Literature DB >> 33658592

Deep learning systems detect dysplasia with human-like accuracy using histopathology and probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy.

Shan Guleria1, Tilak U Shah2,3, J Vincent Pulido4,5, Matthew Fasullo2,3, Lubaina Ehsan6, Robert Lippman2, Rasoul Sali5, Pritesh Mutha2,3, Lin Cheng1, Donald E Brown5, Sana Syed7.   

Abstract

Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) allows for real-time diagnosis of dysplasia and cancer in Barrett's esophagus (BE) but is limited by low sensitivity. Even the gold standard of histopathology is hindered by poor agreement between pathologists. We deployed deep-learning-based image and video analysis in order to improve diagnostic accuracy of pCLE videos and biopsy images. Blinded experts categorized biopsies and pCLE videos as squamous, non-dysplastic BE, or dysplasia/cancer, and deep learning models were trained to classify the data into these three categories. Biopsy classification was conducted using two distinct approaches-a patch-level model and a whole-slide-image-level model. Gradient-weighted class activation maps (Grad-CAMs) were extracted from pCLE and biopsy models in order to determine tissue structures deemed relevant by the models. 1970 pCLE videos, 897,931 biopsy patches, and 387 whole-slide images were used to train, test, and validate the models. In pCLE analysis, models achieved a high sensitivity for dysplasia (71%) and an overall accuracy of 90% for all classes. For biopsies at the patch level, the model achieved a sensitivity of 72% for dysplasia and an overall accuracy of 90%. The whole-slide-image-level model achieved a sensitivity of 90% for dysplasia and 94% overall accuracy. Grad-CAMs for all models showed activation in medically relevant tissue regions. Our deep learning models achieved high diagnostic accuracy for both pCLE-based and histopathologic diagnosis of esophageal dysplasia and its precursors, similar to human accuracy in prior studies. These machine learning approaches may improve accuracy and efficiency of current screening protocols.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33658592      PMCID: PMC7930108          DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-84510-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  28 in total

Review 1.  Confocal laser endomicroscopy.

Authors: 
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Deep learning-based detection of motion artifacts in probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy images.

Authors:  Marc Aubreville; Maike Stoeve; Nicolai Oetter; Miguel Goncalves; Christian Knipfer; Helmut Neumann; Christopher Bohr; Florian Stelzle; Andreas Maier
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2018-08-04       Impact factor: 2.924

Review 3.  Diagnosis and Management of Low-Grade Dysplasia in Barrett's Esophagus: Expert Review From the Clinical Practice Updates Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association.

Authors:  Sachin Wani; Joel H Rubenstein; Michael Vieth; Jacques Bergman
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2016-10-01       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  Dysplasia as a predictive marker for invasive carcinoma in Barrett esophagus: a follow-up study based on 138 cases from a diagnostic variability study.

Authors:  E Montgomery; J R Goldblum; J K Greenson; M M Haber; L W Lamps; G Y Lauwers; A J Lazenby; D N Lewin; M E Robert; K Washington; M L Zahurak; J Hart
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.466

5.  High-resolution imaging in Barrett's esophagus: a novel, low-cost endoscopic microscope.

Authors:  Timothy J Muldoon; Sharmila Anandasabapathy; Dipen Maru; Rebecca Richards-Kortum
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  The Seattle protocol does not more reliably predict the detection of cancer at the time of esophagectomy than a less intensive surveillance protocol.

Authors:  Revital Kariv; Thomas P Plesec; John R Goldblum; Mary Bronner; Mary Oldenburgh; Thomas W Rice; Gary W Falk
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2008-12-13       Impact factor: 11.382

7.  ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus.

Authors:  Nicholas J Shaheen; Gary W Falk; Prasad G Iyer; Lauren B Gerson
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 10.864

8.  Barrett's esophagus: A review of diagnostic criteria, clinical surveillance practices and new developments.

Authors:  Cassie L Booth; Kevin S Thompson
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2012-09

Review 9.  The incidence of esophageal cancer and high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Fouad Yousef; Chris Cardwell; Marie M Cantwell; Karen Galway; Brian T Johnston; Liam Murray
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-06-12       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  Accuracy of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) compared to random biopsies during endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  Tilak Shah; Robert Lippman; Divyanshoo Kohli; Pritesh Mutha; Sanjeev Solomon; Alvin Zfass
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2018-03-29
View more
  2 in total

1.  In vivo microscopy as an adjunctive tool to guide detection, diagnosis, and treatment.

Authors:  Kevin W Bishop; Kristen C Maitland; Milind Rajadhyaksha; Jonathan T C Liu
Journal:  J Biomed Opt       Date:  2022-04       Impact factor: 3.758

Review 2.  Machine Learning for Future Subtyping of the Tumor Microenvironment of Gastro-Esophageal Adenocarcinomas.

Authors:  Sebastian Klein; Dan G Duda
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-09-30       Impact factor: 6.575

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.