| Literature DB >> 32913224 |
Hongwei Zhao1,2,3,4, Hasaan Hayat1,2,5, Xiaohong Ma1,2,6, Daguang Fan1,2,7, Ping Wang8,9, Anna Moore10,11.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms including deep learning have recently demonstrated remarkable progress in image-recognition tasks. Here, we utilized AI for monitoring the expression of underglycosylated mucin 1 (uMUC1) tumor antigen, a biomarker for ovarian cancer progression and response to therapy, using contrast-enhanced in vivo imaging. This was done using a dual-modal (magnetic resonance and near infrared optical imaging) uMUC1-specific probe (termed MN-EPPT) consisted of iron-oxide magnetic nanoparticles (MN) conjugated to a uMUC1-specific peptide (EPPT) and labeled with a near-infrared fluorescent dye, Cy5.5. In vitro studies performed in uMUC1-expressing human ovarian cancer cell line SKOV3/Luc and control uMUC1low ES-2 cells showed preferential uptake on the probe by the high expressor (n = 3, p < .05). A decrease in MN-EPPT uptake by SKOV3/Luc cells in vitro due to uMUC1 downregulation after docetaxel therapy was paralleled by in vivo imaging studies that showed a reduction in probe accumulation in the docetaxel treated group (n = 5, p < .05). The imaging data were analyzed using deep learning-enabled segmentation and quantification of the tumor region of interest (ROI) from raw input MRI sequences by applying AI algorithms including a blend of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) and Fully Connected Neural Networks. We believe that the algorithms used in this study have the potential to improve studying and monitoring cancer progression, amongst other diseases.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32913224 PMCID: PMC7484755 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-71890-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Scheme of deep learning algorithm and associated preprocessing and postprocessing steps for image segmentation and analysis. Image preprocessing of raw MR images consisted of image reconstruction and data mask generation with MATLAB and PyTorch libraries. A Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) was built with TensorFlow and used for image segmentation. A fully connected neural network was employed for analysis of ROI values and calculation of the deltaT2 values.
Figure 2(A) In vitro cell binding assay testing relative accumulation of MN-EPPT or MN-SCR probes in SKOV3/Luc and ES2 cell lines (n = 3). (B) Quantitative analysis of cell binding assays showed preferential, concentration dependent uptake of MN-EPPT probe by SKOV3/Luc cells compared to scrambled control probe. ES-2 cells exhibited significantly lower uptake of MN-EPPT probe. (*p value < .05 for student T-test). (C) Fluorescence microscopy of SKOV3/Luc cells after treatment with docetaxel. (D) Untreated SKOV3/Luc cells. Changes in the expression of the uMUC1 tumor antigen and a reduction in relative MN-EPPT probe accumulation are apparent in the docetaxel-treated cells (green—uMUC1; red—Cy5.5 conjugated to the nanoparticles; blue—DAPI, nuclei; magnification bar = 5 µm).
Figure 3(A) Light image of tumor lesions 7 days post orthotopic transplantation of tumor cells in the left ovary. (B) T2WI pre-contrast MR image of a mouse with ovarian tumor. (C) T2WI MR image 24 h after injection of MN-EPPT. (D) Bioluminescence imaging (BLI) of SKOV/Luc tumor. (E) Near infrared fluorescence imaging (NIRF) of MN-EPPT probe accumulation in ovarian tumors. (F) Merged BLI and NIRF images show co-localization of the corresponding signals.
Figure 4Biodistribution of MN-EPPT probe in tumor bearing mice treated with docetaxel (n = 5) or left untreated (n = 4). (A,B) Top row: Near infrared optical imaging of mice from both groups before and after injection of MN-EPPT. (A,B) Middle row showing mice with removed skin for confirmation of tumor localization and probe accumulation (left image). Removal of the tumor results in disappearance of the NIRF signal (right image). (A,B) Bottom row: excised ovaries indicated tumoral accumulations of MN-EPPT (left image). Biodistribution of the probe in major organs (right image). (C) Quantitation of biodistribution shows reduced uptake of MN-EPPT by the tumors treated with docetaxel. (D) Immunofluorescence staining of ovarian tumor tissue sections from animals treated with docetaxel (top row, low and high res) and immunofluorescence staining of ovarian tumor tissue sections from untreated animals (bottom row, low and high res). Green—uMUC1, red—MN-EPPT (Cy5.5 on MN), blue—DAPI nuclear stain. Magnification bar = 20 µm.
Figure 5Deep learning algorithm tumor segmentation and analysis. (A) Original reconstructed T2 Map of MR images. (B) Segmented ROI from deep learning algorithm. (C) Overlay of segmentation result on original reconstructed MR image. (D) Diameter reading from the segmented ROI. (E) Average deltaT2 values of tumors in treated and untreated groups obtained from deep learning algorithm. (F) MN-EPPT probe accumulation as a function of Cy5.5 signal intensity (radiant efficiency) from optical images of docetaxel-treated and untreated groups.
Figure 6Representative visual example of MR images used for ICC cross validation between the board-certified radiologist prediction and the deep learning algorithm prediction. (A) Original reconstructed MR image. (B) Prediction of tumor ROI labeled by a board-certified radiologist. (C) Prediction of tumor ROI by the deep learning algorithm segmentation.
Interclass correlation coefficient of (A) tumor ROI sum (size), (B) tumor circularity.
| Interclass correlationa | 95% confidence interval | F test with true value 0 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower bound | Upper bound | Value | df1 | df2 | Sig | ||
| Single measures | 0.890b | 0.797 | 0.942 | 18.067 | 37 | 37 | 0.000 |
| Average measures | 0.942c | 0.887 | 0.970 | 18.067 | 37 | 37 | 0.000 |
| Single measures | 0.856b | 0.729 | 0.925 | 13.748 | 34 | 34 | 0.000 |
| Average measures | 0.922c | 0.843 | 0.961 | 13.748 | 34 | 34 | 0.000 |
Two-way mixed effect model where people effects are random and measures effects are fixed.
aType A interclass correlation coefficient using an absolute agreement definition.
bThe estimator is the same, whether the interaction effect is present or not.
cThis estimate is computed assuming the interaction effect is absent, because it is not estimable otherwise.