| Literature DB >> 35701871 |
Priyanka Vasanthakumari1, Renan A Romano2, Ramon G T Rosa2, Ana G Salvio3, Vladislav Yakovlev1, Cristina Kurachi2, Jason M Hirshburg4, Javier A Jo5.
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: Accurate early diagnosis of malignant skin lesions is critical in providing adequate and timely treatment; unfortunately, initial clinical evaluation of similar-looking benign and malignant skin lesions can result in missed diagnosis of malignant lesions and unnecessary biopsy of benign ones. AIM: To develop and validate a label-free and objective image-guided strategy for the clinical evaluation of suspicious pigmented skin lesions based on multispectral autofluorescence lifetime imaging (maFLIM) dermoscopy. APPROACH: We tested the hypothesis that maFLIM-derived autofluorescence global features can be used in machine-learning (ML) models to discriminate malignant from benign pigmented skin lesions. Clinical widefield maFLIM dermoscopy imaging of 41 benign and 19 malignant pigmented skin lesions from 30 patients were acquired prior to tissue biopsy sampling. Three different pools of global image-level maFLIM features were extracted: multispectral intensity, time-domain biexponential, and frequency-domain phasor features. The classification potential of each feature pool to discriminate benign versus malignant pigmented skin lesions was evaluated by training quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA) classification models and applying a leave-one-patient-out cross-validation strategy.Entities:
Keywords: autofluorescence; computer-aided diagnosis; feature selection; fluorescence lifetime imaging; machine learning; skin cancer
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35701871 PMCID: PMC9196925 DOI: 10.1117/1.JBO.27.6.066002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomed Opt ISSN: 1083-3668 Impact factor: 3.758
Summary of previously reported works on pigmented skin lesion classification.
| Imaging modality | Distribution of patients or images | Classification task | Algorithm | Performance | Validation or testing technique | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dermoscopy | Total images: 914 | Benign versus malignant | K-means clustering and symbolic regression | Sensitivity: 62% | Train-test sets | Celebi and Zornberg |
| Smart phone photograph | Benign: 37 | Benign versus malignant | kNN | Accuracy: 66.7% | Train-test sets | Ramlakhan and Shang |
| Computerized dermoscopy (3D) | PH2 dataset | Multiclass classifier (PH2: 4 classes and ATLAS: 8 classes) | SVM, AdaBoost, BoF | PH2 dataset | Leave-one-out cross-validation | Satheesha et al. |
| ATLAS dataset | ATLAS dataset | |||||
| Raman and autofluorescence spectroscopy | Total patients: 56 | Benign versus malignant | Binary logistic regression | Accuracy: 87% | No independent validation | Khristoforova et al. |
| FLIM | Melanoma: 43 | Early-stage cancer versus advanced-stage cancer | RF, kNN, SVM, LDA | Accuracy: 84.62% | Bootstrapping | Yang et al. |
| Dermoscopy | Total images: 2000 | Three classes: nevus, melanoma, seborrheic keratosis | Ensemble of CNNs | AUC: 0.891 | Training, validation, and test sets | Harangi |
| Dermoscopy | ISBI 2016 database | Benign versus malignant | CNN | Accuracy: 81.33% | Train-test sets | Romero Lopez et al. |
| Dermoscopy | ISIC database | Benign versus malignant | CNN + SVM | Accuracy: 80.5% | Train-test sets | Majtner et al. |
| Dermoscopy | HAM10000 dataset | Seven classes: melanoma, melanocytic nevus, BCC, actinic keratosis, Bowens disease, benign keratosis, dermatofibroma, vascular lesion | WonDerm | Validation accuracy: 89.9% | Training, validation, and test sets | Lee et al. |
| Dermoscopy | ISBI and PH2 datasets | Benign versus melanoma | Feature extraction using AlexNet and VGG16 | Accuracy: 99.0% | Fivefold CV and 0.5 hold out CV | Amin et al. |
| Dermoscopy | ISIC dataset | Benign versus malignant | CNN: ResNet 152 | Accuracy: 90.4% | Train-test sets | JoJoa Acosta et al. |
CNN, convolutional neural network; RF, random forests; LDA, linear discriminant analysis; SVM, support vector machine; kNN, k-nearest neighbor; FLIM, fluorescence lifetime imaging; AUC, area under the curve; CV, cross-validation; BCC, basal cell carcinoma.
Fig. 1Summary of methodology showing maFLIM image acquisition, preprocessing, feature extraction, and classification. maFLIM, multispectral autofluorescence lifetime imaging.
Fig. 2(a) Transformations in a single pixel multispectral maFLIM data during pixel-level preprocessing. (b) Example maFLIM image with -means cluster mask and the two separated regions. The images map the total integrated intensity of the maFLIM signals at each pixel location. maFLIM, multispectral autofluorescence lifetime imaging.
Feature set showing both intensity and biexponential global maFLIM features.
| Intensity features | Biexponential features | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| — | — |
|
|
|
Fig. 3Transition of a sample maFLIM image to the corresponding 2D histogram distribution on the phasor plot. Figure also shows the transformation of pixels from both regions 1 and 2 on the maFLIM image into corresponding points on the phasor plot computed at an arbitrary frequency component.
