| Literature DB >> 32164298 |
Tahir Mahmood1, Muhammad Arsalan1, Muhammad Owais1, Min Beom Lee1, Kang Ryoung Park1.
Abstract
Breast cancer is the leading cause of mortality in women. Early diagnosis of breast cancer can reduce the mortality rate. In the diagnosis, the mitotic cell count is an important biomarker for predicting the aggressiveness, prognosis, and grade of breast cancer. In general, pathologists manually examine histopathology images under high-resolution microscopes for the detection of mitotic cells. However, because of the minute differences between the mitotic and normal cells, this process is tiresome, time-consuming, and subjective. To overcome these challenges, artificial-intelligence-based (AI-based) techniques have been developed which automatically detect mitotic cells in the histopathology images. Such AI techniques accelerate the diagnosis and can be used as a second-opinion system for a medical doctor. Previously, conventional image-processing techniques were used for the detection of mitotic cells, which have low accuracy and high computational cost. Therefore, a number of deep-learning techniques that demonstrate outstanding performance and low computational cost were recently developed; however, they still require improvement in terms of accuracy and reliability. Therefore, we present a multistage mitotic-cell-detection method based on Faster region convolutional neural network (Faster R-CNN) and deep CNNs. Two open datasets (international conference on pattern recognition (ICPR) 2012 and ICPR 2014 (MITOS-ATYPIA-14)) of breast cancer histopathology were used in our experiments. The experimental results showed that our method achieves the state-of-the-art results of 0.876 precision, 0.841 recall, and 0.858 F1-measure for the ICPR 2012 dataset, and 0.848 precision, 0.583 recall, and 0.691 F1-measure for the ICPR 2014 dataset, which were higher than those obtained using previous methods. Moreover, we tested the generalization capability of our technique by testing on the tumor proliferation assessment challenge 2016 (TUPAC16) dataset and found that our technique also performs well in a cross-dataset experiment which proved the generalization capability of our proposed technique.Entities:
Keywords: Faster R-CNN; artificial intelligence; breast cancer; deep CNNs; mitotic cell count
Year: 2020 PMID: 32164298 PMCID: PMC7141212 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030749
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 1Examples of (a) mitotic and (b) non-mitotic cells.
Comparison of previous studies and proposed method on mitosis detection.
| Category | Method | Datasets | Strength | Weakness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hand-crafted features | Morphological and statistical features with decision tree classifier [ | ICPR 2012 | Efficient in capturing texture features for mitotic cell segmentation | Low detection performance and computationally expensive |
| LBP and SVM classifier [ | ICPR 2012 | High discriminative power, computational simplicity, and invariance to grayscale changes | Affected by rotation and limited structural information capturing | |
| Shape, texture, and intensity features with SVM classifier [ | ICPR 2012 | Small amount of parameter tuning and low user effort | Low detection performance and object segmentation using open-source software | |
| Intensity, texture, and regenerative random forest tree classifier [ | ICPR 2012 | Good performance for large data | Computationally expensive and complex due to random forest tree | |
| Deep features | Sliding-window-based classification [ | ICPR 2012 | Good detection performance | Computationally expensive |
| Combination of color, texture, and shape features, and CNN features with SVM classifier [ | ICPR 2012 | Easy to accommodate for multi-scanner data without major redesign | Computationally expensive | |
| Handcrafted and CNN features, random forest classifier, and CNN [ | ICPR 2012 | Fast and high precision | Using fixed global and local threshold in object-detection stage | |
| FCN model for objects segmentation and CNN for classification [ | ICPR 2012 | Robust, fast, and high precision | Not suitable for weakly annotated datasets, and object detection stage is computationally expensive | |
| Faster R-CNN-based detection and Resnet-50 for classification [ | ICPR 2012 ICPR 2014 | Good performance and inference time | VGG-16 is used as a feature extraction network of Faster R-CNN, which have the vanishing gradient issue | |
| Concentric circle approach for objects detection and FCN for segmentation [ | ICPR 2012 ICPR 2014 TUPAC-16 | Good technique for weakly annotated datasets | Low detection performance | |
| Modified Faster R-CNN with Resnet-101 feature-extraction network [ | ICPR 2014 TUPAC-16 | Less inference time | Resnet-101 can be replaced by shallow network | |
| Lightweight region-based R-CNN [ | ICPR 2012 ICPR 2014 | No requirement of powerful GPUs | Low detection performance | |
| Mask R-CNN for object detection and handcrafted and CNN features [ | ICPR 2012 ICPR 2014 | Highest performance and inference time | Using expensive GPUs and intensive training | |
| Faster R-CNN and score-level fusion of Resnet-50 and Densenet-201 (proposed) | ICPR 2012 ICPR 2014 | High detection performance | Long processing time owing to multiple networks and intensive training |
ICPR, international conference on pattern recognition; LBP, local binary pattern; SVM, support vector machine; CNN, convolutional neural network; Faster R-CNN, Faster region convolutional neural network; TUPAC, tumor proliferation assessment challenge; VGG, visual geometry group.
