| Literature DB >> 36230497 |
Domiziana Santucci1,2, Eliodoro Faiella2, Michela Gravina3, Ermanno Cordelli1, Carlo de Felice4, Bruno Beomonte Zobel5, Giulio Iannello1, Carlo Sansone3, Paolo Soda1,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The axillary lymph node status (ALNS) is one of the most important prognostic factors in breast cancer (BC) patients, and it is currently evaluated by invasive procedures. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI), highlights the physiological and morphological characteristics of primary tumor tissue. Deep learning approaches (DL), such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs), are able to autonomously learn the set of features directly from images for a specific task.Entities:
Keywords: axillary lymph nodes status (ALNS); bounding box; breast cancer (BC); convolutional neural network (CNN); deep learning (DL)
Year: 2022 PMID: 36230497 PMCID: PMC9558949 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14194574
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Details about the involved dataset.
| Patients | 153 |
| BC lesion | 155 |
| LN+ | 128 |
| LN− | 27 |
| Series | 3D T1-weighted DCE |
| Mode | 3T (Discovery 750; GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA) |
| Dose | 0.2 mmol/kg of Gadobenate-dimeglumine |
| Injection flow rate | 2 mL/s |
Figure 1Tumor lesion segmentation using 3D Slicer software in axial (a), coronal (b), and sagittal (c) MRI projections during the second phase of the post-contrast sequence as demonstrated in a case involving a 56-year-old woman with right invasive ductal breast cancer with unifocal mass-like lesion characterized by spiculated margins and heterogeneous enhancement after contrast medium administration with curve SI/T type III.
Figure 2Differences in axial projections of the implemented tumor bounding options. (a) In the SFB, a fixed-size 3D bounding box is used; (b) in the SVB option, the smallest 3D bounding box circumscribed to the tumor region is considered, and (c) in the SLVB, the SVB option is applied to each lesion of the patient.
Details of the proposed bounding box options.
| Bounding Option | Details |
|---|---|
| SFB | A fixed-size 3D bounding box is used. |
| SVB | The smallest 3D cubical bounding box is used. |
| SIB | The SVB is applied after resizing the volumes to obtain MRI images with isotropic voxels. |
| SLVB | The SVB is applied to each lesion. |
| SLIB | The SLVB is applied after resizing the volumes to obtain MRI images with isotropic voxels. |
| 2DS | The SVB is applied, and then the sequence of the 3D cropped volumes is cut along the projection with the highest spatial resolution. |
Figure 3Architectures of the different CNNs used. Panel (a): The SFB-NET is a 3D CNN with three reduction blocks and two fully connected layers. Panel (b): The VB-NET is a 3D CNN with five reduction blocks and two fully connected layers. Panel (c): The 2DS-NET is a 2D CNN with five reduction blocks and two fully connected layers.
Figure 4Details about the implemented patient-based 10-fold CV. In the i-th iteration, the i-th fold is selected as the test (green), and the previous one is selected as the validation (orange). The remaining folds are included in the training set.
Details about the number of samples in the training, validation, and test sets.
| Fold | Training Set | Balanced Training Set | Validation Set | Test Set | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LN+ | LN− | LN+ | LN− | LN+ | LN− | LN+ | LN− | |
| 1 | 23 | 101 | 101 | 101 | 2 | 13 | 2 | 14 |
| 21 | 22 | 101 | 101 | 101 | 2 | 14 | 3 | 13 |
| 32 | 21 | 102 | 102 | 102 | 3 | 13 | 3 | 13 |
| 43 | 21 | 102 | 102 | 102 | 3 | 13 | 3 | 13 |
| 54 | 21 | 102 | 102 | 102 | 3 | 13 | 3 | 13 |
| 65 | 21 | 103 | 103 | 103 | 3 | 13 | 3 | 12 |
| 76 | 21 | 104 | 104 | 104 | 3 | 12 | 3 | 12 |
| 87 | 21 | 104 | 104 | 104 | 3 | 12 | 3 | 12 |
| 98 | 22 | 103 | 103 | 103 | 3 | 12 | 2 | 13 |
| 109 | 23 | 102 | 102 | 102 | 2 | 13 | 2 | 13 |
Patient and tumor feature frequencies and relative percentages are reported in relation to the final label (lymph node LN− involvement). The difference between the two groups (LN+ vs. LN−) was reported, and the statistical significance was set at 0.05 (*). HT (hormonotherapy), IS curve/T (intensity signal curve/time), IDC (invasive ductal carcinoma), ILC (invasive lobular carcinoma), TN (triple negative).
