| Literature DB >> 32355731 |
Lei Yang1, Wenjia Cai2, Xiaoyu Yang3, Haoshuai Zhu1, Zhenguo Liu1, Xi Wu3, Yiyan Lei1, Jianyong Zou1, Bo Zeng1, Xi Tian4, Rongguo Zhang4, Honghe Luo1, Ying Zhu3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate thymoma staging via computed tomography (CT) images is difficult even for experienced thoracic doctors. Here we developed a preoperative staging tool differentiating Masaoka-Koga (MK) stage I patients from stage II patients using CT images.Entities:
Keywords: Masaoka-Koga stage (MK stage); Thymoma; X-ray computed tomography (X-ray CT); artificial intelligence (AI) (computer vision systems); neural networks
Year: 2020 PMID: 32355731 PMCID: PMC7186715 DOI: 10.21037/atm.2020.02.183
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Transl Med ISSN: 2305-5839
Figure 1Preprocessing of raw CT images. (A) Datasets labeled with bounding box (first row) and segmentation (second row). (B) Extracted thymoma region. (C) 3D-reconstruction of all the CT slices contained the thymoma region. (D) The final input for the deep learning-a cube with a fixed size.
Figure 2The development of the 3D-DenseNet model. The input is the 3D image of the extracted thymoma region, and the output is the prediction for MK stages. MK, Masaoka-Koga.
General clinical and image characteristics of patients with thymoma (n=174)
| Variables | MK stage | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | II | ||
| General clinical characteristics | |||
| Age† (year) | 50.35±12.53 | 48.82±12.70 | 0.427 |
| Gender, n (%) | 0.537 | ||
| Male | 52 (61.90) | 58 (64.44) | |
| Female | 32 (38.10) | 32 (35.56) | |
| Tumor size (cm)† | 5.07±2.58 | 5.42±2.72 | 0.376 |
| Smoking history, n (%) | 0.735 | ||
| No | 75 (89.29) | 78 (86.67) | |
| Yes | 9 (10.71) | 12 (13.33) | |
| WHO histologic classification, n (%) | 0.001* | ||
| A | 15 (17.85) | 7 (7.78) | |
| AB | 22 (26.19) | 14 (15.56) | |
| B1 | 11 (13.10) | 10 (11.11) | |
| B2 | 32 (38.10) | 37 (41.11) | |
| B3 | 4 (4.76) | 16 (17.78) | |
| C | 0 (0) | 6 (6.67) | |
| Combine with MG, n (%) | 0.611 | ||
| No | 43 (51.19) | 49 (54.44) | |
| Yes | 41 (48.81) | 41 (45.56) | |
| Surgical approach, n (%) | 0.000* | ||
| Thymoma resection | 20 (23.81) | 11 (12.22) | |
| Thymectomy | 13 (15.48) | 18 (20.00) | |
| Extended thymectomy | 51 (60.71) | 61 (67.78) | |
| Surgery under VATS, n (%) | 0.000* | ||
| No | 57 (67.86) | 64 (71.11) | |
| Yes | 27 (32.14) | 26 (28.89) | |
| Operation time (min)† | 118.45±48.53 | 121.14±48.18 | 0.714 |
| Blood loss (mL)† | 75.73±64.87 | 78.30±47.97 | 0.769 |
| Image characteristics | |||
| Shape, n (%) | 0.209 | ||
| Round or oval | 45 (54.57) | 42 (46.67) | |
| Lobulated | 21 (25.00) | 18 (20.00) | |
| Irregular | 18 (21.43) | 30 (33.33) | |
| Contour, n (%) | 0.045* | ||
| Smooth | 79 (94.05) | 77 (85.56) | |
| Irregular | 5 (5.95) | 13 (14.44) | |
| Necrosis/cystic component, n (%) | 0.000* | ||
| 0–25% | 25 (29.76) | 38 (42.22) | |
| 26–50% | 50 (59.52) | 30 (33.33) | |
| 51–75% | 6 (7.14) | 7 (7.78) | |
| 75–100% | 3 (3.57) | 15 (16.67) | |
| Degree of enhancement (HU)† | 37.12±22.49 | 27.88±19.66 | 0.004* |
| Enhancement, n (%) | 0.383 | ||
| Homogeneous | 43 (51.19) | 42 (46.67) | |
| Heterogeneous | 41 (48.81) | 48 (53.33) | |
| Calcification, n (%) | 0.455 | ||
| No | 70 (83.33) | 71 (78.89) | |
| Yes | 14 (16.67) | 19 (21.11) | |
| Effusion (pleural/pericardial), n (%) | 0.407 | ||
| No | 83 (98.80) | 86 (95.56) | |
| Yes | 1 (1.2) | 4 (4.44) | |
†, data are mean ± standard deviation; *, P<0.05 was considered as statistically significant. MK, Masaoka-Koga.
Figure 3The ROC results of the Logistic regression of routine CT images in the prediction of Masaoka-Koga stage I or II (AUC =0.639, 95% CI: 0.556–0.721). AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.
Mean cross-validation results of both training dataset and validation dataset in Masaoka-Koga staging across the two data forms
| Label | Training dataset | Validation dataset | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC | ACC | SN | SP | AUC | ACC | SN | SP | ||
| Segmentation | 0.966 | 0.914 | 0.917 | 0.924 | 0.773 | 0.771 | 0.766 | 0.776 | |
| Bounding box | 0.951 | 0.905 | 0.886 | 0.923 | 0.722 | 0.690 | 0.703 | 0.682 | |
Figure 4AUC for the 5-fold cross-validation dataset from segmentation (A) labels and bounding box (B) labels were 0.773 and 0.722, respectively. The ROC results showed that the proposed 3D-DenseNet model had achieved good performance in the prediction of Masaoka-Koga stage I or II. AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.
Figure 5This figure illustrates the differences between the two groups on average accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity across a range of thresholds (we chose 0.48–0.51) of the five-fold cross-validation results. The result shows that the model trained with data in segmentation form outperforms model trained with data labeled with the bounding box. There were significant differences in ACC (P=0.00141) and SP (P=0.0026). ACC, accuracy; SP, specificity.