| Literature DB >> 35251999 |
Zilong Xu1, Qiwei Yang2, Minghao Li2, Jiabing Gu1, Changping Du1, Yang Chen1, Baosheng Li1,3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) in breast cancer is critical in the treatment with targeted therapy. A 3-block-DenseNet-based deep learning model was developed to predict the expression of HER2 in breast cancer by ultrasound images.Entities:
Keywords: DenseNet; breast cancer; deep learning; human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; ultrasound
Year: 2022 PMID: 35251999 PMCID: PMC8889619 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.829041
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Overall structure of the developed DenseNet-based deep learning classifier. Being fed a tumor image, the deep learning model predicts the probability of the expression of HER2.
Figure 2Class activation heat map: the attention map of the trained model for predicting HER2 expression.
Clinical characteristics of patients in the primary and validation cohorts.
| Factors | Total | Testing cohort | Training cohort |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects n | 144 | 108 | 36 | |
| Age (years) | 53.5 ± 10.6 | 40 ± 11.3 | 49 ± 7 | 0.535 |
| T stage | ||||
| T1 | 55 | 47 (44.1) | 8 (22.2) | |
| T2 | 82 | 54 (50) | 28 (77.8) | 0.361 |
| T3 | 4 | 4 (2.9) | 0 (0) | |
| T4 | 3 | 3 (2.8) | 0 (0) | |
| N stage | ||||
| N1 | 77 | 63 (57.9) | 14 (38.4) | |
| N2 | 41 | 28 (26.3) | 13 (38.3) | 0.236 |
| N3 | 23 | 17 (15.8) | 6 (15.4) | |
| M stage | ||||
| M0 | 138 | 105 (97.3) | 33 (91.0) | |
| M1 | 6 | 3 (2.6) | 3 (9.0) | 0.337 |
| Total stage | ||||
| I | 44 | 31 (29.6) | 11 (30.0) | |
| II | 70 | 52 (48.6) | 18 (50.0) | 0.347 |
| III | 32 | 25 (22.9) | 7 (20.0) | |
| IV | 1 | 1 (0.9) | 0 (0) | |
| BI-RADS | ||||
| III | 11 (7.6) | 7 (6.5) | 4 (11.1) | |
| IV | 100 (69.4) | 79 (73.2) | 21 (58.3) | 0.718 |
| V | 33 (22.0) | 22 (20.3) | 11 (30.6) |
(1) Data are presented as mean ± SD, or n (%) unless otherwise stated.
(2) The Mann–Whitney U-test was used to compare the age difference. The chi-square test was used to compare the difference in other clinical factors.
Figure 3Deep learning model score HER2 classifier.
Figure 4Cluster analysis of deep learning features.
Predictive performance of each model for HER2.
| Prediction target | AUC | Accuracy | Sensitivity % | Specificity % | PPV % | NPV % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical model training set | 0.55 | 68.52% | 52.94% | 75.68% | 50.01% | 77.78 |
| Clinical model validation set | 0.51 | 63.89% | 54.55% | 68.02% | 42.86% | 77.27% |
| Radiomics model training set | 0.78 | 71.29% | 55.88% | 78.38% | 54.29% | 79.45% |
| Radiomics model validation set | 0.74 | 72.22% | 72.72% | 72.00% | 53.33% | 85.71% |
| Deep learning model training set | 0.87 | 85.19% | 73.53% | 90.54% | 78.12% | 88.16% |
| Deep learning model validation set | 0.84 | 80.56% | 72.73% | 84.00% | 66.67% | 87.5% |
Figure 5The receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) of the HER2 on the training set and the testing set.
Figure 6Confusion matrix: (A) clinical model; (B) radiomics model; (C) DL model.