Lesion Detection in Women Breast's Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using Deep Learning

Overview

Journal Sci Rep

Specialty Science

Date 2023 Dec 18

PMID 38110462

Authors

Sudarshan Saikia

Tapas Si

Darpan Deb

Kangkana Bora

Saurav Mallik

Ujjwal Maulik

Zhongming Zhao

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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, F[Formula: see text]-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.

Citing Articles

Classifying tumour infiltrating lymphocytes in oral squamous cell carcinoma histopathology using joint learning framework.

Barua B, Chyrmang G, Bora K, Ahmed G, Kakoti L, Saikia M Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):2938.

PMID: 39848989 PMC: 11757777. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-86527-5.

References

Boukerroui D, Basset O, Guerin N, Baskurt A . Multiresolution texture based adaptive clustering algorithm for breast lesion segmentation. Eur J Ultrasound. 1998; 8(2):135-44. DOI: 10.1016/s0929-8266(98)00062-7. View

Boumaraf S, Liu X, Ferkous C, Ma X . A New Computer-Aided Diagnosis System with Modified Genetic Feature Selection for BI-RADS Classification of Breast Masses in Mammograms. Biomed Res Int. 2020; 2020:7695207. PMC: 7238352. DOI: 10.1155/2020/7695207. View

Abeytunge S, Larson B, Peterson G, Morrow M, Rajadhyaksha M, Murray M . Evaluation of breast tissue with confocal strip-mosaicking microscopy: a test approach emulating pathology-like examination. J Biomed Opt. 2017; 22(3):34002. PMC: 5361391. DOI: 10.1117/1.JBO.22.3.034002. View

Li H, Wang Y, Liu K, Lo S, Freedman M . Computerized radiographic mass detection--part II: Decision support by featured database visualization and modular neural networks. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2001; 20(4):302-13. DOI: 10.1109/42.921479. View

Leichter I, Lederman R, Buchbinder S, Bamberger P, Novak B, Fields S . Optimizing parameters for computer-aided diagnosis of microcalcifications at mammography. Acad Radiol. 2000; 7(6):406-12. DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(00)80380-3. View

Tang J, Rangayyan R, Xu J, El Naqa I, Yang Y . Computer-aided detection and diagnosis of breast cancer with mammography: recent advances. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 2009; 13(2):236-51. DOI: 10.1109/TITB.2008.2009441. View

van Ginneken B, Armato 3rd S, de Hoop B, van Amelsvoort-van de Vorst S, Duindam T, Niemeijer M . Comparing and combining algorithms for computer-aided detection of pulmonary nodules in computed tomography scans: The ANODE09 study. Med Image Anal. 2010; 14(6):707-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2010.05.005. View

Zheng Y, Wei B, Liu H, Xiao R, Gee J . Measuring sparse temporal-variation for accurate registration of dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MR images. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2015; 46 Pt 1:73-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2015.05.004. View

Yassin N, Omran S, El Houby E, Allam H . Machine learning techniques for breast cancer computer aided diagnosis using different image modalities: A systematic review. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2018; 156:25-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2017.12.012. View

10.

Lundervold A, Lundervold A . An overview of deep learning in medical imaging focusing on MRI. Z Med Phys. 2018; 29(2):102-127. DOI: 10.1016/j.zemedi.2018.11.002. View

11.

Liu F, Kornecki A, Shmuilovich O, Gelman N . Optimization of time-to-peak analysis for differentiating malignant and benign breast lesions with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Acad Radiol. 2011; 18(6):694-704. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.01.005. View

12.

Zhang J, Saha A, Zhu Z, Mazurowski M . Hierarchical Convolutional Neural Networks for Segmentation of Breast Tumors in MRI With Application to Radiogenomics. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2018; 38(2):435-447. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2018.2865671. View

13.

Qiao M, Suo S, Cheng F, Hua J, Xue D, Guo Y . Three-dimensional breast tumor segmentation on DCE-MRI with a multilabel attention-guided joint-phase-learning network. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2021; 90:101909. DOI: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2021.101909. View

14.

Ibtehaz N, Sohel Rahman M . MultiResUNet : Rethinking the U-Net architecture for multimodal biomedical image segmentation. Neural Netw. 2019; 121:74-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.neunet.2019.08.025. View

15.

Shi Q, Shui H, Chen Q, Li Z . How does mechanical stimulus affect the coupling process of the scaffold degradation and bone formation: An in silico approach. Comput Biol Med. 2020; 117:103588. DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2019.103588. View