Multicenter validation of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based platform for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: The current scores used to help diagnose acute appendicitis have a "gray" zone in which the diagnosis is usually inconclusive. Furthermore, the universal use of CT scanning is limited because of the radiation hazards and/or limited resources. Hence, it is imperative to have an accurate diagnostic tool to avoid unnecessary, negative appendectomies. METHODS: This was an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study. The diagnostic accuracy of the artificial intelligence platform was assessed by sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, the area under the receiver curve, precision curve, F1 score, and Matthews correlation coefficient. Moreover, calibration curve, decision curve analysis, and clinical impact curve analysis were used to assess the clinical utility of the artificial intelligence platform. The accuracy of the artificial intelligence platform was also compared to that of CT scanning. RESULTS: Two data sets were used to assess the artificial intelligence platform: a multicenter real data set (n = 2,579) and a well-qualified synthetic data set (n = 9736). The platform showed a sensitivity of 92.2%, specificity of 97.2%, and negative predictive value of 98.7%. The artificial intelligence had good area under the receiver curve, precision, F1 score, and Matthews correlation coefficient (0.97, 86.7, 0.89, 0.88, respectively). Compared to CT scanning, the artificial intelligence platform had a better area under the receiver curve (0.92 vs 0.76), specificity (90.9 vs 53.3), precision (99.8 vs 98.9), and Matthews correlation coefficient (0.77 vs 0.72), comparable sensitivity (99.2 vs 100), and lower negative predictive value (67.6 vs 99.5). Decision curve analysis and clinical impact curve analysis intuitively revealed that the platform had a substantial net benefit within a realistic probability range from 6% to 96%. CONCLUSION: The current artificial intelligence platform had excellent sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy exceeding 90% and may help clinicians in decision making on patients with suspected acute appendicitis, particularly when access to CT scanning is limited.

Deep Neural Network for the Prediction of KRAS Genotype in Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: KRAS mutation can alter the treatment plan after resection of colorectal cancer. Despite its importance, the KRAS status of several patients remains unchecked because of the high cost and limited resources. This study developed a deep neural network (DNN) to predict the KRAS genotype using hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained histopathological images. STUDY DESIGN: Three DNNs were created (KRAS_Mob, KRAS_Shuff, and KRAS_Ince) using the structural backbone of the MobileNet, ShuffleNet, and Inception networks, respectively. The Cancer Genome Atlas was screened to extract 49,684 image tiles that were used for deep learning and internal validation. An independent cohort of 43,032 image tiles was used for external validation. The performance was compared with humans, and a virtual cost-saving analysis was done. RESULTS: The KRAS_Mob network (area under the receiver operating curve [AUC] 0.8, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89) was the best-performing model for predicting the KRAS genotype, followed by the KRAS_Shuff (AUC 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84) and KRAS_Ince (AUC 0.71, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.82) networks. Combing the KRAS_Mob and KRAS_Shuff networks as a double prediction approach showed improved performance. KRAS_Mob network accuracy surpassed that of two independent pathologists (AUC 0.79 [95% CI 0.64 to 0.93], 0.51 [95% CI 0.34 to 0.69], and 0.51 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.69]; p < 0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: The DNN has the potential to predict the KRAS genotype directly from H&E-stained histopathological slide images. As an algorithmic screening method to prioritize patients for laboratory confirmation, such a model might possibly reduce the number of patients screened, resulting in significant test-related time and economic savings.

Outcome and quality of life in obese patients underwent laparoscopic vs. open appendectomy.

BACKGROUND: Although obesity is a popular reason for choosing laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA), however, the question of whether there is a difference remains. Our goal is to investigate if there is a difference between OA and LA in obese patients. METHODS: Fifty-eight obese patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis according to ALVARDO score at department of surgery at Suez Canal university hospitals from March 2020 till August 2021 were included. The study participants were assigned in two groups LA and OA. This study aimed to comparing between LA and OA regarding intraoperative complications, length of hospital stays, post -operative pain, and rate of post-operative complications. Meanwhile, using SF-36 scoring questionnaire, the quality of life was compared between both groups. RESULTS: A total of 58 patients were included in the present study (LG = 29 patients and OG = 29 patients). The early post-operative complications (within 30 days after surgery) were significantly lower in the LA group (5 patients out of 29) than the OA (11 patients out of 29). Additionally, lower incidence of complications was noticed in the LA group (2 out of 29 patients) compared to OA (6 patients out of 29) beyond 30 days after operation. Patients with laparoscopic surgery had statistically significant higher overall quality of life scores (SF-36) (72 ± 32) compared to open surgery patients (66 ± 35) 2 weeks after operation. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic procedure was associated with lower incidence of post operative complications. However, open appendectomy was superior for a shorter operative time. Laparoscopic approach is not only used for therapeutic purposes, but also it has a diagnostic role.

The role of the surgical resection distance from the pylorus after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a prospective cohort study from an academic medical center in Egypt.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy was recently described as an effective approach for the operative treatment of obesity, but the ideal procedure remains controversial. One of the most debated issues is the resection distance from the pylorus. We conducted this study to elucidate any potential differences in the short-term outcomes between 2 and 6 cm distance from the pylorus in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study in a selected cohort of 96 patients was conducted from January 2018 to March 2019 in morbidly obese patients who had laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy performed at Suez Canal University Hospital. Outcome was expressed by excess weight loss percentage, resolution of comorbidities, improvement of quality of life, and incidence of complications after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. The morbidly obese patients (body mass index [BMI] > 40 kg/m2 or > 35 kg/m2 with obesity-related comorbidities) in the study were divided into two equal groups: (1) Group 1 (48 patients) underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with a 2 cm distance from the pylorus resection distance and (2) Group 2 (48 patients) underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with a 6 cm distance from the pylorus resection distance. Body weight, BMI, bariatric quality of life, lipid profile, and comorbidities were evaluated pre- and post-operatively for a duration of 12 months. RESULTS: Statistically, no significant differences between the two study groups regarding the excess weight loss percentage, comorbidity resolution throughout the postoperative follow-up, enhancement of the quality of life score throughout the postoperative follow-up, or incidence of complications (25% in Group 1 versus 25% in Group 2, p > 0.05) were found. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy was an effective and safe management for morbid obesity and obesity-related comorbidities with significant short-term weight loss; it also improved weight-related quality of life and had an acceptable complication rate. The distance from the pylorus resection distance did not affect the short-term effects of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy regarding excess weight loss percentage, resolution of comorbidities, change in quality of life, or occurrence of complications.