 89.6%, sensitivity 91.4%, specificity 85.7%). The 95% confidence intervals for equivalence testing (−0.073 to 0.073 for accuracy, −0.068 to 0.089 for sensitivity, −0.18 to 0.13 for specificity) are sufficiently small to suggest statistical equivalence. The −0.18 lower bound for the specificity should be sufficient if the classification software is only taken as a second-reader tool to support pCLE diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS The image retrieval software for automatic classification of pCLE sequences of colorectal polyps achieves a high performance which is statistically comparable to that of off-line diagnosis of pCLE sequences established by expert endoscopists. A fortiori, the classification software should be useful, not only to train non expert endoscopists, but also to assist any endoscopist in in vivo pCLE diagnosis. DISCUSSION The proposed software is not a black box but an informative tool based on the query by example model that produces, as intermediate results, visually similar annotated pCLE videos directly interpretable by the endoscopist.