Robin Wang1,2, Yeyu Cai1, Iris K Lee2,3, Rong Hu4, Subhanik Purkayastha5, Ian Pan6, Thomas Yi6, Thi My Linh Tran6, Shaolei Lu7, Tao Liu8, Ken Chang9, Raymond Y Huang10, Paul J Zhang11, Zishu Zhang2, Enhua Xiao1, Jing Wu12, Harrison X Bai13. 1. Department of Radiology, the Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China. 2. Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. School of Computer Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, China. 5. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Rhode Island Hospital and Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 6. Warren Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 7. Department of Pathology, Rhode Island Hospital and Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 8. Department of Biostatistics, Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA. 9. Department of Radiology, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 10. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 11. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 12. Department of Radiology, the Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China. wujing622@csu.edu.cn. 13. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Rhode Island Hospital and Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. Harrison_Bai@Brown.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There currently lacks a noninvasive and accurate method to distinguish benign and malignant ovarian lesion prior to treatment. This study developed a deep learning algorithm that distinguishes benign from malignant ovarian lesion by applying a convolutional neural network on routine MR imaging. METHODS: Five hundred forty-five lesions (379 benign and 166 malignant) from 451 patients from a single institution were divided into training, validation, and testing set in a 7:2:1 ratio. Model performance was compared with four junior and three senior radiologists on the test set. RESULTS: Compared with junior radiologists averaged, the final ensemble model combining MR imaging and clinical variables had a higher test accuracy (0.87 vs 0.64, p < 0.001) and specificity (0.92 vs 0.64, p < 0.001) with comparable sensitivity (0.75 vs 0.63, p = 0.407). Against the senior radiologists averaged, the final ensemble model also had a higher test accuracy (0.87 vs 0.74, p = 0.033) and specificity (0.92 vs 0.70, p < 0.001) with comparable sensitivity (0.75 vs 0.83, p = 0.557). Assisted by the model's probabilities, the junior radiologists achieved a higher average test accuracy (0.77 vs 0.64, Δ = 0.13, p < 0.001) and specificity (0.81 vs 0.64, Δ = 0.17, p < 0.001) with unchanged sensitivity (0.69 vs 0.63, Δ = 0.06, p = 0.302). With the AI probabilities, the junior radiologists had higher specificity (0.81 vs 0.70, Δ = 0.11, p = 0.005) but similar accuracy (0.77 vs 0.74, Δ = 0.03, p = 0.409) and sensitivity (0.69 vs 0.83, Δ = -0.146, p = 0.097) when compared with the senior radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that artificial intelligence based on deep learning can assist radiologists in assessing the nature of ovarian lesions and improve their performance. KEY POINTS: • Artificial Intelligence based on deep learning can assess the nature of ovarian lesions on routine MRI with higher accuracy and specificity than radiologists. • Assisted by the deep learning model's probabilities, junior radiologists achieved better performance that matched those of senior radiologists.
OBJECTIVES: There currently lacks a noninvasive and accurate method to distinguish benign and malignant ovarian lesion prior to treatment. This study developed a deep learning algorithm that distinguishes benign from malignant ovarian lesion by applying a convolutional neural network on routine MR imaging. METHODS: Five hundred forty-five lesions (379 benign and 166 malignant) from 451 patients from a single institution were divided into training, validation, and testing set in a 7:2:1 ratio. Model performance was compared with four junior and three senior radiologists on the test set. RESULTS: Compared with junior radiologists averaged, the final ensemble model combining MR imaging and clinical variables had a higher test accuracy (0.87 vs 0.64, p < 0.001) and specificity (0.92 vs 0.64, p < 0.001) with comparable sensitivity (0.75 vs 0.63, p = 0.407). Against the senior radiologists averaged, the final ensemble model also had a higher test accuracy (0.87 vs 0.74, p = 0.033) and specificity (0.92 vs 0.70, p < 0.001) with comparable sensitivity (0.75 vs 0.83, p = 0.557). Assisted by the model's probabilities, the junior radiologists achieved a higher average test accuracy (0.77 vs 0.64, Δ = 0.13, p < 0.001) and specificity (0.81 vs 0.64, Δ = 0.17, p < 0.001) with unchanged sensitivity (0.69 vs 0.63, Δ = 0.06, p = 0.302). With the AI probabilities, the junior radiologists had higher specificity (0.81 vs 0.70, Δ = 0.11, p = 0.005) but similar accuracy (0.77 vs 0.74, Δ = 0.03, p = 0.409) and sensitivity (0.69 vs 0.83, Δ = -0.146, p = 0.097) when compared with the senior radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that artificial intelligence based on deep learning can assist radiologists in assessing the nature of ovarian lesions and improve their performance. KEY POINTS: • Artificial Intelligence based on deep learning can assess the nature of ovarian lesions on routine MRI with higher accuracy and specificity than radiologists. • Assisted by the deep learning model's probabilities, junior radiologists achieved better performance that matched those of senior radiologists.
Entities:
Keywords:
Deep learning; Magnetic resonance imaging; Ovarian neoplasms
Authors: Wenya Linda Bi; Ahmed Hosny; Matthew B Schabath; Maryellen L Giger; Nicolai J Birkbak; Alireza Mehrtash; Tavis Allison; Omar Arnaout; Christopher Abbosh; Ian F Dunn; Raymond H Mak; Rulla M Tamimi; Clare M Tempany; Charles Swanton; Udo Hoffmann; Lawrence H Schwartz; Robert J Gillies; Raymond Y Huang; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2019-02-05 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg; Sameer Berry; Ryan W Stidham; Ji Zhu; Akbar K Waljee Journal: J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 4.029