Fig. 4(a) 2D histogram phasor distributions from the pixels corresponding to the two regions in an maFLIM image. The distance between the distributions is indicated by “.” (b) Phasor distribution scatter plots with bivariate Gaussian fits on regions 1 and 2. The covariance matrices and give a measure of spread of the two regions and represents the angle between their major axes. (c) Phasor distribution scatter plot showing the variances and along the major axes. The ratio of the variances indicates the symmetry of the distribution.
Fig. 5Flow diagram showing (a) feature selection process using LOPO-CV along with SFS algorithm, and (b) detailed steps involved in the SFS algorithm. The number of features selected, , is varied from 1 to 7 for all feature pools and 1 to 6 for intensity feature pool. SFS, sequential forward search; LOPO-CV, leave-one-patient-out cross-validation; AUC,– area under the curve.
Fig. 6(a) Schematic of classification of skin lesions. The posterior probabilities from the individual classifiers are combined in an ensemble fashion. (b) Weight optimization for the ensemble classifier. The optimum weight is selected from the ROC curve. LOPO-CV, leave-one-patient-out cross-validation; QDA, quadratic discriminant analysis; ROC, receiver operator characteristics.
Distribution of imaged benign and malignant lesions.
| Type | No. patients | No. lesions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Benign | Solar lentigo | 2 | 10 |
| Pigmented seborrheic keratosis | 15 | 31 | |
| Malignant | Pigmented superficial BCC | 2 | 6 |
| Pigmented nodular BCC | 5 | 5 | |
| Melanoma | 6 | 8 |
Fig. 7(a) Handheld maFLIM dermoscope imaging the forearm of a patient. (b) Clinical photograph of a melanoma lesion. (c) Time-domain maFLIM feature maps of a melanoma lesion. The columns show the feature maps corresponding to the three emission channels. First row shows the weight of the fast decay. Second row shows the fast lifetime maps, while the third row shows the slow lifetime maps. Average lifetime maps are shown in the fourth row. Fifth row shows the integrated intensity maps of each spectral emission channel, and the ratio of the intensities are shown in the sixth row. The last row shows the cluster mask generated for the lesion and the integrated intensities from all the channels for the clustered regions 1 and 2. The horizontal strip in the images is due to the presence of hair on the skin during imaging.
Performance metrics and confusion matrices obtained during feature selection with phasor, biexponential, and intensity feature pools.
| Feature pool (total no. of features) |
| Accuracy (%) | Sn (%) | Sp (%) | Confusion matrices | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| True | Predicted | ||||||||
| Benign | Malignant | ||||||||
| Phasor (36) | 6 | 76.67 | 68.42 | 80.49 | 65.00 | Benign | 33 | 8 | |
| Malignant | 6 | 13 | |||||||
| Bi-exponential (12) | 5 | 75.00 | 84.21 | 70.73 | 68.09 | Benign | 29 | 12 | |
| Malignant | 3 | 16 | |||||||
| Intensity (6) | 1 | 48.33 | 84.21 | 31.71 | 50.79 | Benign | 13 | 28 | |
| Malignant | 3 | 16 | |||||||
| Phasor ∪ biexponential (48) | 4 | 56.67 | 63.17 | 56.10 | 48.98 | Benign | 23 | 18 | |
| Malignant | 7 | 12 | |||||||
| Phasor ∪ intensity (42) | 6 | 53.33 | 63.16 | 48.79 | 46.15 | Benign | 20 | 21 | |
| Malignant | 7 | 12 | |||||||
| Biexponential ∪ intensity (18) | 7 | 63.33 | 63.16 | 63.41 | 52.17 | Benign | 26 | 15 | |
| Malignant | 7 | 12 | |||||||
| Phasor ∪ biexponential ∪ intensity (54) | 6 | 61.67 | 47.37 | 68.29 | 43.90 | Benign | 28 | 13 | |
| Malignant | 10 | 9 | |||||||
Summary of important features selected from each feature pool along with their ranks.
| Feature pool |
| Selection frequency percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Phasor | Symmetry at 39.2 MHz | 93.3 |
| Spread at 33.6 MHz | 90.0 | |
| Symmetry at 16.8 MHz | 90.0 | |
| Symmetry at 50.4 MHz | 86.7 | |
| Symmetry at 33.6 MHz | 56.7 | |
| Distance at 50.4 MHz | 50.0 | |
| Biexponential |
| 96.7 |
|
| 93.3 | |
|
| 80.0 | |
|
| 76.7 | |
|
| 50.0 | |
| Intensity |
| 96.7 |
Performance metrics of ensemble classifiers trained with multiple combinations of feature pools.
| Feature sets for ensemble | Accuracy (%) | Sn (%) | Sp (%) | Confusion matrices | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| True | Predicted | ||||||
| Benign | Malignant | ||||||
|
| 71.67 | 84.21 | 65.85 | 65.31 | Benign | 27 | 14 |
| Malignant | 3 | 16 | |||||
|
| 88.33 | 84.21 | 90.24 | 82.05 | Benign | 37 | 4 |
| Malignant | 3 | 16 | |||||
|
| 86.67 | 78.95 | 90.24 | 78.95 | Benign | 37 | 4 |
| Malignant | 4 | 15 | |||||
|
| 88.33 | 84.21 | 90.24 | 82.05 | Benign | 37 | 4 |
| Malignant | 3 | 16 | |||||
Fig. 8Histogram of weights on one of the feature pools, when combined in an ensemble fashion for (a) phasor-intensity, (b) biexponential-intensity, (c) phasor-biexponential, and (d) phasor-biexponential-intensity feature pools.