Confocal Laser Microscopy for in vivo Intraoperative Application: Diagnostic Accuracy of Investigator and Machine Learning Strategies

Abstract

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Confocal laser microscopy (CLM) is one of the optical techniques that are promising methods of intraoperative in vivo real-time tissue examination based on tissue fluorescence. However, surgeons might struggle interpreting CLM images intraoperatively due to different tissue characteristics of different tissue pathologies in clinical reality. Deep learning techniques enable fast and consistent image analysis and might support intraoperative image interpretation. The objective of this study was to analyze the diagnostic accuracy of newly trained observers in the evaluation of normal colon and peritoneal tissue and colon cancer and metastasis, respectively, and to compare it with that of convolutional neural networks (CNNs). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Two hundred representative CLM images of the normal and malignant colon and peritoneal tissue were evaluated by newly trained observers (surgeons and pathologists) and CNNs (VGG-16 and Densenet121), respectively, based on tissue dignity. The primary endpoint was the correct detection of the normal and cancer/metastasis tissue measured by sensitivity and specificity of both groups. Additionally, positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs) were calculated for the newly trained observer group. The interobserver variability of dignity evaluation was calculated using kappa statistic. The F1-score and area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the performance of image recognition of the CNNs’ training scenarios. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Sensitivity and specificity ranged between 0.55 and 1.0 (pathologists: 0.66–0.97; surgeons: 0.55–1.0) and between 0.65 and 0.96 (pathologists: 0.68–0.93; surgeons: 0.65–0.96), respectively. PPVs were 0.75 and 0.90 in the pathologists’ group and 0.73–0.96 in the surgeons’ group, respectively. NPVs were 0.73 and 0.96 for pathologists’ and between 0.66 and 1.00 for surgeons’ tissue analysis. The overall interobserver variability was 0.54. Depending on the training scenario, cancer/metastasis tissue was classified with an AUC of 0.77–0.88 by VGG-16 and 0.85–0.89 by Densenet121. Transfer learning improved performance over training from scratch. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Newly trained investigators are able to learn CLM images features and interpretation rapidly, regardless of their clinical experience. Heterogeneity in tissue diagnosis and a moderate interobserver variability reflect the clinical reality more realistic. CNNs provide comparable diagnostic results as clinical observers and could improve surgeons’ intraoperative tissue assessment.