Ultrasound image analysis using deep neural networks for discriminating between benign and malignant ovarian tumors: comparison with expert subjective assessment

被引:84
作者
Christiansen, F. [1 ]
Epstein, E. L. [1 ]
Smedberg, E. [2 ,3 ]
Akerlund, M. [4 ]
Smith, K. [5 ]
Epstein, E. [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] KTH Royal Inst Technol, Sch Engn Sci, Stockholm, Sweden
[2] Karolinska Inst, Dept Clin Sci & Educ, Sjukhusbacken 10, S-11883 Stockholm, Sweden
[3] Soder Sjukhuset, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Sjukhusbacken 10, S-11883 Stockholm, Sweden
[4] Harvard Univ, Harvard Extens Sch, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
[5] KTH Royal Inst Technol, Sch Elect Engn & Comp Sci, Sci Life Lab, Stockholm, Sweden
关键词
classification; computer-aided diagnosis; deep learning; machine learning; ovarian neoplasm; ovarian tumor; transfer learning; ultrasonography; ADNEXAL MASSES; CANCER; RULES; CLASSIFICATION; SURGERY; MODELS; RISK;
D O I
10.1002/uog.23530
中图分类号
O42 [声学];
学科分类号
070206 ; 082403 ;
摘要
Objectives: To develop and test the performance of computerized ultrasound image analysis using deep neural networks (DNNs) in discriminating between benign and malignant ovarian tumors and to compare its diagnostic accuracy with that of subjective assessment (SA) by an ultrasound expert. Methods: We included 3077 (grayscale, n = 1927; power Doppler, n = 1150) ultrasound images from 758 women with ovarian tumors, who were classified prospectively by expert ultrasound examiners according to IOTA (International Ovarian Tumor Analysis) terms and definitions. Histological outcome from surgery (n = 634) or long-term (>= 3 years) follow-up (n = 124) served as the gold standard. The dataset was split into a training set (n = 508; 314 benign and 194 malignant), a validation set (n = 100; 60 benign and 40 malignant) and a test set (n = 150; 75 benign and 75 malignant). We used transfer learning on three pre-trained DNNs: VGG16, ResNet50 and MobileNet. Each model was trained, and the outputs calibrated, using temperature scaling. An ensemble of the three models was then used to estimate the probability of malignancy based on all images from a given case. The DNN ensemble classified the tumors as benign or malignant (Ovry-Dx1 model); or as benign, inconclusive or malignant (Ovry-Dx2 model). The diagnostic performance of the DNN models, in terms of sensitivity and specificity, was compared to that of SA for classifying ovarian tumors in the test set. Results: At a sensitivity of 96.0%, Ovry-Dx1 had a specificity similar to that of SA (86.7% vs 88.0%; P = 1.0). Ovry-Dx2 had a sensitivity of 97.1% and a specificity of 93.7%, when designating 12.7% of the lesions as inconclusive. By complimenting Ovry-Dx2 with SA in inconclusive cases, the overall sensitivity (96.0%) and specificity (89.3%) were not significantly different from using SA in all cases (P = 1.0). Conclusion: Ultrasound image analysis using DNNs can predict ovarian malignancy with a diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of human expert examiners, indicating that these models may have a role in the triage of women with an ovarian tumor. (C) 2020 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
引用
收藏
页码:155 / 163
页数:9
相关论文
共 36 条
[21]   Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Meys, E. M. J. ;
Kaijser, J. ;
Kruitwagen, R. F. P. M. ;
Slangen, B. F. M. ;
Van Calster, B. ;
Aertgeerts, B. ;
Verbakel, J. Y. ;
Timmerman, D. ;
Van Gorp, T. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2016, 58 :17-29
[22]  
Nesterov Yu, 1983, Soviet Mathematics Doklady, V27, P372
[23]  
OJALA T, 1994, INT C PATT RECOG, P582, DOI 10.1109/ICPR.1994.576366
[24]  
Raghu Maithra., 2019, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, P3342
[25]   LEARNING REPRESENTATIONS BY BACK-PROPAGATING ERRORS [J].
RUMELHART, DE ;
HINTON, GE ;
WILLIAMS, RJ .
NATURE, 1986, 323 (6088) :533-536
[26]   Deep learning [J].
Rusk, Nicole .
NATURE METHODS, 2016, 13 (01) :35-35
[27]   Risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women with ultrasound-detected ovarian masses: a prospective cohort study within the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening (UKCTOCS) [J].
Sharma, A. ;
Apostolidou, S. ;
Burnell, M. ;
Campbell, S. ;
Habib, M. ;
Gentry-Maharaj, A. ;
Amso, N. ;
Seif, M. W. ;
Fletcher, G. ;
Singh, N. ;
Benjamin, E. ;
Brunell, C. ;
Turner, G. ;
Rangar, R. ;
Godfrey, K. ;
Oram, D. ;
Herod, J. ;
Williamson, K. ;
Jenkins, H. ;
Mould, T. ;
Woolas, R. ;
Murdoch, J. ;
Dobbs, S. ;
Leeson, S. ;
Cruickshank, D. ;
Fourkala, E. -O. ;
Ryan, A. ;
Parmar, M. ;
Jacobs, I. ;
Menon, U. .
ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2012, 40 (03) :338-344
[28]  
Simonyan K, 2015, Arxiv, DOI arXiv:1409.1556
[29]   Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer [J].
Timmerman, D. ;
Testa, A. C. ;
Bourne, T. ;
Ameye, L. ;
Jurkovic, D. ;
Van Holsbeke, C. ;
Paladini, D. ;
Van Calster, B. ;
Vergote, I. ;
Van Huffel, S. ;
Valentin, L. .
ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2008, 31 (06) :681-690
[30]   Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group [J].
Timmerman, D ;
Valentin, L ;
Bourne, TH ;
Collins, WP ;
Verrelst, H ;
Vergote, I .
ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2000, 16 (05) :500-505