» Articles » PMID: 33142359

Ultrasound Image Analysis Using Deep Neural Networks for Discriminating Between Benign and Malignant Ovarian Tumors: Comparison with Expert Subjective Assessment

Overview
Date 2020 Nov 3
PMID 33142359
Citations 42
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To develop and test the performance of computerized ultrasound image analysis using deep neural networks (DNNs) in discriminating between benign and malignant ovarian tumors and to compare its diagnostic accuracy with that of subjective assessment (SA) by an ultrasound expert.

Methods: We included 3077 (grayscale, n = 1927; power Doppler, n = 1150) ultrasound images from 758 women with ovarian tumors, who were classified prospectively by expert ultrasound examiners according to IOTA (International Ovarian Tumor Analysis) terms and definitions. Histological outcome from surgery (n = 634) or long-term (≥ 3 years) follow-up (n = 124) served as the gold standard. The dataset was split into a training set (n = 508; 314 benign and 194 malignant), a validation set (n = 100; 60 benign and 40 malignant) and a test set (n = 150; 75 benign and 75 malignant). We used transfer learning on three pre-trained DNNs: VGG16, ResNet50 and MobileNet. Each model was trained, and the outputs calibrated, using temperature scaling. An ensemble of the three models was then used to estimate the probability of malignancy based on all images from a given case. The DNN ensemble classified the tumors as benign or malignant (Ovry-Dx1 model); or as benign, inconclusive or malignant (Ovry-Dx2 model). The diagnostic performance of the DNN models, in terms of sensitivity and specificity, was compared to that of SA for classifying ovarian tumors in the test set.

Results: At a sensitivity of 96.0%, Ovry-Dx1 had a specificity similar to that of SA (86.7% vs 88.0%; P = 1.0). Ovry-Dx2 had a sensitivity of 97.1% and a specificity of 93.7%, when designating 12.7% of the lesions as inconclusive. By complimenting Ovry-Dx2 with SA in inconclusive cases, the overall sensitivity (96.0%) and specificity (89.3%) were not significantly different from using SA in all cases (P = 1.0).

Conclusion: Ultrasound image analysis using DNNs can predict ovarian malignancy with a diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of human expert examiners, indicating that these models may have a role in the triage of women with an ovarian tumor. © 2020 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Citing Articles

Clinical Application of Artificial Intelligence in Ultrasound Imaging for Oncology.

Komatsu M, Teraya N, Natsume T, Harada N, Takeda K, Hamamoto R JMA J. 2025; 8(1):18-25.

PMID: 39926099 PMC: 11799696. DOI: 10.31662/jmaj.2024-0203.


Automatic segmentation model and machine learning model grounded in ultrasound radiomics for distinguishing between low malignant risk and intermediate-high malignant risk of adnexal masses.

Liu L, Cai W, Zheng F, Tian H, Li Y, Wang T Insights Imaging. 2025; 16(1):14.

PMID: 39804536 PMC: 11729609. DOI: 10.1186/s13244-024-01874-7.


International multicenter validation of AI-driven ultrasound detection of ovarian cancer.

Christiansen F, Konuk E, Ganeshan A, Welch R, Pales Huix J, Czekierdowski A Nat Med. 2025; 31(1):189-196.

PMID: 39747679 PMC: 11750711. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-024-03329-4.


Development and validation of a deep learning pipeline to diagnose ovarian masses using ultrasound screening: a retrospective multicenter study.

Dai W, Wu Y, Ling Y, Zhao J, Zhang S, Gu Z EClinicalMedicine. 2024; 78:102923.

PMID: 39640935 PMC: 11617315. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102923.


Machine learning models in evaluating the malignancy risk of ovarian tumors: a comparative study.

He X, Bai X, Chen H, Feng W J Ovarian Res. 2024; 17(1):219.

PMID: 39506832 PMC: 11539702. DOI: 10.1186/s13048-024-01544-8.


References
1.
Khazendar S, Sayasneh A, Al-Assam H, Du H, Kaijser J, Ferrara L . Automated characterisation of ultrasound images of ovarian tumours: the diagnostic accuracy of a support vector machine and image processing with a local binary pattern operator. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2015; 7(1):7-15. PMC: 4402446. View

2.
Froyman W, Landolfo C, De Cock B, Wynants L, Sladkevicius P, Testa A . Risk of complications in patients with conservatively managed ovarian tumours (IOTA5): a 2-year interim analysis of a multicentre, prospective, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2019; 20(3):448-458. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30837-4. View

3.
Ardila D, Kiraly A, Bharadwaj S, Choi B, Reicher J, Peng L . End-to-end lung cancer screening with three-dimensional deep learning on low-dose chest computed tomography. Nat Med. 2019; 25(6):954-961. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-019-0447-x. View

4.
Li X, Zhang S, Zhang Q, Wei X, Pan Y, Zhao J . Diagnosis of thyroid cancer using deep convolutional neural network models applied to sonographic images: a retrospective, multicohort, diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2018; 20(2):193-201. PMC: 7083202. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30762-9. View

5.
Grigore M, Popovici R, Gafitanu D, Himiniuc L, Murarasu M, Micu R . Logistic models and artificial intelligence in the sonographic assessment of adnexal masses - a systematic review of the literature. Med Ultrason. 2020; 22(4):469-475. DOI: 10.11152/mu-2538. View