Deep learning in head & neck cancer outcome prediction

André Diamant, Avishek Chatterjee, Martin Vallières, George Shenouda, Jan Seuntjens, André Diamant, Avishek Chatterjee, Martin Vallières, George Shenouda, Jan Seuntjens

Abstract

Traditional radiomics involves the extraction of quantitative texture features from medical images in an attempt to determine correlations with clinical endpoints. We hypothesize that convolutional neural networks (CNNs) could enhance the performance of traditional radiomics, by detecting image patterns that may not be covered by a traditional radiomic framework. We test this hypothesis by training a CNN to predict treatment outcomes of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, based solely on their pre-treatment computed tomography image. The training (194 patients) and validation sets (106 patients), which are mutually independent and include 4 institutions, come from The Cancer Imaging Archive. When compared to a traditional radiomic framework applied to the same patient cohort, our method results in a AUC of 0.88 in predicting distant metastasis. When combining our model with the previous model, the AUC improves to 0.92. Our framework yields models that are shown to explicitly recognize traditional radiomic features, be directly visualized and perform accurate outcome prediction.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Montage of tumors and gradient class activation maps (Grad-CAM): First two rows represent patients who developed distant metastasis (DM). Last two rows represent patients who did not develop DM. (a) Raw image input into the model (zoomed in for visualization purposes). Note that tumor segmentation is performed prior to being input into the model. (b) Gradient class activation map (Grad-CAM) of the penultimate convolutional block, red represents a region more significant to the designated classification. (c) Image merge of the first two columns.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Maximal activation map depicting a procedurally generated image that results in a classification of maximal probability. Represents a procedurally generated image input that would result in a maximal classification score of 1 (i.e. distant metastasis). Of particular interest is the large scale homogeneity and the small scale heterogeneity. Color map chosen solely for visualization purposes. The maximal activation map was generated as a 512 × 512 image to spatially represent the input CT shape.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Maximal activation maps of four filters within the final convolutional layer. Represents procedurally generated images that would each result in a particular filter being maximally activated. While humans are capable of distinguishing between these four images, we are currently unable to directly interpret them. Our framework is capable of analyzing the type of data that these images represent. The lettering scheme is relevant to Fig. 4. Color map chosen solely for visualization purposes.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Normalized value of three radiomic features of interest across 64 convolutional filters within the final convolutional layer. x-axis represents which filter within the third convolutional block. y-axis represents the value of the radiomic feature, normalized across all filters. Blue bars represent ZSVGLSZM, red bars represent ZSNGLSZM and yellow bars represent LRHGEGLRLM. Of particular interest are the numerous blue peaks (a, c and d). These filters are strongly activated by an input region with a high value of the radiomic feature ZSVGLSZM, precisely the feature that Vallières et al. found to be most predictive. Many of these filters are also strongly activated by extreme (high or low) values of ZSNGLSZM and LRHGEGLRLM (red and yellow respectively). In particular, many filters represent various permutations of the three features. As an example, (a) is activated by all three radiomic features, (b) is mostly activated by red, (c) is mostly activated by blue and yellow, while (d) is mostly activated by blue. The lettering scheme corresponds to the maximal activation maps shown in Fig. 3.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Depiction of our convolutional neural network’s architecture. Text below the graphic represents the operation between layers. Text above the graphic represents the number of feature maps or nodes within the layer. The CNN consists of three consecutive convolutional blocks, each of which contain a convolutional layer (of varying filter size), a max-pooling layer (4 × 4 kernel) and a parametric rectified linear unit (not shown). Following this, the output is flattened and proceeds through two fully connected layers, a parametric rectified linear unit (not shown) and a dropout layer prior to being classified via a sigmoid activation function.

