| Literature DB >> 33869320 |
Massimo Salvi1, Filippo Molinari1, Selina Iussich2, Luisa Vera Muscatello3,4, Luca Pazzini4, Silvia Benali4, Barbara Banco4, Francesca Abramo5, Raffaella De Maria2, Luca Aresu2.
Abstract
Canine cutaneous round cell tumors (RCT) represent one of the routine diagnostic challenges for veterinary pathologists. Computer-aided approaches are developed to overcome these restrictions and to increase accuracy and consistency of diagnosis. These systems are also of high benefit reducing errors when a large number of cases are screened daily. In this study we describe ARCTA (Automated Round Cell Tumors Assessment), a fully automated algorithm for cutaneous RCT classification and mast cell tumors grading in canine histopathological images. ARCTA employs a deep learning strategy and was developed on 416 RCT images and 213 mast cell tumors images. In the test set, our algorithm exhibited an excellent classification performance in both RCT classification (accuracy: 91.66%) and mast cell tumors grading (accuracy: 100%). Misdiagnoses were encountered for histiocytomas in the train set and for melanomas in the test set. For mast cell tumors the reduction of a grade was observed in the train set, but not in the test set. To the best of our knowledge, the proposed model is the first fully automated algorithm in histological images specifically developed for veterinary medicine. Being very fast (average computational time 2.63 s), this algorithm paves the way for an automated and effective evaluation of canine tumors.Entities:
Keywords: computer-aided image analysis; cutaneous round cell tumors; deep learning; digital pathology; dog; mast cell tumors
Year: 2021 PMID: 33869320 PMCID: PMC8044886 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.640944
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Vet Sci ISSN: 2297-1769
Figure 1Schematic representation of the ARCTA algorithm. Starting from the original RGB image, a pre-processing stage is employed to standardize the staining intensity and to detect cell nuclei. Patches are automatically extracted based on local nuclear density. Then, a deep learning model is exploited to perform canine round cell tumors (RCT) classification. HIS, histiocytoma; LYM, lymphoma; MCT, mast cell tumor; MEL, melanoma; PLA, plasmacytoma.
Histological classification of 117 cutaneous canine round cell tumors.
| Canine RCT classification | Histiocytomas ( | 80 |
| T-cell lymphomas ( | 79 | |
| Mast cell tumors ( | 80 | |
| Melanomas ( | 98 | |
| Plasmacytomas ( | 79 |
Figure 2Flowchart for mast cell tumors grading. After patch extraction, three different CNNs (AlexNet, Inceptionv3, and ResNet) are employed for classification. Then, an ensemble model averages all the CNNs predictions to obtain the final grading of the image. MCT1: grade 1, MCT2: grade 2, MCT3: grade 3.
Mast cell tumors grading according to Patnaik.
| Mast cell tumor grading | Grade 1 ( | 76 |
| Grade 2 ( | 75 | |
| Grade 3 ( | 80 |
Figure 3Steps for obtaining the image classification during testing. Patches are extracted based on local nuclear density. Each patch is fed into the deep learning model and the final classification is obtained using majority voting.
Performance of the proposed algorithm in canine RCT classification for train and test datasets.
| AlexNet | Train | 2.63 ± 0.19 | 92.10% | 98.46% |
| Test | 2.48 ± 0.22 | 87.64% | 91.66% |
Figure 4Confusion matrix and the ROC curves obtained during CRCT classification for both train and test datasets. HIS, histiocytoma; LYM, lymphoma; MCT, mast cell tumor; MEL, melanoma; PLA, plasmacytoma.
Figure 5Confusion matrix and the ROC curves obtained during mast cell tumors grading for both train and test datasets. MCT1: grade 1, MCT2: grade 2, MCT3: grade 3.
Performance of the proposed algorithm in mast cell tumors grading.
| AlexNet | Train | 2.11 ± 0.42 | 92.76% | 93.29% |
| Test | 2.08 ± 0.38 | 93.45% | 93.97% | |
| Inceptionv3 | Train | 2.23 ± 0.29 | 91.45% | 91.88% |
| Test | 2.27 ± 0.14 | 90.32% | 91.53% | |
| ResNet | Train | 2.04 ± 0.27 | 93.11% | 94.02% |
| Test | 2.16 ± 0.31 | 93.46% | 94.73% | |
| Ensemble model | Train | 3.84 ± 0.22 | 95.32% | 96.29% |
| Test | 3.95 ± 0.17 | 98.08% | 100.00% |