4.5 Article

Lung cancer histology classification from CT images based on radiomics and deep learning models

Journal

MEDICAL & BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING & COMPUTING
Volume 59, Issue 1, Pages 215-226

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11517-020-02302-w

Keywords

NSCLC; Radiomics; CNN; LSTM; Lung histology classification

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the classification of NSCLC into AC and SCC using different techniques, with LSTM + Inception showing superior performance and outperforming expert evaluations.
Adenocarcinoma (AC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) are frequent reported cases of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), responsible for a large fraction of cancer deaths worldwide. In this study, we aim to investigate the potential of NSCLC histology classification into AC and SCC by applying different feature extraction and classification techniques on pre-treatment CT images. The employed image dataset (102 patients) was taken from the publicly available cancer imaging archive collection (TCIA). We investigated four different families of techniques: (a) radiomics with two classifiers (kNN and SVM), (b) four state-of-the-art convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with transfer learning and fine tuning (Alexnet, ResNet101, Inceptionv3 and InceptionResnetv2), (c) a CNN combined with a long short-term memory (LSTM) network to fuse information about the spatial coherency of tumor's CT slices, and (d) combinatorial models (LSTM + CNN + radiomics). In addition, the CT images were independently evaluated by two expert radiologists. Our results showed that the best CNN was Inception (accuracy = 0.67, auc = 0.74). LSTM + Inception yielded superior performance than all other methods (accuracy = 0.74, auc = 0.78). Moreover, LSTM + Inception outperformed experts by 7-25% (p < 0.05). The proposed methodology does not require detailed segmentation of the tumor region and it may be used in conjunction with radiological findings to improve clinical decision-making.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available