Figure 2Flow diagram of the proposed technique. Faster R-CNN, Faster region convolutional neural network.
Figure A1Faster R-CNN architecture; the feature map is extracted from the input image using the Resnet-50 feature-extraction network followed by the generation of region proposals in the RPN and the final mitotic-cells detection in the classification network [28].
Resnet-50 feature-extraction network (Conv means convolutional layer).
| Layer Type | Output | Numbers of Filters | Kernel Size | Strides | Paddings | Iterations | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image input layer | 224 × 224 × 3 | ||||||
| Conv1 | 112 × 112 × 64 | 64 | 7 × 7 × 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | |
| Maximum pool | 55 × 55 × 64 | 1 | 3 × 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | |
| Conv2 | Conv2-1 | 55 × 55 × 64 | 64 | 1 × 1 × 64 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 55 × 55 × 64 | 64 | 3 × 3 × 64 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 55 × 55 × 256 | 256 | 1 × 1 × 64 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 55 × 55 × 256 | 256 | 1 × 1 × 64 | 1 | 0 | |||
| Conv2-2-Conv2-3 | 55 × 55 × 64 | 64 | 1 × 1 × 256 | 1 | 0 | 2 | |
| 55 × 55 × 64 | 64 | 3 × 3 × 64 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 55 × 55 × 256 | 256 | 1 × 1 × 64 | 1 | 0 | |||
| Conv3 | Conv3-1 | 28 × 28 × 128 | 128 | 1 × 1 × 256 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 × 28 × 128 | 128 | 3 × 3 × 128 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 28 × 28 × 512 | 512 | 1 × 1 × 128 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 28 × 28 × 512 | 512 | 1 × 1 × 256 | 2 | 0 | |||
| Conv3-2-Conv3-4 | 28 × 28 × 128 | 128 | 1 × 1 × 512 | 1 | 0 | 3 | |
| 28 × 28 × 128 | 128 | 3 × 3 × 128 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 28×28×512 | 512 | 1 × 1 × 128 | 1 | 0 | |||
| Conv4 | Conv4-1 | 14 × 14 × 256 | 256 | 1 × 1 × 512 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| 14 × 14 × 256 | 256 | 1 × 1 × 512 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 14 × 14 × 1024 | 1024 | 1 × 1 × 512 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 14 × 14 × 1024 | 1024 | 1 × 1 × 512 | 2 | 0 | |||
| Conv4-2-Conv4-6 | 14 × 14 × 256 | 256 | 1 × 1 × 1024 | 1 | 0 | 5 | |
| 14 × 14 × 256 | 256 | 1 × 1 × 256 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 14 × 14 × 1024 | 1024 | 1 × 1 × 256 | 1 | 0 | |||
| Conv5 | Conv5-1 | 7 × 7 × 512 | 512 | 1 × 1 × 1024 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| 7 × 7 × 512 | 512 | 3 × 3 × 512 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 7 × 7 × 2048 | 2048 | 1 × 1 × 512 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 7 × 7 × 2048 | 2048 | 1 × 1 × 1024 | 2 | 0 | |||
| Conv5-2-Conv5-3 | 7 × 7 × 512 | 512 | 1 × 1 × 2048 | 1 | 0 | 2 | |
| 7 × 7 × 512 | 512 | 3 × 3 × 512 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 7 × 7 × 2048 | 2048 | 1 × 1 × 512 | 1 | 0 | |||
Region proposal network architecture (CL indicates convolutional layer).
| Layer Type | Number of Filters | Output Size | Kernel Size | Strides | Paddings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5_3rd CL Input layer | 7 × 7 × 2048 | ||||
| 6th CL (ReLU) | 512 | 7 × 7 × 2048 | 3 × 3 × 512 | 1 | 1 |
| Classification CL (Softmax) | 18 | 7 × 7 × 18 | 1 × 1 × 512 | 1 | 0 |
| 6th CL Regression CL | 36 | 7 × 7 × 36 | 1 × 1 × 512 | 1 | 0 |
Classification network (ROI coordinate* comprises x_min, y_min, x_max, and y_max of ROI of each proposal.
| Layer Type | Output Size |
|---|---|
| 5_3rd CL RPN proposal region Input layer | 7 × 7 × 2048 (height × width × depth) 300 × 4 (ROI coordinate *) |
| ROI pooling layer | 7 × 7 × 512 (height × width × depth) × 300 |
| 1st fully connected layer (ReLU) (Dropout) | 4096 × 300 |
| 2nd fully connected layer (ReLU) (Dropout) | 4096 × 300 |
| Classification convolutional layer (Softmax) | 2 × 300 |
| 2nd Fully connected layer | 4 × 300 |
RPN, region proposal network.
Figure A2HOG features from true-positive (green box) and false-positive (red box) images.
Figure A3Score-level fusion of Resnet-50 and Densenet-201 and classification of mitotic cells.
Figure 3Examples of (a) ICPR 2012 and (b) ICPR 2014 datasets with ground truth images.
