| Literature DB >> 33217973 |
Charis Ntakolia1, Dimitrios E Diamantis1, Nikolaos Papandrianos2, Serafeim Moustakidis3, Elpiniki I Papageorgiou2.
Abstract
Bone metastasis is among the most frequent in diseases to patients suffering from metastatic cancer, such as breast or prostate cancer. A popular diagnostic method is bone scintigraphy where the whole body of the patient is scanned. However, hot spots that are presented in the scanned image can be misleading, making the accurate and reliable diagnosis of bone metastasis a challenge. Artificial intelligence can play a crucial role as a decision support tool to alleviate the burden of generating manual annotations on images and therefore prevent oversights by medical experts. So far, several state-of-the-art convolutional neural networks (CNN) have been employed to address bone metastasis diagnosis as a binary or multiclass classification problem achieving adequate accuracy (higher than 90%). However, due to their increased complexity (number of layers and free parameters), these networks are severely dependent on the number of available training images that are typically limited within the medical domain. Our study was dedicated to the use of a new deep learning architecture that overcomes the computational burden by using a convolutional neural network with a significantly lower number of floating-point operations (FLOPs) and free parameters. The proposed lightweight look-behind fully convolutional neural network was implemented and compared with several well-known powerful CNNs, such as ResNet50, VGG16, Inception V3, Xception, and MobileNet on an imaging dataset of moderate size (778 images from male subjects with prostate cancer). The results prove the superiority of the proposed methodology over the current state-of-the-art on identifying bone metastasis. The proposed methodology demonstrates a unique potential to revolutionize image-based diagnostics enabling new possibilities for enhanced cancer metastasis monitoring and treatment.Entities:
Keywords: bone metastasis classification; convolutional neural network; deep learning; lightweight look-behind fully convolutional neural network; machine learning; medical image; nuclear medicine
Year: 2020 PMID: 33217973 PMCID: PMC7711827 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare8040493
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Figure 1Examples of the three categories of prostate cancer (P-Ca) patients: (a) normal (metastasis absent); (b) malignant (metastasis present); (c) benign-degenerative (no metastasis, but image includes degenerative lesions/changes) [14].
Figure 2Methodology pipeline.
Figure 33D representation of the main multi-scale building block of look-behind fully convolutional neural network (LB-FCN) light architecture adopted in this study.
Characteristics of the networks used in the evaluation.
| Network | Characteristics |
|---|---|
| ResNet50 [ | pixel size |
| VGG16 [ | pixel size |
| MobileNet [ | pixel size |
| InceptionV3 [ | pixel size |
| Xception [ | pixel size |
| Papadrianos et al. [ | pixel size |
| LB-FCN | pixel size |
Comparative classification performance for the healthy class.
| Network | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ResNet50 [ | 0.994 | 0.777 | 0.866 | 0.825 | 0.997 |
| VGG16 [ | 0.952 | 0.844 | 0.896 | 0.855 | 0.988 |
| MobileNet [ | 0.890 | 0.990 | 0.936 | 0.857 | 0.960 |
| InceptionV3 [ | 0.884 | 0.958 | 0.916 | 0.959 | 0.947 |
| Xception [ | 0.958 | 0.908 | 0.931 | 0.913 | 0.988 |
| Papadrianos et al. [ | 0.950 | 0.938 | 0.942 | 0.938 | 0.978 |
| LB-FCN | 0.972 | 0.978 | 0.975 | 0.978 | 0.992 |
Comparative classification performance for the malignant disease class.
| Network | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ResNet50 [ | 0.904 | 0.972 | 0.934 | 0.971 | 0.921 |
| VGG16 [ | 0.952 | 0.950 | 0.952 | 0.949 | 0.960 |
| MobileNet [ | 0.946 | 0.941 | 0.944 | 0.940 | 0.952 |
| InceptionV3 [ | 0.902 | 0.922 | 0.911 | 0.920 | 0.909 |
| Xception [ | 0.964 | 0.932 | 0.946 | 0.937 | 0.909 |
| Papadrianos et al. [ | 0.948 | 0.928 | 0.938 | 0.927 | 0.960 |
| LB-FCN | 0.979 | 0.979 | 0.979 | 0.978 | 0.984 |
Comparative classification performance for the degenerative class.
| Network | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ResNet50 [ | 0.830 | 0.882 | 0.846 | 0.881 | 0.902 |
| VGG16 [ | 0.836 | 0.914 | 0.872 | 0.913 | 0.917 |
| MobileNet [ | 0.938 | 0.856 | 0.888 | 0.857 | 0.960 |
| InceptionV3 [ | 0.848 | 0.754 | 0.786 | 0.755 | 0.937 |
| Xception [ | 0.820 | 0.936 | 0.904 | 0.934 | 0.925 |
| Papadrianos et al. [ | 0.862 | 0.894 | 0.874 | 0.894 | 0.933 |
| LB-FCN | 0.970 | 0.967 | 0.968 | 0.967 | 0.984 |
Overall classification accuracy comparative results.
| ResNet50 [ | VGG16 [ | MobileNet [ | InceptionV3 [ | Xception [ | Papandrianos et al. [ | LB-FCN | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 90.74% | 90.83% | 91.02% | 88.96% | 91.54% | 91.61% |
|
Computational performance comparison.
| FLOPs (×106) | Trainable Free Parameters (×106) | |
|---|---|---|
| ResNet50 [ | 47.0 | 23.5 |
| VGG16 [ | 268.5 | 134.2 |
| MobileNet [ | 6.4 | 3.2 |
| InceptionV3 [ | 43.5 | 21.8 |
| Xception [ | 41.6 | 20.8 |
| Papadrianos et al. [ | 13.1 | 6.5 |
| LB-FCN |
|
|
Summarized results of state-of-the-art ML approaches for bone metastasis (BS) classification.
| Studies | Year | ML Method | Classification Problem | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | 2020 | Deep CNNs | 2 classes: absence or presence of bone metastasis | accuracy of 89.00%, F1-score of 0.893, and Sensitivity of 92.00% |
| [ | 2020 | CNN | 2 classes: BS metastasis in prostate patient or not | overall classification accuracy 91.61% ± 2.46% |
| [ | 2020 | CNN | 2 classes: BS metastasis in prostate patient or not | 97.38% classification testing accuracy and 95.8% average sensitivity |
| [ | 2019 | Parallelepiped algorithm | 2 classes: absence or presence of bone metastasis | 87.58 ± 2.25% classification accuracy and 0.8367 ± 0.0252 |
| [ | 2019 | Modified Fully CNN | Segmentation of the BS area | 69.2% intersection over union rate and 79.8% true positive rate |
| [ | 2019 | CNN | 2 classes: metastasis of breast cancer or not | classification accuracy of 92.50%, 95% sensitivity |
| [ | 2016 | CADBOSS (ANNs) | 2 classes: absence or presence of bone metastasis | 92.30% accuracy, 94% sensitivity and 86.67% specificity |
| [ | 2016 | LR, DT and SVM | 2 classes: absence or presence of bone metastasis | LR, DT, and SVM classification accuracy was 79.2%, 85.8% and 88.2% |