| Literature DB >> 35993045 |
N Ashokkumar1, S Meera2, P Anandan3, Mantripragada Yaswanth Bhanu Murthy4, K S Kalaivani5, Tahani Awad Alahmadi6, Sulaiman Ali Alharbi7, S S Raghavan8, S Arockia Jayadhas9.
Abstract
The second largest cause of mortality worldwide is breast cancer, and it mostly occurs in women. Early diagnosis has improved further treatments and reduced the level of mortality. A unique deep learning algorithm is presented for predicting breast cancer in its early stages. This method utilizes numerous layers to retrieve significantly greater amounts of information from the source inputs. It could perform automatic quantitative evaluation of complicated image properties in the medical field and give greater precision and reliability during the diagnosis. The dataset of axillary lymph nodes from the breast cancer patients was collected from Erasmus Medical Center. A total of 1050 images were studied from the 850 patients during the years 2018 to 2021. For the independent test, data samples were collected for 100 images from 95 patients at national cancer institute. The existence of axillary lymph nodes was confirmed by pathologic examination. The feed forward, radial basis function, and Kohonen self-organizing are the artificial neural networks (ANNs) which are used to train 84% of the Erasmus Medical Center dataset and test the remaining 16% of the independent dataset. The proposed model performance was determined in terms of accuracy (Ac), sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sf), and the outcome of the receiver operating curve (Roc), which was compared to the other four radiologists' mechanism. The result of the study shows that the proposed mechanism achieves 95% sensitivity, 96% specificity, and 98% accuracy, which is higher than the radiologists' models (90% sensitivity, 92% specificity, and 94% accuracy). Deep learning algorithms could accurately predict the clinical negativity of axillary lymph node metastases by utilizing images of initial breast cancer patients. This method provides an earlier diagnostic technique for axillary lymph node metastases in patients with medically negative changes in axillary lymph nodes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35993045 PMCID: PMC9385356 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8616535
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.246
Figure 1Evaluating breast cancer patient data and predicting axial lymph node metastasis by deep learning system.
Breast cancer data collection for 928 patients.
| Information about patients | Number of trained and validation datasets | Test report A | Test report B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of breast cancer patients | 750 | 88 | 90 |
| No axillary lymph node metastasis | 300 (60) | 48 (62) | 47 (62) |
| Axillary lymph node metastasis | 450 (60) | 48 (58) | 39 (61) |
| Patients age | 50.8 (between 26 and 75) | 52.6(between 26 and 76) | 48.8 (between 28 and 74) |
| <35 years | 224 (28) | 15 (18) | 12 (15) |
| 35-48 years | 275 (42) | 40 (50) | 42 (52) |
| 49-58 years | 198 (30) | 31 (37) | 30 (36) |
| 59-68 years | 100 (15) | 15 (18) | 20 (16) |
| ≥69 years | 35 (6) | 5 (8) | 5 (6) |
| Clinical record of tumor size ≤2.5 centimeter | 400 (58.8) | 44 (45.8) | 41 (40.9) |
| Clinical record of tumor size 2.6 to 5.5 centimeter | 350 (62.2) | 56 (59.8) | 58 (63.7) |
| Mixed histological | 135 (28.7) | 33 (32.8) | 12 (14.7) |
| Lobular histological | 225 (38.8) | 21 (25.8) | 25 (30.5) |
| Ductal histological | 359 (52.8) | 39 (49.5) | 50 (61.5) |
| Number of breast tumor images | 908 | 110 | 90 |
| No axillary lymph node metastasis | 400 (52.8) | 52 (53.6) | 40 (48.8) |
| Axillary lymph node metastasis | 508 (55.8) | 53 (54.8) | 45 (55.8) |
| Left | 434 (49.8) | 50 (51.2) | 58 (70.2) |
| Right | 465 (62.4) | 52 (52.8) | 27 (32.1) |
| Tumor size ≤2.5 centimeter | 372 (51) | 46 (47.2) | 38 (46.6) |
| Tumor size 2.5 to 4.5 centimeter | 442 (50.8) | 39 (40.2) | 40 (49.2) |
| >4.5 centimeter | 88 (9.5) | 18 (16.8) | 8 (8.5) |
∗Ranges are represented inside the parentheses.
Figure 2Sensitivity analysis on three deep artificial neural networks with radiology.
Figure 3Specificity analysis on three deep artificial neural networks with radiology.
Evaluation of radiology's efficacy in comparison to that of three ANN models.
| Test finding | Feed forward | Radial basis function | Kohonen self-organizing | Radiology | P measure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test dataset A ( | |||||
| Precision | 92 (88/110) | 94 (90/110) | 98 (86/98) | 88 (84/98) | 0.98 |
| Sensitivity | 92 (50/60) | 90 (50/58) | 98 (48/60) | 83 (45/59) | 0.30 |
| Specificity | 89 (49/59) | 95 (52/59) | 99 (48/59) | 89 (49/68) | 0.36 |
| Measure positive prediction | 90 (50/60) | 95 (49/57) | 99 (48/59) | 87 (51/65) | 0.34 |
| Measure negative prediction | 91 (48/58) | 90 (52/61) | 98 (48/59) | 85 (53/69) | 0.29 |
| K-means | 0.72 | 0.76 | 0.68 | 0.52 | — |
| F-score | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.98 | 0.85 | — |
| Test dataset B ( | |||||
| Precision | 90 (74/90) | 88 (73/83) | 93 (68/90) | 88 (65/91) | 0.98 |
| Sensitivity | 95 (46/52) | 89 (43/52) | 93 (41/52) | 84 (45/65) | 0.62 |
| Specificity | 83 (40/52) | 85 (40/50) | 93 (39/52) | 85 (35/50) | 0.73 |
| Measure positive prediction | 86 (45/57) | 86 (42/53) | 93 (40/51) | 87 (40/55) | 0.85 |
| Measure negative prediction | 91 (40/45) | 87 (40/48) | 93 (39/42) | 89 (45/60) | 0.78 |
| K-means | 0.64 | 0.68 | 0.57 | 0.56 | — |
| F-score | 0.92 | 0.88 | 0.94 | 0.80 | — |
Error matrix for radiology and three ANN models with test dataset.
| Rate of prediction | Feed forward | Radial basis function | Kohonen self-organizing | Radiology | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| None of metastasis | Metastasis | None of metastasis | Metastasis | None of metastasis | Metastasis | None of metastasis | Metastasis | |
| Test dataset A | ||||||||
| Metastasis (m) | 15 | 45 | 12 | 44 | 15 | 43 | 20 | 36 |
| Nonmetastasis (Nm) | 43 | 14 | 46 | 15 | 43 | 16 | 38 | 23 |
| Test dataset B | ||||||||
| Metastasis (m) | 16 | 40 | 15 | 37 | 16 | 35 | 20 | 35 |
| Nonmetastasis (Nm) | 34 | 11 | 35 | 14 | 34 | 16 | 30 | 16 |
Figure 4Training the datasets in terms of accuracy.
Figure 5Validating the datasets in terms of accuracy.
Figure 6Training the datasets in terms of loss.
Figure 7Validating the datasets in terms of loss.