Elettra Merola
Andrea Michielan2
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
- 1Gastroenterology Unit, Giovan Battista (G.B.) Grassi Hospital (Azienda Sanitaria Locale (ASL) Roma 3), Rome, Italy
- 2Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Santa Chiara Hospital, Trento, Italy
- 3Center for Medical Sciences (CISMed), University of Trento, Trento, Italy
By Yan Q, Chen Y, Liu C, Shi H, Han M, Wu Z, Huang S, Zhang C and Hou B (2024). Front. Oncol. 14:1332387. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1332387
1 Introduction
Artificial intelligence (AI) is currently in the spotlight, and its use in the medical field is exponentially increasing. Its application with radiomics enables different techniques, such as “deep learning” and “machine learning,” to translate radiological features into histological information (1). This innovation may significantly affect patient management by reducing the number of required tests to achieve a diagnosis and avoiding invasive and risky procedures to obtain tissue samples.
The field of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) is progressively incorporating AI applications. These neoplasms are very heterogeneous, with the primary tumor site potentially involving all human organs, and with a prognosis that depends on several factors, including Ki67/grading, stage, and differentiation (2). Although initially considered a very rare entity, their incidence and prevalence have increased over time, primarily due to advancements in technology (3). For NENs, AI may represent a further step towards personalized patient management. However, there is a dearth of high-quality studies on this topic in the literature.
2 Comment on the findings and discussion
Yan et al. (4) investigated the ability of radiological image-based AI models to predict the grading of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) through a meta-analysis of 20 retrospective studies (2,639 patients) (4). They reported a pooled positive likelihood ratio of 4.382, and a pooled negative likelihood ratio of 0.215. Based on these encouraging results, the authors highlighted the potential value of AI in spite of standard histology. This is because the proliferation index (and thus grading) may be expressed within each lesion with heterogeneity, and a biopsy from a spot of one lesion may fail to represent the entire neuroendocrine disease affecting a patient.
Although we agree that AI may make a significant contribution to the diagnostic algorithm of PanNETs, we also believe that current expectations from AI in this field are too high. As correctly pointed out by Yan et al. (4), a high heterogeneity was observed in the studies of the meta-analysis (I2 = 90.42%, P<0.05) due to several factors, including a lack of external validation, the adoption of different imaging modalities, and different modeling algorithms (4). The fact that NEN management is often based on expert opinions in a real-world setting justifies some of these limitations. For example, although guidelines clearly indicate which tests to perform for diagnosis (5, 6), standardized protocols regarding follow-up strategies are still lacking (7). This consideration may explain why some papers in the meta-analysis utilized CT while others employed MRI for image-based AI (4).
Furthermore, AI’s ability to predict PanNET grading still seems to be imprecise. Some studies have shown that AI only differentiated between G1 and G2/G3 cases, and in others only between G1/G2 and G3 (4). These results are very limited since a different grading corresponds to a different therapeutical approach. In details, G2 tumors with Ki67 of 15%-20% are expected to behave more aggressively than Ki67 < 3%, and this might for example suggest to adopt chemotherapy or target therapy instead of somatostatin analogs. Moreover, the WHO 2017 classification has further divided the G3 category into two subgroups based on tumor differentiation: neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) and NETs G3 (8). These subgroups correspond to two different diseases, with different therapies to be administered and different prognoses. In detail, for metastatic cases, NECs are treated at first-line with platinum-etoposide chemotherapy, while NETs G3 generally benefit from other treatments (i.e., temozolomide/capecitabine, FOLFOX, etc.). While the median overall survival for NECs is typically 11-12 months, studies report a median rate of 31.9 months for NETs G3 (9). These data clarify why the distinction between NECs and NETs G3 cannot be ignored.
For these reasons, our opinion is that AI has yet to establish a role in defining NEN grading. This application may serve as a “salvage” strategy in very select cases when a procedure to achieve histological diagnosis is risky due to serious comorbidities.
