Jing Zhang1, Yang Song1, Ying Hou2, Yu-dong Zhang2, Xu Yan3, Yefeng Yao1, and Guang Yang1
1Shanghai Key Laboratory of Magnetic Resonance, Department of Physics, East China Normal University, shanghai, China, 2Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University,, Nanjing, China, 3MR Scientific Marketing, Siemens Healthcare, shanghai, China
Synopsis
Deep
learning-based computer aided diagnosis (CAD) has been proposed to detect and
classify prostate cancer lesions in multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging
(mp-MRI) images. CAD requires their input images meet certain quality
standards. In this work, we proposed a ResNet50-based model to filter out
images not suitable as the input to the following lesion detection network.
Taking unqualified images as positive cases, we obtained an area under ROC
curve (AUC) of 0.8526 in test cohort, which helped to improve the performance of
detection model and increased the interpretability by rejecting unqualified
images with a reason instead of giving wrong results.
INTRODUCTION
Prostate
cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancer in the world and the number of
patients increased significantly in recent years1 . Multi-parametric
magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) is widely used to diagnose PCa4.
Computer –aid-diagnosis systems have been developed to detect and classify the
lesions in prostate mp-MRI images2,3,4. All these detection or
classification networks pose some implicit requirement on the quality of the
input images. For example, excessive deformation in DWI
images, super-sized lesions causing the glands difficult to identify,
unsuitable FOV, poor image SNR or motion artifacts, may influence the
performance of a typical detection / classification network. So, we proposed a classification model based on ResNet505
to filter out unqualified images.METHODS
Data Set: 833 patients (mean age, 38.6 years; age range, 26–50 years) with prostate
cancer were reviewed with T2W(TSE,0.3×0.3×4.2mm3), low-DWI(SSEP,0.72×0.72×5.5mm3,b is 0s/mm2),
high-DWI(SSEP,0.72×0.72×5.5mm3,b is 1000s/mm2 or 800s/mm2) and ADC
map sequences by Siemens 3T MR scanners from Jiangsu Province Hospital. Total 987 volume of interest (VOI) were manual labeled in T2W by
experienced radiologists.
Data Preprocess and check: DWI
and ADC map were registered to T2W, then all images were labeled by two radiologists
with 5 years’ and 2 years’
experiences (A and B) as either qualified or unqualified. Images were labeled
as qualified if they are:
(1) with the proper body part, FOV, resolution, SNR;
(2) not containing over-sized lesions which makes the prostate
difficult to identify;
(3) not overly imposed by artifacts;
(4) not overly-deformed DWI images.
Where two radiologists disagreed, the label made by more experienced
radiologist A was used. In addition, we also used the intersection of labels of
A and B to compare with single annotation of A and B.
Model training and evaluation: Slices intersects with VOIs together their neighboring slices were
selected and resized to 240 × 240 to build the qualification model. Selected images were split randomly
into training set (2556),
validation set (530), and test set (561). Structure of ResNet50 is illustrated
in Figure 2. We used Adam (.0001) for optimizer
and binary cross-entropy for loss function. Receiver operating characteristic curve
was constructed by changing the threshold of the probability to separate
qualified and unqualified images. AUC was used to
evaluate illustrate the model performance in the training, validation and test cohort.RESULTS
It can be seen from Figure 3, compared
to the labels of radiologist A, AUC values are 0.8730, and 0.8526 for training and
test cohort respectively. Compared with radiologist B, the AUC values are 0.8823
and 0.7137 for training and test cohort respectively. Since the model was
trained using radiologist A’s label, the result quite understandable. There are
more details about the performance of the model in Table 2, the
model build from annotation of radiologist A could obtain highest accuracy of
0.7843 with sensitivity of 0.8251 and specificity of 0.7646 in test cohort by using
Youden index.DISCUSSION
As the optimal
model with AUC value of 0.8256 and accuracy 0.7843 in test set, it can be used
to filter out unqualified images before images are fed into the detection or
classification network. Further, the optimal model has sensitivity of 0.8251
and NPV of 0.9003, which mean it is more efficient to figure out unqualified
images. However, in clinical environment, it is not desirable to prevent
eligible images from being used by detection / classification networks. So,
point on the ROC other than indicated by Youden index might be more desirable. We
don’t want to throw out a lot of images than can be used for network, so the
detection of positive may not be most important. In addition, the probability
of qualified could notice the detection network that the current image maybe
problematic, and help the detection network to optimize prediction.CONCLUSION
Quality
control plays a key role in medical imaging, especially when artificial
intelligence has been introduced. Deep learning models can be used to differentiate
qualified and unqualified mp-MRI images before they are used for prostate cancer detection and classification. The quality
control model can be used to provide better interpretability by rejecting the
unqualified images with a reason. It can also provide information to detection
/ classification network which they can use to improve their result. We can
expect this kind of quality control network works with different functional
deep learning models in the future.Acknowledgements
This project is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (61731009, 81771816).References
- Canadian Cancer Society, Prostate Cancer
Statistics, 2015.
- Song Y, Zhang YD, Yan X, et al. Computer-aided
diagnosis of prostate cancer using a deep convolutional neural network from
multiparametric MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Dec;48(6):1570-1577.
- Harmon SA, Tuncer S, Sanford T, Choyke PL,
Türkbey B. Artificial intelligence at the intersection of pathology and
radiology in prostate cancer. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2019 May;25(3):183-188
- Chen T, Li M1, Gu Y, Zhang Y, et al. Prostate
Cancer Differentiation and Aggressiveness: Assessment With a Radiomic-Based
Model vs. PI-RADS v2. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Mar;49(3):875-884
-
A. Stangelberger, M. Waldert, and B.
Djavan, Prostate cancer in elderly men, Rev. Urol, 2008; vol. 10, no. 2, pp.
111–119.