| Literature DB >> 34026611 |
Zhenguo Liu1, Ying Zhu2,3, Yujie Yuan4, Lei Yang1, Kefeng Wang5, Minghui Wang5, Xiaoyu Yang2, Xi Wu2, Xi Tian6, Rongguo Zhang6, Bingqi Shen2, Honghe Luo1, Huiyu Feng7, Shiting Feng2, Zunfu Ke3,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Myasthenia gravis (MG) is the most common paraneoplastic syndromes of thymoma and closely related to thymus abnormalities. Timely detecting of the risk of MG would benefit clinical management and treatment decision for patients with thymoma. Herein, we developed a 3D DenseNet deep learning (DL) model based on preoperative computed tomography (CT) as a non-invasive method to detect MG in thymoma patients.Entities:
Keywords: computed tomography; deep learning—artificial neural network; imaging—computed tomography; myasthenia gravis; thymoma
Year: 2021 PMID: 34026611 PMCID: PMC8132943 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.631964
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Baseline characteristic of the 230 patients with thymoma from two medical centers.
| Variables | SYSUFH Dataset (n = 182) | SYSUMH Dataset (n = 48) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | without MG (n = 101) | with MG (n = 81) | P-value* | Number | without MG (n = 34) | with MG (n = 14) | P-value* | |
| Sex | 0.500 | 0.230 | ||||||
| Male | 115(63.2%) | 66 | 49 | 27(56.3%) | 21 | 6 | ||
| Female | 67(36.8%) | 35 | 32 | 21(43.7%) | 13 | 8 | ||
| Age (year, mean ± SD) | NA | 51.5 ± 13.1 | 47.5 ± 12.1 | 0.035† | NA | 51.6 ± 13.8 | 50.4 ± 15.1 | 0.791† |
| WHO histologic classification | <0.001 | 0.227 | ||||||
| A | 22(12.1%) | 19 | 3 | 8(16.7%) | 7 | 1 | ||
| AB | 37(20.3%) | 22 | 15 | 13(27.1%) | 11 | 2 | ||
| B1 | 21(11.5%) | 15 | 6 | 5(10.4%) | 4 | 1 | ||
| B2 | 72(39.6%) | 26 | 46 | 19(39.6%) | 10 | 9 | ||
| B3 | 21(11.5%) | 10 | 11 | 3(6.25%) | 2 | 1 | ||
| C | 9(4.95%) | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Masaoka staging | 0.006 | 0.151 | ||||||
| I | 84(46.2%) | 43 | 41 | 41(85.4%) | 28 | 13 | ||
| IIA | 40(22.0%) | 24 | 16 | 1(2.08%) | 0 | 1 | ||
| IIB | 16(8.79%) | 5 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| IIIA | 20(10.9%) | 13 | 7 | 5(10.4%) | 5 | 0 | ||
| IIIB | 13(7.14%) | 7 | 6 | 1(2.08%) | 1 | 0 | ||
| IV | 9(4.94%) | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Smoking history | 0.215 | 0.835 | ||||||
| No | 161(88.5%) | 92 | 69 | 35(72.9%) | 24 | 11 | ||
| Yes | 21(11.5%) | 9 | 12 | 13(27.1%) | 10 | 3 | ||
| Surgical approach# | <0.001 | 0.051 | ||||||
| Thymoma resection | 31(17.0%) | 30 | 1 | 4(8.33%) | 4 | 0 | ||
| Thymectomy | 30(16.5%) | 29 | 1 | 30(62.5%) | 23 | 7 | ||
| Extended thymectomy | 111(61.0%) | 34 | 77 | 14(29.2%) | 7 | 7 | ||
*Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test; †;Student’s t test; #Some patients’ data were missing; NA, Not Applicable; SYSUFH, the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University; SYSUMH, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University.
