Application of deep learning (3-dimensional convolutional neural network) for the prediction of pathological invasiveness in lung adenocarcinoma: A preliminary study
Yanagawa, Niioka, Hata, Kikuchi, Honda, Kurakami, Morii, Noguchi, Watanabe, Miyake, Tomiyama (2019) Application of deep learning (3-dimensional convolutional neural network) for the prediction of pathological invasiveness in lung adenocarcinoma: A preliminary study Medicine (Baltimore) (IF: 1.6) 98(25) e16119
Full text
Click the PDF icon to view the full text of the paper
Abstract
To compare results for radiological prediction of pathological invasiveness in lung adenocarcinoma between radiologists and a deep learning (DL) system.Ninety patients (50 men, 40 women; mean age, 66 years; range, 40-88 years) who underwent pre-operative chest computed tomography (CT) with 0.625-mm slice thickness were included in this retrospective study. Twenty-four cases of adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS), 20 cases of minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA), and 46 cases of invasive adenocarcinoma (IVA) were pathologically diagnosed. Three radiologists of different levels of experience diagnosed each nodule by using previously documented CT findings to predict pathological invasiveness. DL was structured using a 3-dimensional (3D) convolutional neural network (3D-CNN) constructed with 2 successive pairs of convolution and max-pooling layers, and 2 fully connected layers. The output layer comprises 3 nodes to recognize the 3 conditions of adenocarcinoma (AIS, MIA, and IVA) or 2 nodes for 2 conditions (AIS and MIA/IVA). Results from DL and the 3 radiologists were statistically compared.No significant differences in pathological diagnostic accuracy rates were seen between DL and the 3 radiologists (P >.11). Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that area under the curve for DL (0.712) was almost the same as that for the radiologist with extensive experience (0.714; P = .98). Compared with the consensus results from radiologists, DL offered significantly inferior sensitivity (P = .0005), but significantly superior specificity (P = .02).Despite the small training data set, diagnostic performance of DL was almost the same as the radiologist with extensive experience. In particular, DL provided higher specificity than radiologists.
Links
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6636940http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31232960
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000016119
