Two fundamentally different approaches have been proposed recently for the classification of breast lesions on diffusion-weighted MRI Images: “Radiomics” extracts quantitative parameters by fitting a biophysical model to the q-space signal and subsequently computes handcrafted features to feed a classifier. Convolutional neural networks on the other hand autonomously learn all processing components in an end-to-end training. To date it is unclear how the two methods compare with respect to overall performance, complementary value of features and combinability. We address these open research questions and propose a combined model that significantly outperforms the two standalone approaches.
This study is performed on a combined data set of 221 patients acquired at two study sites with 1.5 T MR scanners from different vendors. Patient and imaging characteristics are described in Figure 1.
Radiomics
Figure 2 shows the feature extraction model. The resulting feature vector is fed into a random forest (number of trees = 1000) for classification. In this study, 20 random forests were each trained in a 5-fold cross validation (CV) with 30% feature- and 30% data dropout. Finally, the resulting 20 scores for each patient were averaged.
CNN
The CNN architecture is shown in Figure 3. The network was trained in a 5-fold CV with 60% training- , 20% validation- and 20% test data (splits mutually exclusive w.r.t patients). The validation data was used for hyper parameter search and model selection. The training data was augmented in form of rotations and mirroring. Dropout was applied after all convolutions with p=0.5. Training was performed in 20 epochs, each processing 60 batches of 24 randomly selected ROI slices. For inference, resulting probabilities of a patient’s slices were weighted by the number of voxels in the respective ROI and averaged to obtain an aggregated 3D score.
Ensemble
When combining CNN and Radiomics, we propose to train the two methods separately and only average the two corresponding output scores for each patient. This is because training the CNN end-to-end is crucial for optimizing all processing components w.r.t the ultimate task, and model combination on earlier stages, e.g at the feature level, would require splitting up the training process.
1. Litjens G, Kooi T, Bejnordi BE, Setio AA, Ciompi F, Ghafoorian M, van der Laak JA, van Ginneken B, Sánchez CI. A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis. arXiv preprint (2017).
2. Aerts HJ, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RT, Parmar C, Grossmann P, Cavalho S, Bussink J, Monshouwer R, Haibe-Kains B, Rietveld D, Hoebers F. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nature communications. 2014.
3. Bickelhaupt S, Jäger PF, Laun FB, Lederer W, Heidi D, Kuder TA, Paech D, Bonekamp D, Radbruch A, Delorme S, Schlemmer HP, Steudle F and Maier-Hein KH. Radiomics based on adapted Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging clarifies Majority of Suspicious Mammographic Findings. Radiology. in press.
4. Jäger PF, Bickelhaupt S, Laun FB, Lederer W, Heidi D, Kuder TA, Paech D, Bonekamp D, Radbruch A, Delorme S, Schlemmer HP, Steudle F and Maier-Hein KH. Revealing Hidden Potentials of the q-Space Signal in Breast Cancer. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention 2017 Sep 10 (pp. 664-671).
5. Dhungel N, Carneiro G, Bradley AP. The automated learning of deep features for breast mass classification from mammograms. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention 2016 Oct 17 (pp. 106-114).
6. Antropova N, Huynh B, Giger M. Performance comparison of deep learning and segmentation-based radiomic methods in the task of distinguishing benign and malignant breast lesions on DCE-MRI. In SPIE Medical Imaging 2017 Mar 3 (pp. 101341G-101341G).
7. Balleyguier C, Ayadi S, Van Nguyen K, Vanel D, Dromain C, Sigal R. BIRADS™ classification in mammography. European journal of radiology. 2007 Feb 28;61(2):192-4.
8. Jensen JH, Helpern JA, Ramani A, Lu H, Kaczynski K. Diffusional kurtosis imaging: The quantification of non‐gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2005 Jun 1;53(6):1432-40.
9. Verkooijen HM, Peeters PH, Buskens E, Koot VC, Rinkes IB, Mali WT, van Vroonhoven TJ. Diagnostic accuracy of large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: a meta-analysis. British journal of cancer. 2000 Mar 1;82(5):1017-21.