CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 384AI in cancer detectionRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingBreast Lesions and Carcinomas

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lymph Node Metastasis Prediction from Primary Breast Cancer US Images Using Deep Learning

Open access
Zhou, Li-Qiang, Wu, Xing-Long, Huang, Shu-Yan, Wu, Ge-Ge, Ye, Hua-Rong, Wei, Qi, Bao, Ling-Yun, Deng, You-Bin, Li, Xing-Rui, Cui, Xin-Wu, Dietrich, Christoph F.·2020·Radiology
DOI 10.1148/radiol.2019190372
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Deep learning (DL) algorithms are gaining extensive attention for their excellent performance in image recognition tasks. DL models can automatically make a quantitative assessment of complex medical image characteristics and achieve increased accuracy in diagnosis with higher efficiency. Purpose To determine the feasibility of using a DL approach to predict clinically negative axillary lymph node metastasis from US images in patients with primary breast cancer. Materials and Methods A data set of US images in patients with primary breast cancer with clinically negative axillary lymph nodes from Tongji Hospital (974 imaging studies from 2016 to 2018, 756 patients) and an independent test set from Hubei Cancer Hospital (81 imaging studies from 2018 to 2019, 78 patients) were collected. Axillary lymph node status was confirmed with pathologic examination. Three different convolutional neural networks (CNNs) of Inception V3, Inception-ResNet V2, and ResNet-101 architectures were trained on 90% of the Tongji Hospital data set and tested on the remaining 10%, as well as on the independent test set. The performance of the models was compared with that of five radiologists. The models’ performance was analyzed in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic curves, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs), and heat maps. Results The best-performing CNN model, Inception V3, achieved an AUC of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83, 0.95) in the prediction of the final clinical diagnosis of axillary lymph node metastasis in the independent test set. The model achieved 85% sensitivity (35 of 41 images; 95% CI: 70%, 94%) and 73% specificity (29 of 40 images; 95% CI: 56%, 85%), and the radiologists achieved 73% sensitivity (30 of 41 images; 95% CI: 57%, 85%; P = .17) and 63% specificity (25 of 40 images; 95% CI: 46%, 77%; P = .34). Conclusion Using US images from patients with primary breast cancer, deep learning models can effectively predict clinically negative axillary lymph node metastasis. Artificial intelligence may provide an early diagnostic strategy for lymph node metastasis in patients with breast cancer with clinically negative lymph nodes. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bae in this issue.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.2019190372

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Fujii T, 2015, Anticancer Res, 35, 3581
  2. Krizhevsky A, 2012, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, 1097
  3. Kayalibay B, 2017, CoRR
  4. Srivastava N, 2014, J Mach Learn Res, 15, 1929
  5. Ford RA, 2016, Social Science Electronic Publishing, 23, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 384

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Zhou, L.-Q., Wu, X.-L., Huang, S.-Y., Wu, G.-G., Ye, H.-R., Wei, Q., Bao, L.-Y., Deng, Y.-B., Li, X.-R., Cui, X.-W., & Dietrich, C. F.
Affiliations
  • Wuhan Textile University (CN)
  • China Resources (China) (CN)
ORCID
Venue
Radiology
Publisher
Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)
Published
2020-01
Volume
294
Issue
1
Pages
19-28
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
DOI
10.1148/radiol.2019190372
OpenAlex
W2989693433
Cited by
384
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 66 · 2023: 88 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 20
FWCI
15.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Radiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Breast Lesions and Carcinomas
Keywords
breast cancer, axillary lymph node metastasis, ultrasonography, convolutional neural networks, InceptionV3, lymph node metastasis prediction, radiologist comparison, breast cancer early detection, lymph node echogenicity
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Algorithms, Breast Neoplasms, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Lymph Nodes, Lymphatic Metastasis, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Retrospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Cohort Studies, Ultrasonography, Mammary, Neural Networks, Computer, Young Adult

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