Lesion detection in women breast’s dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging using deep learning

被引:0
|
作者
Sudarshan Saikia
Tapas Si
Darpan Deb
Kangkana Bora
Saurav Mallik
Ujjwal Maulik
Zhongming Zhao
机构
[1] Oil India Limited,Information Technology Department
[2] University of Engineering & Management,AI Innovation Lab, Department of Computer Science & Engineering
[3] Jaipur,Department of Computer Application
[4] Christ University,Department of Computer Science and Information Technology
[5] Cotton University,Department of Environmental Health
[6] Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health,Department of Computer Science and Engineering
[7] Jadavpur University,Center for Precision Health, School of Biomedical Informatics
[8] The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston,undefined
来源
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women and the second foremost cause of cancer death in women after lung cancer. Recent technological advances in breast cancer treatment offer hope to millions of women in the world. Segmentation of the breast’s Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI) is one of the necessary tasks in the diagnosis and detection of breast cancer. Currently, a popular deep learning model, U-Net is extensively used in biomedical image segmentation. This article aims to advance the state of the art and conduct a more in-depth analysis with a focus on the use of various U-Net models in lesion detection in women’s breast DCE-MRI. In this article, we perform an empirical study of the effectiveness and efficiency of U-Net and its derived deep learning models including ResUNet, Dense UNet, DUNet, Attention U-Net, UNet++, MultiResUNet, RAUNet, Inception U-Net and U-Net GAN for lesion detection in breast DCE-MRI. All the models are applied to the benchmarked 100 Sagittal T2-Weighted fat-suppressed DCE-MRI slices of 20 patients and their performance is compared. Also, a comparative study has been conducted with V-Net, W-Net, and DeepLabV3+. Non-parametric statistical test Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test is used to analyze the significance of the quantitative results. Furthermore, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is used to evaluate overall performance focused on accuracy, precision, sensitivity, F1\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$_1$$\end{document}-score, specificity, Geometric-Mean, DSC, and false-positive rate. The RAUNet segmentation model achieved a high accuracy of 99.76%, sensitivity of 85.04%, precision of 90.21%, and Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) of 85.04% whereas ResNet achieved 99.62% accuracy, 62.26% sensitivity, 99.56% precision, and 72.86% DSC. ResUNet is found to be the most effective model based on MCDA. On the other hand, U-Net GAN takes the least computational time to perform the segmentation task. Both quantitative and qualitative results demonstrate that the ResNet model performs better than other models in segmenting the images and lesion detection, though computational time in achieving the objectives varies.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging: the surgical perspective
    Beatty, J. David
    Porter, Bruce A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2007, 193 (05): : 600 - 605
  • [32] Contrast-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of the rat kidney
    Fransen, R
    Muller, HJ
    Boer, WH
    Nicolay, K
    Koomans, HA
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY, 1996, 7 (03): : 424 - 430
  • [33] Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Applications in Oncology
    Teo, Q. Q.
    Thng, C. H.
    Koh, T. S.
    Ng, Q. S. p
    CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2014, 26 (10) : E9 - E20
  • [34] Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the sarcopenic muscle
    Nicolato E.
    Farace P.
    Asperio R.M.
    Marzola P.
    Lunati E.
    Sbarbati A.
    Osculati F.
    BMC Medical Imaging, 2 (1)
  • [35] Information Criteria for Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging
    Shinohara, Russell T.
    Crainiceanu, Ciprian S.
    Caffo, Brian S.
    Reich, Daniel S.
    2013 3RD INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON PATTERN RECOGNITION IN NEUROIMAGING (PRNI 2013), 2013, : 37 - 41
  • [36] Automated Detection and Segmentation of Nonmass-Enhancing Breast Tumors with Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging
    Alvarez Illan, Ignacio
    Ramirez, Javier
    Gorriz, J. M.
    Marino, Maria Adele
    Avendano, Daly
    Helbich, Thomas
    Baltzer, Pascal
    Pinker, Katja
    Meyer-Baese, Anke
    CONTRAST MEDIA & MOLECULAR IMAGING, 2018,
  • [37] Detection of Treatment Success after Photodynamic Therapy Using Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging
    Schreurs, Tom J. L.
    Jacobs, Igor
    Nicolay, Klaas
    Prompers, Jeanine J.
    Strijkers, Gustav J.
    THERANOSTICS, 2017, 7 (19): : 4643 - 4657
  • [38] Detection and localization of proteinuria by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging using MS325
    Zhang, YT
    Choyke, PL
    Lu, HY
    Takahashi, H
    Mannon, RB
    Zhang, XJ
    Marcos, H
    Li, KCP
    Kopp, JB
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY, 2005, 16 (06): : 1752 - 1757
  • [39] Accuracy of conventional ultrasound, contrast-enhanced ultrasound and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in assessing the size of breast cancer
    Shi, Xian-Quan
    Dong, Yunyun
    Tan, Xiaoqu
    Yang, Peipei
    Wang, Chunmei
    Feng, Wei
    Lin, Yuxuan
    Qian, Linxue
    CLINICAL HEMORHEOLOGY AND MICROCIRCULATION, 2022, 82 (02) : 157 - 168
  • [40] Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Sonography and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Preoperative Diagnosis of Infected Nonunions
    Fischer, Christian
    Preuss, Eva-Maria
    Tanner, Michael
    Bruckner, Thomas
    Krix, Martin
    Amarteifio, Erick
    Miska, Matthias
    Moghaddam-Alvandi, Arash
    Schmidmaier, Gerhard
    Weber, Marc-Andre
    JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE, 2016, 35 (05) : 933 - 942