| Literature DB >> 30253801 |
Chaofeng Li1,2,3,4, Bingzhong Jing1,2, Liangru Ke1,5, Bin Li1,2, Weixiong Xia1,6, Caisheng He1,2, Chaonan Qian1,6, Chong Zhao1,6, Haiqiang Mai1,6, Mingyuan Chen1,6, Kajia Cao1,6, Haoyuan Mo1,6, Ling Guo1,6, Qiuyan Chen1,6, Linquan Tang1,6, Wenze Qiu1,6, Yahui Yu1,6, Hu Liang1,6, Xinjun Huang1,6, Guoying Liu1,6, Wangzhong Li1,6, Lin Wang1,6, Rui Sun1,6, Xiong Zou1,6, Shanshan Guo1,6, Peiyu Huang1,6, Donghua Luo1,6, Fang Qiu1,6, Yishan Wu1,6, Yijun Hua1,6, Kuiyuan Liu1,6, Shuhui Lv1,6, Jingjing Miao1,6, Yanqun Xiang1,6, Ying Sun1,7, Xiang Guo8,9,10, Xing Lv11,12,13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to the occult anatomic location of the nasopharynx and frequent presence of adenoid hyperplasia, the positive rate for malignancy identification during biopsy is low, thus leading to delayed or missed diagnosis for nasopharyngeal malignancies upon initial attempt. Here, we aimed to develop an artificial intelligence tool to detect nasopharyngeal malignancies under endoscopic examination based on deep learning.Entities:
Keywords: Automatic segmentation; Deep learning; Differential diagnosis; Nasopharyngeal malignancy
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30253801 PMCID: PMC6156962 DOI: 10.1186/s40880-018-0325-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Commun (Lond) ISSN: 2523-3548
Fig. 1The study flowchart. *The numbers of images and cases in each subset are presented
Demographic characteristics and disease categories of the study subjects in different datasets
| Characteristics | All | Training set | Validation set | Test set | Prospective test set |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects, n | 8306 | 5557 | 807 | 1587 | 355 |
| Mean (± SD), years | 45.9 ± 12.7 | 45.8 ± 12.7 | 45.9 ± 12.7 | 45.7 ± 12.7 | 47.8 ± 13.0 |
| Sex, n(%) | |||||
| Female | 2562 (30.9) | 1681 (30.3) | 250 (31.0) | 507 (32.0) | 124 (34.9) |
| Male | 5612 (67.6) | 3783 (68.1) | 540 (66.9) | 1058 (66.7) | 231 (65.1) |
| N/A | 132 (1.6) | 93 (1.7) | 17 (2.1) | 22 (1.4) | 0 (0.0) |
| Disease category, n(%) | |||||
| Normal | 5713 (19.7) | 3763 (19.2) | 584 (21.7) | 961 (18.2) | 405 (28.3) |
| Malignancies | |||||
| NPC | 19,107 (66.0) | 13,061 (66.7) | 1749 (65.0) | 3564 (67.6) | 731(51.1) |
| Othersa | 335 (1.2) | 252 (1.3) | 22 (0.8) | 54 (1.0) | 7 (0.4) |
| Benign diseasesb | 3811 (13.2) | 2500 (12.8) | 335 (12.5) | 691 (13.1) | 287(20.1) |
| Images, n(%) | 28,966 | 19,576 (67.6) | 2690 (9.3) | 5270 (18.2) | 1430 (4.9) |
N/A not available, NPC nasopharyngeal carcinoma
aLymphoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, olfactory neuroblastoma, malignant melanoma and plasmacytoma
bPrecancerous/atypical hyperplasia, fibroangioma, leiomyoma, meningioma, minor salivary gland tumour, fungal infection, tuberculosis, chronic inflammation, adenoids/lymphoid hyperplasia, nasopharyngeal cyst and foreign bodies
Fig. 2Representative images of nasopharyngeal masses. a normal (adenoids hyperplasia); b Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; c fibroangioma; d malignant melanoma
The diagnostic performance of eNPM-DM and/or oncologists in nasopharyngeal malignancy
| Evaluation indicators | Test seta | Prospective test seta | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| eNPM-DM | Oncologist level | eNPM-DM plus experts | ||||
| Expertsb | Residentsb | Internsb | ||||
| Accuracy | 88.7 (87.8, 89.5) | 88.0 (86.1, 89.6) | 80.5 ± 0.8 (77.0, 84.0) | 72.8 ± 2.5 (66.9, 78.6) | 66.5 ± 4.3 (48.0, 84.9) | 89.0 (87.2, 90.5) |
| Sensitivity | 91.3 (90.3, 92.2) | 90.2 (87.8, 92.2) | 89.5 ± 0.5 (87.4, 91.7) | 88.8 ± 2.4 (83.1, 94.5) | 92.2 ± 2.3 (82.1, 100.0) | 87.9 (85.3, 90.2) |
| Specificity | 83.1 (81.1, 84.8) | 85.5 (82.7, 88.0) | 70.8 ± 1.8 (63.0, 78.6) | 55.5 ± 7.2 (38.6, 72.5) | 38.9 ± 11.0 (8.5, 86.3) | 90.0 (87.5, 92.1) |
| PPV | 92.2 (91.2, 93.0) | 86.9 (84.3, 89.2) | 76.6 ± 1.1 (71.9, 81.3) | 69.5 ± 3.1 (62.2, 76.8) | 62.3 ± 3.9 (45.4, 79.2) | 90.4 (87.9, 92.4) |
| NPV | 81.3 (79.3, 83.1) | 89.2 (86.5, 91.4) | 86.4 ± 0.5 (84.0, 88.7) | 83.2 ± 1.6 (79.4, 87.0) | 82.2 ± 2.4 (71.9, 92.4) | 87.5 (84.8, 90.0) |
| Time(min) | 0.67 (~ 40 s) | 110.0 ± 5.8 (85.2, 134.8) | 99.3 ± 6.3 (84.3, 114.2) | 106.7 ± 8.8 (68.7, 144.6) | ||
eNPM-DM endoscopic images-based nasopharyngeal malignancies detection model, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value
aThe numbers in parenthesis are the corresponding 95% confidence interval
bThe performance of the oncologists is presented as mean ± standard error
Fig. 3ROC for eNPM-DM in different test sets. a ROC of eNPM-DM in nasopharyngeal malignancy detection in the test set. b Comparison of the performance between eNPM-DM and oncologists with different seniorities in nasopharyngeal malignancy detection in the prospective test set. eNPM-DM endoscopic images-based nasopharyngeal malignancy detection model, ROC receiver operating characteristic curves, AUC area under curve
Fig. 4The training curve of eNPM-DM in detecting nasopharyngeal malignancies. The orange line represents the accuracy of detecting nasopharyngeal malignancies in the validation set over the course of training, with a final accuracy of 89.1% at the final epoch. The training curve was used for model selection. In this case, the best performing model at epoch 100 was used in the test and prospective test sets for final assessment. eNPM-DM endoscopic images-based nasopharyngeal malignancies detection model, Val validation
Fig. 5Representative images of nasopharyngeal malignancies segmentation. Images from the left to the right in each row are the original endoscopic images with or without malignant area highlighted by the experts (blue), the probability map output by eNPM-DM and the merged images of the malignant area outlined by the experts (blue) and segmented by the eNPM-DM (green). eNPM-DM endoscopic images-based nasopharyngeal malignancy detection model, NPC nasopharyngeal carcinoma