Cited by 185AI in cancer detectionArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

Deep learning-enabled pelvic ultrasound images for accurate diagnosis of ovarian cancer in China: A retrospective, multicentre, diagnostic study

Open access
Gao, Yue, Zeng, Shaoqing, Xu, Xiaoyan, Li, Huayi, Yao, Shuzhong, Song, Kun, Li, Xiao, Chen, Lingxi +80 more·2022·The Lancet Digital Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound is a critical non-invasive test for preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Deep learning is making advances in image-recognition tasks; therefore, we aimed to develop a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) model that automates evaluation of ultrasound images and to facilitate a more accurate diagnosis of ovarian cancer than existing methods. METHODS: In this retrospective, multicentre, diagnostic study, we collected pelvic ultrasound images from ten hospitals across China between September 2003, and May 2019. We included consecutive adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with adnexal lesions in ultrasonography and healthy controls and excluded duplicated cases and patients without adnexa or pathological diagnosis. For DCNN model development, patients were assigned to the training dataset (34 488 images of 3755 patients with ovarian cancer, 541 442 images of 101 777 controls). For model validation, patients were assigned to the internal validation dataset (3031 images of 266 patients with ovarian cancer, 5385 images of 602 with benign adnexal lesions), external validation datasets 1 (486 images of 67 with ovarian cancer, 933 images of 268 with benign adnexal lesions), and 2 (1253 images of 166 with ovarian cancer, 5257 images of 723 benign adnexal lesions). Using these datasets, we assessed the diagnostic value of DCNN, compared DCNN with 35 radiologists, and explored whether DCNN could augment the diagnostic accuracy of six radiologists. Pathological diagnosis was the reference standard. FINDINGS: For DCNN to detect ovarian cancer, AUC was 0·911 (95% CI 0·886-0·936) in the internal dataset, 0·870 (95% CI 0·822-0·918) in external validation dataset 1, and 0·831 (95% CI 0·793-0·869) in external validation dataset 2. The DCNN model was more accurate than radiologists at detecting ovarian cancer in the internal dataset (88·8% vs 85·7%) and external validation dataset 1 (86·9% vs 81·1%). Accuracy and sensitivity of diagnosis increased more after DCNN-assisted diagnosis than assessment by radiologists alone (87·6% [85·0-90·2] vs 78·3% [72·1-84·5], p<0·0001; 82·7% [78·5-86·9] vs 70·4% [59·1-81·7], p<0·0001). The average accuracy of DCNN-assisted evaluations for six radiologists reached 0·876 and were significantly augmented when they were DCNN-assisted (p<0·05). INTERPRETATION: The performance of DCNN-enabled ultrasound exceeded the average diagnostic level of radiologists matched the level of expert ultrasound image readers, and augmented radiologists' accuracy. However, these observations warrant further investigations in prospective studies or randomised clinical trials. FUNDING: National Key Basic Research Program of China, National Sci-Tech Support Projects, and National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2589-7500(21)00278-8

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 36 · Cited by 185

Authors
Gao, Y., Zeng, S., Xu, X., Li, H., Yao, S., Song, K., Li, X., Chen, L., Tang, J., Xing, H., Yu, Z., Zhang, Q., Zeng, S., Yi, C., Xie, H., Xiong, X., Cai, G., Wang, Z., Wu, Y., Chi, J., Jiao, X., Qin, Y., Mao, X., Chen, Y., Jin, X., Mo, Q., Chen, P., Huang, Y., Shi, Y., Wang, J., Zhou, Y., Ding, S., Zhu, S., Liu, X., Dong, X., Cheng, L., Zhu, L., Cheng, H., Cha, L., Hao, Y., Jin, C., Zhang, L., Zhou, P., Sun, M., Xu, Q., Chen, K., Gao, Z., Zhang, X., Ma, Y., Liu, Y., Xiao, L., Xu, L., Peng, L., Hao, Z., Yang, M., Wang, Y., Ou, H., Jia, Y., Tian, L., Zhang, W., Jin, P., Tian, X., Huang, L., Wang, Z., Liu, J., Fang, T., Yan, D., Cao, H., Ma, J., Li, X., Zheng, X., Lou, H., Song, C., Li, R., Wang, S., Li, W., Zheng, X., Chen, J., Li, G., Chen, R., Xu, C., Yu, R., Wang, J., Xu, S., Kong, B., Xie, X., Ma, D., & Gao, Q.
Affiliations
  • Tongji Hospital (CN)
  • The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University (CN)
  • Shandong University (CN)
  • City University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen Research Institute (CN)
  • The Affiliated Yongchuan Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (CN)
  • Hubei University of Arts and Science (CN)
  • Shenzhen Second People's Hospital (CN)
  • Central Hospital of Wuhan (CN)
  • Yangtze University (CN)
  • Hubei Cancer Hospital (CN)
  • Women's Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University (CN)
Corresponding author
Gao, Qinglei
Venue
The Lancet Digital Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-03
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
e179-e187
ISSN
2589-7500 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4213031487
Cited by
185
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 10
FWCI
12.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CityU Scholars (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (81702574, 81630060, 81702572, 2016YFC0902901, 2018ZX10301402, 82072889, 81772787)
  • Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2019kfyXMBZ024, 2018ZX10301402)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
ovarian cancer, pelvic ultrasound, deep convolutional neural networks, computer-aided diagnosis, adnexal lesions, automated image analysis, radiologist comparison, diagnostic accuracy, external validation, preoperative diagnosis, pathological diagnosis, radiology workforce shortage, radiology education, radiology workforce
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Adolescent, Adult, China, Female, Humans, Ovarian Neoplasms, Prospective Studies, Retrospective Studies, Ultrasonography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review