Image characteristics of patients with thymoma.
| Variables | Number | With MG | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No (n = 101) | Yes (n = 81) | |||
| Maximum diameter† | NA | 6.13 ± 2.93 | 4.91 ± 2.27 | 0.065 |
| Degree of enhancement (HU)† | NA | 32.56 ± 22.17 | 30.86 ± 20.06 | 0.972 |
| Enhancement | 0.074 | |||
| Homogeneous | 81(44.5%) | 39 | 42 | |
| Heterogeneous | 101(55.5%) | 62 | 39 | |
| Necrosis/cystic component | 0.029 | |||
| 0–25% | 71(39.0%) | 36 | 35 | |
| 26–50% | 78(42.9%) | 39 | 39 | |
| 51–75% | 16(8.79%) | 12 | 4 | |
| 75–100% | 17(9.34%) | 14 | 3 | |
| Shape | 0.027 | |||
| Round or oval | 91(50.0%) | 50 | 41 | |
| Lobulated | 37(20.3%) | 27 | 10 | |
| Irregular | 54(29.7%) | 24 | 30 | |
| Contours | 0.030 | |||
| Smooth | 163(89.6%) | 86 | 77 | |
| Irregular | 19(10.4%) | 15 | 4 | |
| Calcification | 0.827 | |||
| No | 147(80.8%) | 81 | 66 | |
| Yes | 35(19.2%) | 20 | 15 | |
| Adjacent organ invasion | <0.001 | |||
| No | 157(86.3%) | 79 | 78 | |
| Yes | 25(13.7%) | 22 | 3 | |
| Effusion (Pleural/Pericardial) | 0.028 | |||
| No | 169(92.9%) | 90 | 79 | |
| Yes | 13(7.14%) | 11 | 2 | |
| Lymphadenopathy | 0.030 | |||
| No | 166(91.2%) | 88 | 78 | |
| Yes | 16(8.79%) | 13 | 3 | |
†Data are mean ± standard deviation; NA, Not Applicable.
Figure 1An illustration of the architecture of our 3D DenseNet deep learning model. Images with dimension 160 × 160 × 64 pixels are fed into the network, followed by multiple convolution and pooling operations, resulting in probability prediction for MG. In dense block, features with different levels are concatenated using skip connections. The dimension is halved after each transition layer.
Figure 2Results of Radiomic analysis and 3D DenseNet deep learning model for detecting MG in a cohort of 182 thymoma patients. The performance of five radiomic models and 3D-DenseNet-DL model was compared using Area Under ROC Curve (AUC) (A), accuracy (B), sensitivity (C), and specificity (D). 3D DenseNet deep learning model for detecting MG showed similar results in AUC and specificity, but relatively better results in accuracy and sensitivity compared to five radiomic analysis models (E). “RF”, “LR”, and “DL” refer to “Random Forest”, “Logistic Regression”, and “Deep Learning” respectively; “AUC”, “ACC”, “SN”, and “SP” refer to the metrics Area Under ROC Curve, Accuracy, Sensitivity, and Specificity, respectively.
Significant correlations of MG with semantic CT imaging features and DL score using Logistic Regression Forward Stepwise (Likelihood Ratio) method.
| Characteristic | P & | P # | OR # (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shape | 0.031 | 0.032 | 1.59 (1.04–2.43) |
| Adjacent organ invasion | 0.001 | 0.007 | 0.11 (0.02–0.54) |
| DL score | 0.000 | 0.000 | 147.84 (9.15–1238.51) |
OR, odd ratio; CI, confidence interval; DL, deep learning; #, The P value was calculated by multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for age and gender; &, Unadjusted P value; P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
Figure 3The prediction metrics of 3D-DenseNet-DL and DL based multi-model. The metrics Area Under ROC Curve (AUC), ACC (accuracy), SN (sensitivity), and SP (specificity) were used to compare the performance of these models. (A) The prediction metrics of the deep learning results from training and five-fold cross-validation, a mean AUC of 0.734 ± 0.066 was presented. (B) The comparison of three models of semantic CT signs model, 3D-DenseNet-DL model, and the comprehensive model (3D-DenseNet-DL based multi-model), with a mean AUC of 0.677, 0.734, and 0.766, respectively. (C) Values of 3D-DenseNet-DL model and 3D-DenseNet-DL based multi-model in external validation, with AUC 0.704, ACC 0.690, SN 0.760, and SP 0.710 for DL model, and AUC 0.730, ACC 0.732, SN 0.700, and SP 0.690 for our final 3D-DenseNet-DL based multi-model.