References

    1. Atun R, et al. Expanding global access to radiotherapy. The Lancet. Oncology. 2015;16:1153–86. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00222-3.
    1. Yeh S-A. Radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Seminars in plastic surgery. 2010;24:127–36. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1255330.
    1. Baxi SS, et al. Causes of death in long-term survivors of head and neck cancer. Cancer. 2014;120:1507–1513. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28588.
    1. Ferlito A, Shaha AR, Silver CE, Rinaldo A, Mondin V. Incidence and Sites of Distant Metastases from Head and Neck Cancer. ORL. 2001;63:202–207. doi: 10.1159/000055740.
    1. Tolentino EdS, et al. Oral adverse effects of head and neck radiotherapy: literature review and suggestion of a clinical oral care guideline for irradiated patients. Journal of applied oral science: revista FOB. 2011;19:448–54. doi: 10.1590/S1678-77572011000500003.
    1. Deo RC. Machine Learning in Medicine. Circulation. 2015;132:1920–1930. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.001593.
    1. Jordan MI, Mitchell TM. Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science (New York, N.Y.) 2015;349:255–60. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa8415.
    1. Schmidhuber J. Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Neural Networks. 2015;61:85–117. doi: 10.1016/j.neunet.2014.09.003.
    1. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y. & Courville, A. Deep Learning (MIT Press, 2016).
    1. Buduma, N. Fundamentals of Deep Learning (O’Reilly, 2015).
    1. Dinggang Shen, et al. Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering. 2017;19:221–248. doi: 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071516-044442.
    1. Brosch T, et al. Deep 3D Convolutional Encoder Networks With Shortcuts for Multiscale Feature Integration Applied to Multiple Sclerosis Lesion Segmentation. IEEE transactions on medical imaging. 2016;35:1229–1239. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2016.2528821.
    1. Qi Dou Q, et al. Automatic Detection of Cerebral Microbleeds From MR Images via 3D Convolutional Neural Networks. IEEE transactions on medical imaging. 2016;35:1182–1195. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2016.2528129.
    1. van Tulder G, de Bruijne M. Combining Generative and Discriminative Representation Learning for Lung CT Analysis With Convolutional Restricted Boltzmann Machines. IEEE transactions on medical imaging. 2016;35:1262–1272. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2016.2526687.
    1. Kleesiek J, et al. Deep MRI brain extraction: A 3D convolutional neural network for skull stripping. NeuroImage. 2016;129:460–469. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.01.024.
    1. Zhang W, et al. Deep convolutional neural networks for multi-modality isointense infant brain image segmentation. NeuroImage. 2015;108:214–224. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.12.061.
    1. Huynh BQ, Li H, Giger ML. Digital mammographic tumor classification using transfer learning from deep convolutional neural networks. Journal of Medical Imaging. 2016;3:034501. doi: 10.1117/1.JMI.3.3.034501.
    1. Antropova, N., Huynh, B. Q. & Giger, M. L. A deep feature fusion methodology for breast cancer diagnosis demonstrated on three imaging modality datasets. Med. Phys. 44 (2017).
    1. Trebeschi S, et al. Deep Learning for Fully-Automated Localization and Segmentation of Rectal Cancer on Multiparametric MR OPEN Background Work. Scientific reports. 2017;7:5301. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-05728-9.
    1. Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H. Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data. Radiology. 2016;278:563–577. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015151169.
    1. Aerts HJWL, et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nature Communications. 2014;5:4006. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5006.
    1. Vallières M, Freeman CR, Skamene SR, El Naqa I. A radiomics model from joint FDG-PET and MRI texture features for the prediction of lung metastases in soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities. Physics in medicine and biology. 2015;60:5471–96. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/14/5471.
    1. van Timmeren JE, et al. Survival prediction of non-small cell lung cancer patients using radiomics analyses of cone-beam CT images. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2017;123:363–369. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.04.016.
    1. Coroller TP, et al. CT-based radiomic signature predicts distant metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2015;114:345–350. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2015.02.015.
    1. Vallières M, et al. Radiomics strategies for risk assessment of tumour failure in head-and-neck cancer. Scientific Reports. 2017;7:1–33. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-10371-5.
    1. Parmar C, et al. Radiomic Machine-Learning Classifiers for Prognostic Biomarkers of Head and Neck Cancer. Frontiers in Oncology. 2015;5:272. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2015.00272.
    1. Parmar C, Grossmann P, Bussink J, Lambin P, Aerts HJWL. Machine Learning methods for Quantitative Radiomic Biomarkers. Scientific Reports. 2015;5:13087. doi: 10.1038/srep13087.
    1. Parmar, C. et al. Radiomic feature clusters and Prognostic Signatures specific for Lung and Head & Neck cancer. Nature Publishing Group (2015).
    1. Zwanenburg, A., Leger, S., Vallières, M. & Löck, S. Image biomarker standardisation initiative. Arxiv (2016).
    1. Paul R, et al. Deep Feature Transfer Learning in Combination with Traditional Features Predicts Survival Among Patients with Lung Adenocarcinoma. Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) 2016;2:388–395.
    1. Paul R, et al. Predicting malignant nodules by fusing deep features with classical radiomics features. Journal of Medical Imaging. 2018;5:1. doi: 10.1117/1.JMI.5.1.011021.
    1. Paul, R., Hawkins, S. H., Hall, L. O., Goldgof, D. B. & Gillies, R. J. Combining deep neural network and traditional image features to improve survival prediction accuracy for lung cancer patients from diagnostic CT. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 002570–002575 (IEEE, 2016).
    1. Pan SJ, Yang Q. A Survey on Transfer Learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. 2010;22:1345–1359. doi: 10.1109/TKDE.2009.191.
    1. Russakovsky O, et al. ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision. 2015;115:211–252. doi: 10.1007/s11263-015-0816-y.
    1. Szegedy, C., Vanhoucke, V., Ioffe, S., Shlens, J. & Wojna, Z. Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision. Arxiv (2015).
    1. Devikar P. Transfer Learning for Image Classification of various dog breeds. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Engineering & Technology (IJARCET) 2016;5:2278–1323.
    1. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837–45. doi: 10.2307/2531595.
    1. Kotikalapudi, R. keras-vis (2017).
    1. Selvaraju, R. R. et al. Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localization. Arxiv (2016).
    1. Marusyk A, Polyak K. Tumor heterogeneity: causes and consequences. Biochimica et biophysica acta. 2010;1805:105–17.
    1. Fisher R, Pusztai L, Swanton C. Cancer heterogeneity: implications for targeted therapeutics. British journal of cancer. 2013;108:479–85. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.581.
    1. Gay, L., Baker, A.-M. & Graham, T. A. Tumour Cell Heterogeneity. F1000Research5 (2016).
    1. Caswell DR, Swanton C. The role of tumour heterogeneity and clonal cooperativity in metastasis, immune evasion and clinical outcome. BMC Medicine. 2017;15:133. doi: 10.1186/s12916-017-0900-y.
    1. Chatterjee, A. et al. An empirical approach for avoiding false discoveries when applying high-dimensional radiomics to small datasets. IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences 1–1 (2018).
    1. Vallières, M. et al. Data from Head-Neck-PET-CT. The Cancer Imaging Archive (2017).
    1. He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S. & Sun, J. Delving Deep into Rectifiers: Surpassing Human-Level Performance on ImageNet Classification. Arxiv (2015).
    1. Chollet, F. Keras (2015).
    1. Abadi, M. et al. TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Distributed Systems (2015).
    1. Clark K, et al. The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA): Maintaining and Operating a Public Information Repository. Journal of Digital Imaging. 2013;26:1045–1057. doi: 10.1007/s10278-013-9622-7.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever