TY - JOUR
T1 - Convolutional Neural Network Detection of Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis Using Standard Clinical Breast MRI
AU - Ren, Thomas
AU - Cattell, Renee
AU - Duanmu, Hongyi
AU - Huang, Pauline
AU - Li, Haifang
AU - Vanguri, Rami
AU - Liu, Michael Z.
AU - Jambawalikar, Sachin
AU - Ha, Richard
AU - Wang, Fusheng
AU - Cohen, Jules
AU - Bernstein, Clifford
AU - Bangiyev, Lev
AU - Duong, Timothy Q.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported in part by pilot grants from: (1) the Stony Brook Cancer Center, and (2) a Carol Baldwin pilot grant through the Stony Brook University School of Medicine. The authors also would like to acknowledge the resources of the Advanced Imaging Shared Resource of the Stony Brook Cancer Center and the Radiology Biomedical Imaging Research Center.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2020/6
Y1 - 2020/6
N2 - Background: Axillary lymph node status is important for breast cancer staging and treatment planning as the majority of breast cancer metastasis spreads through the axillary lymph nodes. There is currently no reliable noninvasive imaging method to detect nodal metastasis associated with breast cancer. Materials and Methods: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data were those from the peak contrast dynamic image from 1.5 Tesla MRI scanners at the pre-neoadjuvant chemotherapy stage. Data consisted of 66 abnormal nodes from 38 patients and 193 normal nodes from 61 patients. Abnormal nodes were those determined by expert radiologist based on 18Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography images. Normal nodes were those with negative diagnosis of breast cancer. The convolutional neural network consisted of 5 convolutional layers with filters from 16 to 128. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to evaluate prediction performance. For comparison, an expert radiologist also scored the same nodes as normal or abnormal. Results: The convolutional neural network model yielded a specificity of 79.3% ± 5.1%, sensitivity of 92.1% ± 2.9%, positive predictive value of 76.9% ± 4.0%, negative predictive value of 93.3% ± 1.9%, accuracy of 84.8% ± 2.4%, and receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.91 ± 0.02 for the validation data set. These results compared favorably with scoring by radiologists (accuracy of 78%). Conclusion: The results are encouraging and suggest that this approach may prove useful for classifying lymph node status on MRI in clinical settings in patients with breast cancer, although additional studies are needed before routine clinical use can be realized. This approach has the potential to ultimately be a noninvasive alternative to lymph node biopsy.
AB - Background: Axillary lymph node status is important for breast cancer staging and treatment planning as the majority of breast cancer metastasis spreads through the axillary lymph nodes. There is currently no reliable noninvasive imaging method to detect nodal metastasis associated with breast cancer. Materials and Methods: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data were those from the peak contrast dynamic image from 1.5 Tesla MRI scanners at the pre-neoadjuvant chemotherapy stage. Data consisted of 66 abnormal nodes from 38 patients and 193 normal nodes from 61 patients. Abnormal nodes were those determined by expert radiologist based on 18Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography images. Normal nodes were those with negative diagnosis of breast cancer. The convolutional neural network consisted of 5 convolutional layers with filters from 16 to 128. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to evaluate prediction performance. For comparison, an expert radiologist also scored the same nodes as normal or abnormal. Results: The convolutional neural network model yielded a specificity of 79.3% ± 5.1%, sensitivity of 92.1% ± 2.9%, positive predictive value of 76.9% ± 4.0%, negative predictive value of 93.3% ± 1.9%, accuracy of 84.8% ± 2.4%, and receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.91 ± 0.02 for the validation data set. These results compared favorably with scoring by radiologists (accuracy of 78%). Conclusion: The results are encouraging and suggest that this approach may prove useful for classifying lymph node status on MRI in clinical settings in patients with breast cancer, although additional studies are needed before routine clinical use can be realized. This approach has the potential to ultimately be a noninvasive alternative to lymph node biopsy.
KW - Breast cancer
KW - Machine learning
KW - Magnetic resonance imaging
KW - Pathological complete response
KW - Sentinel lymph node biopsy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85080919689&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85080919689&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.clbc.2019.11.009
DO - 10.1016/j.clbc.2019.11.009
M3 - Article
C2 - 32139272
AN - SCOPUS:85080919689
SN - 1526-8209
VL - 20
SP - e301-e308
JO - Clinical breast cancer
JF - Clinical breast cancer
IS - 3
ER -