Artificial Intelligence in Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews.

Introduction: Several studies have emphasized the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) and its subfields, such as machine learning (ML), as emerging and feasible approaches to optimize patient care in oncology. As a result, clinicians and decision-makers are faced with a plethora of reviews regarding the state of the art of applications of AI for head and neck cancer (HNC) management. This article provides an analysis of systematic reviews on the current status, and of the limitations of the application of AI/ML as adjunctive decision-making tools in HNC management.

Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, Medline via Ovid, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched from inception until November 30, 2022. The study selection, searching and screening processes, inclusion, and exclusion criteria followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A risk of bias assessment was conducted using a tailored and modified version of the Assessment of Systematic Review (AMSTAR-2) tool and quality assessment using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) guidelines.

Results: Of the 137 search hits retrieved, 17 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. This analysis of systematic reviews revealed that the application of AI/ML as a decision aid in HNC management can be thematized as follows: (1) detection of precancerous and cancerous lesions within histopathologic slides; (2) prediction of the histopathologic nature of a given lesion from various sources of medical imaging; (3) prognostication; (4) extraction of pathological findings from imaging; and (5) different applications in radiation oncology. In addition, the challenges in implementation of AI/ML models for clinical evaluations include the lack of standardized methodological guidelines for the collection of clinical images, development of these models, reporting of their performance, external validation procedures, and regulatory frameworks.

Conclusion: At present, there is a paucity of evidence to suggest the adoption of these models in clinical practice due to the aforementioned limitations. Therefore, this manuscript highlights the need for development of standardized guidelines to facilitate the adoption and implementation of these models in the daily clinical practice. In addition, adequately powered, prospective, randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to further assess the potential of AI/ML models in real-world clinical settings for the management of HNC.