In a commentary regarding the role of AI in the patient management, potential risks associated with overreliance on AI for clinical decision-making cannot be ignored. As mentioned above, a misclassification of NENs (both in terms of grading/ki67 and differentiation) might lead to a wrong therapeutical approach and thus to a worse prognosis. The use of AI in the clinical setting is also affected by significant ethical concerns regarding privacy and data security, transparency, clinical validation, and professional responsibility (10, 11). Potential biases need to be considered as well (i.e., data bias, environmental bias, algorithmic bias), since they may prevent study replicability and influence the reported outcomes. In particular, algorithmic bias may affect equity in healthcare delivery, misrepresenting and discriminating specific subgroups of patients with the risk of disparities in their diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Regarding this ethical issue, the use of diverse datasets including data from underrepresented groups is helpful in considering the diversity present in the real-world setting. Furthermore, human interpretation and intervention are also needed to mitigate all these limitations (11).
In conclusions, we agree that AI may represent a unique support in the medical and scientific field, but we also think that published data are still scanty and affected by significant biases, and that only high-quality, prospective studies will allow researchers to draw any definitive conclusions regarding its clinical applications.
Author contributions
EM: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AM: Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing. AG: Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Lambin P, Leijenaar RTH, Deist TM, Peerlings J, de Jong EEC, van Timmeren J, et al. Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. (2017) 14:749–62. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.141
2. Panzuto F, Merola E, Rinzivillo M, Partelli S, Campana D, Iannicelli E, et al. Advanced digestive neuroendocrine tumors: metastatic pattern is an independent factor affecting clinical outcome. Pancreas. (2014) 43:212–8. doi: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000032
3. Dasari A, Shen C, Halperin D, Zhao B, Zhou S, Xu Y, et al. Trends in the incidence, prevalence, and survival outcomes in patients with neuroendocrine tumors in the United States. JAMA Oncol. (2017) 3:1335–42. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0589
4. Yan Q, Chen Y, Liu C, Shi H, Han M, Wu Z, et al. Predicting histologic grades for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors by radiologic image-based artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol. (2024) 14:1332387. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1332387
5. Falconi M, Eriksson B, Kaltsas G, Bartsch DK, Capdevila J, Caplin M, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines update for the management of patients with functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Neuroendocrinology. (2016) 103:153–71. doi: 10.1159/000443171
6. Kloppel G, Couvelard A, Perren A, Komminoth P, McNicol AM, Nilsson O, et al. ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the Standards of Care in Neuroendocrine Tumors: towards a standardized approach to the diagnosis of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and their prognostic stratification. Neuroendocrinology. (2009) 90:162–6. doi: 10.1159/000182196
7. Knigge U, Capdevila J, Bartsch DK, Baudin E, Falkerby J, Kianmanesh R, et al. ENETS consensus recommendations for the standards of care in neuroendocrine neoplasms: follow-up and documentation. Neuroendocrinology. (2017) 105:310–9. doi: 10.1159/000458155
8. Kloppel G. WHO classification of tumours of endocrine organs. 4th ed Vol. 10. . Lyon: WHO/IARC (2017).
9. Apostolidis L, Dal Buono A, Merola E, Jann H, Jager D, Wiedenmann B, et al. Multicenter analysis of treatment outcomes for systemic therapy in well differentiated grade 3 neuroendocrine tumors (NET G3). Cancers (Basel). (2021) 13. doi: 10.3390/cancers13081936
10. Harishbhai Tilala M, Kumar Chenchala P, Choppadandi A, Kaur J, Naguri S, Saoji R, et al. Ethical considerations in the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in health care: A comprehensive review. Cureus. (2024) 16:e62443. doi: 10.7759/cureus.62443
Keywords: artificial intelligence, radiomics, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, grading, meta analysis
Citation: Merola E, Michielan A and Gabbrielli A (2025) Commentary: Predicting histologic grades for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors by radiologic image-based artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Oncol. 15:1456557. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1456557
Received: 06 September 2024; Accepted: 11 March 2025;
Published: 31 March 2025.
Edited by:
Sharon R. Pine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, United StatesReviewed by:
Yue Wang, China Medical University, ChinaCopyright © 2025 Merola, Michielan and Gabbrielli. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Elettra Merola, ZWxldHRyYS5tZXJvbGFAZ21haWwuY29t
†ORCID: Elettra Merola, orcid.org/0000-0001-9553-7684