| Literature DB >> 35719907 |
Wen-Qian Shen1,2, Yanhui Guo3, Wan-Er Ru1,4, Cheukfai Li5, Guo-Chun Zhang5, Ning Liao5, Guo-Qing Du1.
Abstract
Background: The detection of phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase catalytic alpha (PIK3CA) gene mutations in breast cancer is a key step to design personalizing an optimal treatment strategy. Traditional genetic testing methods are invasive and time-consuming. It is urgent to find a non-invasive method to estimate the PIK3CA mutation status. Ultrasound (US), one of the most common methods for breast cancer screening, has the advantages of being non-invasive, fast imaging, and inexpensive. In this study, we propose to develop a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) to identify PIK3CA mutations in breast cancer based on US images. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: PIK3CA; breast cancer; deep learning; gene mutation; ultrasonic image
Year: 2022 PMID: 35719907 PMCID: PMC9204315 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.850515
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1Flowchart of the study cohort selection.
Figure 2Image pre-processing. (A) An original breast US image. (B) Image after coordinate marking. (C) The selected effective image area.
Figure 3The ImResNet model’s structure diagram.
A performance summary of the ImResNet model and other models in identifying PIK3CA mutations of breast cancer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Machine learning | SVM | Non-PIK3CA | 64.04% | 74.49% | 68.87% | |
| PIK3CA | 70.93% | 59.80% | 64.89% | |||
| Average | 67.48% | 67.15% | 66.88% | |||
| Overall | 67.00% | |||||
| KNN | Non-PIK3CA | 61.40% | 75.27% | 67.63% | ||
| PIK3CA | 73.26% | 58.88% | 65.28% | |||
| Average | 67.33% | 67.07% | 66.46% | |||
| Overall | 67.33% | |||||
| Deep learning | ImResNet50 | Non-PIK3CA | 81.58% | 75.61% | 78.48% | |
| PIK3CA | 65.12% | 72.73% | 68.71% | |||
| Average | 73.35% | 74.17% | 73.60% | |||
| Overall | 74.50% | |||||
| Original ResNest50 | Non-PIK3CA | 65.79% | 61.48% | 63.56% | ||
| PIK3CA | 45.35% | 50.00% | 47.56% | |||
| Average | 55.57% | 55.74% | 55.56% | |||
| Overall | 57.00% | |||||
| DenseNet201 | Non-PIK3CA | 77.19% | 66.67% | 71.54% | ||
| PIK3CA | 48.84% | 61.76% | 54.55% | |||
| Average | 63.02% | 64.22% | 63.05% | |||
| Overall | 65.00% | |||||
| Xception | Non-PIK3CA | 65.79% | 65.79% | 65.79% | ||
| PIK3CA | 54.65% | 54.65% | 54.65% | |||
| Average | 60.22% | 60.22% | 60.22% | |||
| Overall | 61.00% | |||||
| MobileNetv2 | Non-PIK3CA | 77.19% | 66.17% | 71.26% | ||
| PIK3CA | 47.67% | 61.19% | 53.59% | |||
| Average | 62.43% | 63.68% | 62.42% | |||
| Overall | 64.50% |
Figure 4ROC curves of different models. (A) Improved ResNet50. (B) Original ResNet50. (C) SVM. (D) KNN. (E) DenseNet201. (F) Xception. (G) MobileNetv2.
Figure 5Confusion matrices of different models. (A) Improved ResNet50. (B) Original ResNet50. (C) SVM. (D) KNN. (E) DenseNet201. (F) Xception. (G) MobileNetv2.
Figure 6Classification examples of the ImResNet model.