| Class | Group | Frequency | Percentage | LN+ | LN− | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Familiarity | none | 109 | 70.32% | 22 | 87 | 0.1314 |
| ≥1 fam | 46 | 29.68% | 5 | 41 | ||
| HT | no | 141 | 90.97% | 27 | 114 | 0.0733 |
| yes | 14 | 9.03% | 0 | 14 | ||
| Menopause | no | 67 | 43.23% | 17 | 50 | 0.0233 * |
| yes | 88 | 56.77% | 10 | 78 | ||
| IS curve/T | I | 21 | 13.55% | 3 | 18 | 0.2819 |
| II | 69 | 44.52% | 10 | 59 | ||
| III | 65 | 41.94% | 14 | 51 | ||
| Margins | regular | 7 | 4.52% | 0 | 7 | 0.5504 |
| irregular | 83 | 53.55% | 18 | 65 | ||
| lobulated | 19 | 12.26% | 3 | 16 | ||
| spiculated | 46 | 29.68% | 6 | 40 | ||
| Histotype | IDC | 129 | 83.23% | 23 | 106 | 0.7351 |
| ILC | 23 | 14.84% | 4 | 19 | ||
| Medullary | 3 | 1.94% | 0 | 3 | ||
| Grading | 1 | 21 | 13.55% | 1 | 20 | 0.0011 * |
| 2 | 69 | 44.52% | 7 | 62 | ||
| 3 | 65 | 41.94% | 19 | 46 | ||
| Class | Luminal A | 61 | 39.35% | 6 | 55 | 0.0013 * |
| Luminal B | 67 | 43.23% | 9 | 58 | ||
| Her2 | 12 | 7.74% | 6 | 6 | ||
| TN | 15 | 9.68% | 6 | 9 |
Performance of the CNNs in LNS prediction (LN+ vs. LN−). ACC (accuracy), SPE (specificity), SENS (sensibility), AUC (area under the curve), K (Cohen’s kappa coefficient), SFB (single fixed-size box), SVB (single variable-size box), SIB (single isotropic-size box), SLVB (single lesion variable-size box), SLIB (single lesion isotropic-size box), 2DS (two-dimensional slice), and NET (network). The best test performances are evident in bold.
| Model | Option | ACC | SPE | SENS | AUC | K |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | ||
| SFB-NET | SFB | 70.62% | 75.92% | 43.33% | 69.52% | 0.1349 |
| VB-NET | SVB | 76.79% | 78.17% |
| 75.05% | 0.3753 |
| VB-NET | SIB | 78.13% | 78.82% |
| 77.13% |
|
| VB-NET | SLVB | 52.71% | 53.24% | 48.33% | 53.11% | 0.0124 |
| VB-NET | SLIB | 62.58% | 71.79% | 18.33% | 47.34% | −0.0798 |
| 2DS-NET | 2DS |
|
| 46.67% |
| 0.2911 |
Figure 5ROC curves of the implemented experiments. The title of each plot suggests the tumor bounding option that is used.
Figure 6Precision-recall curves of the implemented experiments. The title of each plot suggests the tumor bounding option that is used.
Figure 7Confusion matrices of the implemented experiments. The title of each matrix suggests the tumor bounding option that is used. In order to have a matrix for each experiment, we merged the predictions of the 10 folds considered as test sets. The colour depends on the number inside the square: the higher the number, the lighter the colour.