Comparisons of the proposed method and previous techniques with ICPR 2012 dataset.
| Technique | Precision | Recall | F1-Measure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sommer et al. [ | 0.519 | 0.798 | 0.629 |
| Malon et al. [ | 0.747 | 0.590 | 0.659 |
| Tashk et al. [ | 0.699 | 0.72 | 0.709 |
| Irshad [ | 0.698 | 0.74 | 0.718 |
| Wang et al. [ | 0.84 | 0.65 | 0.735 |
| Ciresan et al. [ | 0.88 | 0.70 | 0.782 |
| Li et al. [ | 0.78 | 0.79 | 0.784 |
| Chen et al. [ | 0.804 | 0.772 | 0.788 |
| Li et al. [ | 0.846 | 0.762 | 0.802 |
| Paul et al. [ | 0.835 | 0.811 | 0.823 |
| Li et al. [ | 0.854 | 0.812 | 0.832 |
| Proposed method | 0.876 | 0.841 | 0.858 |
Comparisons of the proposed method and previous techniques with ICPR 2014 dataset (N.R. means “not reported”).
| Technique | Precision | Recall | F1-Measure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Li et al. [ |
|
| 0.572 |
| Cai et al. [ | 0.53 | 0.66 | 0.585 |
| Li et al. [ | 0.495 | 0.785 | 0.607 |
| Li et al. [ | 0.654 | 0.663 | 0.659 |
| Dodballapur et al. [ | 0.58 | 0.82 | 0.68 |
| Proposed method | 0.848 | 0.583 | 0.691 |
Quantitative comparison of each component of the proposed method on ICPR 2012 dataset. (FRCNN indicates Faster R-CNN, PP indicates post-processing (feature-driven method), D-net indicates Densenet-201, R-net indicates Resnet-50 and SF indicates score-level fusion of Densent-201 and Resnet-50.)
| Technique | Precision | Recall | F1-Measure |
|---|---|---|---|
| FRCNN | 0.540 | 0.851 | 0.661 |
| FRCNN + PP | 0.641 | 0.851 | 0.731 |
| FRCNN + PP + D-net | 0.793 | 0.722 | 0.756 |
| FRCNN + PP + R-net | 0.7692 | 0.792 | 0.780 |
| FRCNN + PP + SF (Proposed) | 0.876 | 0.841 | 0.858 |
Quantitative comparison of each component of the proposed method on ICPR 2014 dataset. (FRCNN indicates Faster R-CNN, PP indicates post-processing (feature-driven method), D-net indicates Densenet-201, R-net indicates Resnet-50 and SF indicates score-level fusion of Densent-201 and Resnet-50.)
| Technique | Precision | Recall | F1-Measure |
|---|---|---|---|
| FRCNN | 0.521 | 0.641 | 0.575 |
| FRCNN + PP | 0.536 | 0.64 | 0.584 |
| FRCNN + PP + D-net | 0.674 | 0.599 | 0.634 |
| FRCNN + PP + R-net | 0.689 | 0.586 | 0.633 |
| FRCNN + PP + SF (Proposed) | 0.848 | 0.583 | 0.691 |
Figure 4Examples of correct-detection cases of proposed method with image from (a) ICPR 2012 and (b) ICPR 2014 datasets. Green boxes indicate true positives, red boxes indicate false positives, and blue boxes indicate false negatives.
Figure 5Examples of incorrect-detection cases of proposed method with image from (a) ICPR 2012 and (b) ICPR 2014 datasets. Green boxes indicate true positives, red boxes indicate false positives, and blue boxes indicate false negatives.
Comparisons of the proposed method on cross-dataset TUPAC16 with ICPR 2012 dataset trained networks (TUPAC16, tumor proliferation assessment challenge 2016. N.R. means “not reported” and proposed method-12 indicates networks trained on ICPR2012 dataset).
| Technique | Precision | Recall | F1-Measure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Akram et al. [ | 0.61 | 0.67 | 0.64 |
| Paeng et al. [ |
|
| 0.652 |
| Proposed method-12 | 0.641 | 0.642 | 0.642 |
Figure 6Examples of correct-detection cases of proposed method with image from TUPAC16 dataset. Green boxes indicate true positives, red boxes indicate false positives, and blue boxes indicate false negatives. TUPAC16, tumor proliferation assessment challenge 2016.
Figure 7Examples of incorrect-detection cases of proposed method with image from TUPAC16 dataset. Green boxes indicate true positives, red boxes indicate false positives, and blue boxes indicate false negatives.
Figure 8Obtained activation maps from different parts of (a), (b) Resnet-50, and (c), (d) Densenet-201 with mitotic and non-mitotic cell images. (a) and (c) comprise mitotic cells whereas (b) and (d) comprise non-mitotic cells. In (a) and (b), L1–L5 are the Resnet-50 layers Conv2-1, Conv3-4, Conv4-1, Conv4-6, and Conv5-3, respectively, as presented in Table A1, whereas L1–L5 in (c) and (d) are the Densnet-201 layers Convolution (1), Dense Block (1), Dense Block (2), Dense Block (3), and Dense Block (4), respectively.