Anthony P Reeves1, Yiting Xie2, Artit Jirapatnakul3. 1. School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. reeves@cornell.edu. 2. School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. yx269@cornell.edu. 3. Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. artit.jirapatnakul@mountsinai.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In lung cancer screening, pulmonary nodules are first identified in low-dose chest CT images. Costly follow-up procedures could be avoided if it were possible to establish the malignancy status of these nodules from these initial images. Preliminary computer methods have been proposed to characterize the malignancy status of pulmonary nodules based on features extracted from a CT image. The parameters and performance of such a computer system in a lung cancer screening context are addressed. METHODS: A computer system that incorporates novel 3D image features to determine the malignancy status of pulmonary nodules is evaluated with a large dataset constructed from images from the NLST and ELCAP lung cancer studies. The system is evaluated with different data subsets to determine the impact of class size distribution imbalance in datasets and to evaluate different training and testing strategies. RESULTS: Results show a modest improvement in malignancy prediction compared to prediction by size alone for a traditional size-unbalanced dataset. Further, the advantage of size binning for classifier design and the advantages of a size-balanced dataset for both training and testing are demonstrated. CONCLUSION: Nodule classification in the context of low-resolution low-dose whole-chest CT images for the clinically relevant size range in the context of lung cancer screening is highly challenging, and results are moderate compared to what has been reported in the literature for other clinical contexts. Nodule class size distribution imbalance needs to be considered in the training and evaluation of computer-aided diagnostic systems for producing patient-relevant outcomes.
PURPOSE: In lung cancer screening, pulmonary nodules are first identified in low-dose chest CT images. Costly follow-up procedures could be avoided if it were possible to establish the malignancy status of these nodules from these initial images. Preliminary computer methods have been proposed to characterize the malignancy status of pulmonary nodules based on features extracted from a CT image. The parameters and performance of such a computer system in a lung cancer screening context are addressed. METHODS: A computer system that incorporates novel 3D image features to determine the malignancy status of pulmonary nodules is evaluated with a large dataset constructed from images from the NLST and ELCAP lung cancer studies. The system is evaluated with different data subsets to determine the impact of class size distribution imbalance in datasets and to evaluate different training and testing strategies. RESULTS: Results show a modest improvement in malignancy prediction compared to prediction by size alone for a traditional size-unbalanced dataset. Further, the advantage of size binning for classifier design and the advantages of a size-balanced dataset for both training and testing are demonstrated. CONCLUSION: Nodule classification in the context of low-resolution low-dose whole-chest CT images for the clinically relevant size range in the context of lung cancer screening is highly challenging, and results are moderate compared to what has been reported in the literature for other clinical contexts. Nodule class size distribution imbalance needs to be considered in the training and evaluation of computer-aided diagnostic systems for producing patient-relevant outcomes.
Authors: Sumit K Shah; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Sarah R Rogers; Jonathan G Goldin; Robert D Suh; James W Sayre; Iva Petkovska; Hyun J Kim; Denise R Aberle Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Sumit K Shah; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Sarah R Rogers; Jonathan G Goldin; Robert D Suh; James W Sayre; Iva Petkovska; Hyun J Kim; Denise R Aberle Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Ted W Way; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Philip N Cascade; Ella A Kazerooni; Naama Bogot; Chuan Zhou Journal: Med Phys Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Ayman El-Bazl; Matthew Nitzken; Fahmi Khalifa; Ahmed Elnakib; Georgy Gimel'farb; Robert Falk; Mohammed Abo El-Ghar Journal: Inf Process Med Imaging Date: 2011
Authors: Claudia I Henschke; David F Yankelevitz; Daniel M Libby; Mark W Pasmantier; James P Smith; Olli S Miettinen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-10-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Claudia I Henschke; David F Yankelevitz; Rosna Mirtcheva; Georgeann McGuinness; Dorothy McCauley; Olli S Miettinen Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: José Raniery Ferreira; Marcelo Costa Oliveira; Paulo Mazzoncini de Azevedo-Marques Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Jason L Causey; Junyu Zhang; Shiqian Ma; Bo Jiang; Jake A Qualls; David G Politte; Fred Prior; Shuzhong Zhang; Xiuzhen Huang Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Claudia I Henschke; Rowena Yip; Dorith Shaham; Javier J Zulueta; Samuel M Aguayo; Anthony P Reeves; Artit Jirapatnakul; Ricardo Avila; Drew Moghanaki; David F Yankelevitz Journal: J Thorac Imaging Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 5.528