| Literature DB >> 35740620 |
Liyang Wang1, Meilong Wu1, Rui Li2, Xiaolei Xu1, Chengzhan Zhu2, Xiaobin Feng1,3.
Abstract
Microvascular invasion (MVI) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) directly affects a patient's prognosis. The development of preoperative noninvasive diagnostic methods is significant for guiding optimal treatment plans. In this study, we investigated 138 patients with HCC and presented a novel end-to-end deep learning strategy based on computed tomography (CT) radiomics (MVI-Mind), which integrates data preprocessing, automatic segmentation of lesions and other regions, automatic feature extraction, and MVI prediction. A lightweight transformer and a convolutional neural network (CNN) were proposed for the segmentation and prediction modules, respectively. To demonstrate the superiority of MVI-Mind, we compared the framework's performance with that of current, mainstream segmentation, and classification models. The test results showed that MVI-Mind returned the best performance in both segmentation and prediction. The mean intersection over union (mIoU) of the segmentation module was 0.9006, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the prediction module reached 0.9223. Additionally, it only took approximately 1 min to output a prediction for each patient, end-to-end using our computing device, which indicated that MVI-Mind could noninvasively, efficiently, and accurately predict the presence of MVI in HCC patients before surgery. This result will be helpful for doctors to make rational clinical decisions.Entities:
Keywords: clinical decision; deep learning; end-to-end; microvascular invasion; radiomics
Year: 2022 PMID: 35740620 PMCID: PMC9221272 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14122956
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Figure 1The workflow of this study.
Figure 2The flowchart of the patient selection process.
Figure 3Proposed lightweight transformer architecture.
Figure 4Convolutional neural network (CNN) designed to extract region-of-interest (ROI) features and make predictions in this study.
Statistics of clinical indicators of datasets employed in the study.
| Clinical Indicator | Total Dataset ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| MVI Positive ( | MVI Negative ( | ||
| Gender | |||
| Male | 56 (82.35%) | 57 (81.43%) | |
| Female | 12 (17.65%) | 13 (18.57%) | |
| Age | 56.70 ± 11.48 | 56.34 ± 12.05 | |
| MTD(mm) | 5.20 ± 3.48 | 4.30 ± 1.98 | |
| AFP | |||
| Positive | 45 (66.18%) | 39 (55.71%) | |
| Negative | 23 (33.82%) | 31 (44.29%) | |
| HBsAg | |||
| Positive | 60 (88.24%) | 63 (90.00%) | |
| Negative | 8 (11.76%) | 7 (10.00%) | |
| ALB(g/L) | 40.79 ± 5.04 | 40.27 ± 4.81 | |
| T-BIL(mmol/L) | 21.43 ± 9.55 | 17.85 ± 7.60 | |
| ALT(u/L) | 63.99 ± 35.78 | 47.39 ± 25.92 | |
| AST(u/L) | 60.70 ± 39.10 | 34.74 ± 18.35 | |
Note: MTD, AFP, HBsAg, ALB, T-BIL, ALT, and AST represent maximum tumor diameter, alpha-fetoprotein, Hepatitis B surface antigen, albumin, the total bilirubin, alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase, respectively. Additionally, some indicators are represented by the mean values of the samples and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals.
Configuration of key parameters of lesion segmentation module in MVI-Mind framework.
| Parameter Name | Parameter Value |
|---|---|
| num_classes | 2 |
| base_learning rate | 0.005 |
| momentum | 0.9 |
| weight_decay | 4.0 × 10−5 |
| batch_size | 2 |
Figure 5Visualization of manual annotation and segmentation of each model, in which the green area is the ROI, and the rest are the original slices: (A) Represents manual annotation; (B–E) represent MVI-Mind, Swin Transformers, DeepLab V3+, U-Net segmentation, respectively.
Performance comparisons of various deep automatic segmentation models.
| Model | mIoU | Acc | Kappa | Dice |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MVI-Mind (our work) | 0.9006 | 0.9947 | 0.8903 | 0.9451 |
| Swin transformer | 0.8971 | 0.9943 | 0.8860 | 0.9430 |
| DeepLab V3+ | 0.7778 | 0.9871 | 0.7185 | 0.8592 |
| U-Net | 0.7521 | 0.9863 | 0.6758 | 0.8378 |
Performance comparisons of various deep automatic segmentation models.
| Model | Num_params | Num_iters | Total Training Time/s | Convergence Time/s |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MVI-Mind (our work) | 84,596,418 | 100,000 | 63,075 | about 6550 |
| Swin transformer | 108,235,650 | 100,000 | 78,420 | about 15,680 |
| DeepLab V3+ | 45,871,090 | 100,000 | 40,218 | about 3890 |
| U-Net | 13,404,354 | 100,000 | 18,930 | about 1520 |
Configuration of key parameters of the MVI prediction module in MVI-Mind framework.
| Parameter Name | Parameter Value |
|---|---|
| num_classes | 2 |
| learning_rate | 1.0 × 10−6 |
| optimizer | Adam |
| weight_decay | 3.0 × 10−3 |
| batch_size | 64 |
| verbose | 1 |
The performance of each deep learning model in the MVI prediction task.
| Model | Scan Time Period | Acc | Rec | Prec | F1 Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MVI-Mind | AP (avg ± 95%CI) | 0.8678 | 0.8269 | 0.8750 | 0.8488 |
| ±0.0458 | ±0.0767 | ±0.0490 | ±0.0566 | ||
| PP (avg ± 95%CI) | 0.8534 | 0.7760 | 0.8972 | 0.8241 | |
| ±0.0484 | ±0.1060 | ±0.0651 | ±0.0645 | ||
| DP (avg ± 95%CI) | 0.8434 | 0.7637 | 0.8823 | 0.8150 | |
| ±0.0547 | ±0.0802 | ±0.0816 | ±0.0660 | ||
| ResNet-34 | AP (avg ± 95%CI) | 0.8283 | 0.6988 | 0.9089 | 0.7875 |
| ±0.0242 | ±0.0372 | ±0.0676 | ±0.0303 | ||
| PP (avg ± 95%CI) | 0.7844 | 0.6684 | 0.8313 | 0.7356 | |
| ±0.0474 | ±0.0905 | ±0.0732 | ±0.0688 | ||
| DP (avg ± 95%CI) | 0.7889 | 0.6848 | 0.8271 | 0.7409 | |
| ±0.0653 | ±0.1242 | ±0.0834 | ±0.0919 | ||
| Inception-V3 | AP (avg ± 95%CI) | 0.7940 | 0.7256 | 0.8061 | 0.7599 |
| ±0.0269 | ±0.0738 | ±0.0478 | ±0.0439 | ||
| PP (avg ± 95%CI) | 0.7728 | 0.6949 | 0.7911 | 0.7380 | |
| ±0.0525 | ±0.0450 | ±0.0787 | ±0.0512 | ||
| DP (avg ± 95%CI) | 0.7947 | 0.7423 | 0.8133 | 0.7682 | |
| ±0.0501 | ±0.0793 | ±0.0948 | ±0.0494 |
Note: Each model’s results are the mean of 5 predictions and the corresponding 95% confidence interval.
Figure 6Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs) of all CNN models and their corresponding AUC values. (A–C) Represent the prediction results of MVI-Mind during AP, PVP, DP, respectively; (D–F) represent the prediction results of ResNet-34 during AP, PVP, DP, respectively; (G–I) represent the prediction results of Inception V3 during AP, PVP, and DP, respectively.
Figure 7End-to-end prediction pipeline of MVI-Mind.