A deep learning system for detection of early Barrett's neoplasia: a model development and validation study.

BACKGROUND: Computer-aided detection (CADe) systems could assist endoscopists in detecting early neoplasia in Barrett's oesophagus, which could be difficult to detect in endoscopic images. The aim of this study was to develop, test, and benchmark a CADe system for early neoplasia in Barrett's oesophagus. METHODS: The CADe system was first pretrained with ImageNet followed by domain-specific pretraining with GastroNet. We trained the CADe system on a dataset of 14 046 images (2506 patients) of confirmed Barrett's oesophagus neoplasia and non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus from 15 centres. Neoplasia was delineated by 14 Barrett's oesophagus experts for all datasets. We tested the performance of the CADe system on two independent test sets. The all-comers test set comprised 327 (73 patients) non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus images, 82 (46 patients) neoplastic images, 180 (66 of the same patients) non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus videos, and 71 (45 of the same patients) neoplastic videos. The benchmarking test set comprised 100 (50 patients) neoplastic images, 300 (125 patients) non-dysplastic images, 47 (47 of the same patients) neoplastic videos, and 141 (82 of the same patients) non-dysplastic videos, and was enriched with subtle neoplasia cases. The benchmarking test set was evaluated by 112 endoscopists from six countries (first without CADe and, after 6 weeks, with CADe) and by 28 external international Barrett's oesophagus experts. The primary outcome was the sensitivity of Barrett's neoplasia detection by general endoscopists without CADe assistance versus with CADe assistance on the benchmarking test set. We compared sensitivity using a mixed-effects logistic regression model with conditional odds ratios (ORs; likelihood profile 95% CIs). FINDINGS: Sensitivity for neoplasia detection among endoscopists increased from 74% to 88% with CADe assistance (OR 2·04; 95% CI 1·73-2·42; p<0·0001 for images and from 67% to 79% [2·35; 1·90-2·94; p<0·0001] for video) without compromising specificity (from 89% to 90% [1·07; 0·96-1·19; p=0·20] for images and from 96% to 94% [0·94; 0·79-1·11; ] for video; p=0·46). In the all-comers test set, CADe detected neoplastic lesions in 95% (88-98) of images and 97% (90-99) of videos. In the benchmarking test set, the CADe system was superior to endoscopists in detecting neoplasia (90% vs 74% [OR 3·75; 95% CI 1·93-8·05; p=0·0002] for images and 91% vs 67% [11·68; 3·85-47·53; p<0·0001] for video) and non-inferior to Barrett's oesophagus experts (90% vs 87% [OR 1·74; 95% CI 0·83-3·65] for images and 91% vs 86% [2·94; 0·99-11·40] for video). INTERPRETATION: CADe outperformed endoscopists in detecting Barrett's oesophagus neoplasia and, when used as an assistive tool, it improved their detection rate. CADe detected virtually all neoplasia in a test set of consecutive cases. FUNDING: Olympus.

Endoscopic Resection Without Subsequent Ablation Therapy for Early Barrett's Neoplasia: Endoscopic Findings and Long-Term Mortality.

INTRODUCTION: After endoscopic resection (ER) of neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus (BE), it is recommended to ablate the remaining BE to minimize the risk for metachronous disease. However, we report long-term outcomes for a nationwide cohort of all patients who did not undergo ablation of the remaining BE after ER for early BE neoplasia, due to clinical reasons or performance status. METHODS: Endoscopic therapy for BE neoplasia in the Netherlands is centralized in 8 expert centers with specifically trained endoscopists and pathologists. Uniformity is ensured by a joint protocol and regular group meetings. We report all patients who underwent ER for a neoplastic lesion between 2008 and 2018, without further ablation therapy. Outcomes include progression during endoscopic FU and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients were included with mean age 74 (± 10) years. ER was performed for low-grade dysplasia (LGD) (10%), high-grade dysplasia (HGD) (25%), or low-risk esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) (65%). No additional ablation was performed for several reasons; in 73 patients (78%), the main argument was expected limited life expectancy. Median C2M5 BE persisted after ER, and during median 21 months (IQR 11-51) with 4 endoscopies per patient, no patient progressed to advanced cancer. Seventeen patients (18%) developed HGD/EAC: all were curatively treated endoscopically. In total, 29/73 patients (40%) with expected limited life expectancy died due to unrelated causes during FU, none of EAC. CONCLUSION: In selected patients, ER monotherapy with endoscopic surveillance of the residual BE is a valid alternative to eradication therapy with ablation.