Diagnostic accuracy of clinical visual assessment using endoscopic images for nasal cavity mass lesions

Abstract

Objectives: Discrimination of nasal cavity lesions using nasal endoscopy is challenging because of the differences in clinical manifestations and treatment strategies. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of clinical visual assessment (CVA) of nasal cavity masses using endoscopic images and determine whether there is a difference according to pathologic class and the examiners’ experience. Methods: We collected pathologically confirmed endoscopic images of normal findings, nasal polyp (NP), benign tumor, and malignant tumor (each class contained 100 images) randomly selected. Eighteen otolaryngologists, including six junior residents, six senior residents, and six board-certified rhinologists classified the test set images into four classes of lesions by CVA. Diagnostic performance according to the pathologic class and the examiner's experience level was evaluated based on overall accuracy, F1-score, confusion matrix, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: Diagnostic performance was significantly different according to the pathological class of nasal cavity mass lesions with the overall accuracy reported high in the order of normal, NP, benign tumor, and malignant tumor (0.926 ± 0.100; 0.819 ± 0.135; 0.580 ± 0.112; 0.478 ± 0.187, respectively), F1 score (0.937 ± 0.076; 0.730 ± 0.093; 0.549 ± 0.080; 0.554 ± 0.146, respectively) and AUC value (0.96 ± 0.06; 0.84 ± 0.07; 0.70 ± 0.05; 0.71 ± 0.08, respectively). The expert rhinologist group achieved higher overall accuracy than the resident group (0.756 ± 0.157 vs. 0.680 ± 0.239, p < .05). Conclusion: CVA for nasal cavity mass was highly dependent on the pathologic class and examiner's experience. The overall accuracy was reliably high for normal findings, but low in classifying benign and malignant tumors. Differential diagnosis of lesions solely based on nasal endoscopic evaluation is challenging. Therefore, clinicians should consider further clinical evaluation for suspicious cases.