MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282946835 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2022-458

Abstract 458: Development and validation of convolutional neural network to identify regions of interest in lumpectomy margins using optical coherence tomography

2022· article· en· W4282946835 on OpenAlexaff
David Rempel, Andrew Berkeley, Chandandeep Nagi, Vladimír Pekar, M. S. Burns, Beryl Augustine, Alia Nazarullah, Ismail Jatoi, Kelly K. Hunt, Alastair M. Thompson, Savitri Krishnamurthy

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsIllumisonics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptical coherence tomographyLumpectomyConvolutional neural networkMedicineDuctal carcinomaMalignancyRegion of interestMicrocalcificationArtificial intelligenceRadiologyComputer scienceMammographyBreast cancerPathologyMastectomyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Objective: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is the optical analog of high-frequency ultrasound and produces real-time, high-resolution images up to 2 mm deep. Multi-reader studies of OCT have shown differentiation of normal parenchyma from neoplasms, including DCIS and cancers, with >85% sensitivity and specificity. Intraoperative evaluation of breast lumpectomy margins (LMs) with OCT may help achieve negative margins at primary surgery and avoid re-excision. Artificial Intelligence can be trained to spot regions of interest (ROI) in OCT LM images suspicious for malignancy. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an automated convolutional neural network (CNN) to screen OCT LM images for ROIs. Methods: Following IRB approval, LMs from 126 patients with ductal malignancy were OCT imaged. Images were compared to corresponding permanent histology and annotated by breast pathologists to create a training set of 25,000 control ROIs. A CNN algorithm was developed with 3 convolutional layers, a 3x3 kernel, and 3 fully connected layers to perform binary classification of images as “suspicious” or “non-suspicious” for malignancy. A weighted loss function was used to balance the training data for non-suspicious vs. suspicious images and to tune sensitivity and specificity. Once trained and weighted, the CNN was tested in a prospective study using OCT images of 29 LMs from 29 patients with biopsy-proven ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), or both. CNN results were compared to permanent histology. Results: The patient population was 61.5 ± 7.3 years old, 100% female, with Stage 0-1 disease. Disease included IDC (n=20), invasive lobular (n=2), DCIS (n=27), mixed (n=74), atypical ductal hyperplasia (n=24), as well as benign findings including atypical lobular hyperplasia (n=19), lymphatic invasion (n=13), lobular carcinoma in situ (n=12), usual ductal hyperplasia (n=35), and duct ectasia (n=17). Following primary surgery, LMs were scanned using OCT and images were CNN analyzed. Approximately 1.9 M OCT ROIs were assessed, identifying 101,099 suspicious ROIs. Three hundred and eighty-four (384) ROIs were correctly identified, yielding a 70% true positive and 5.2% false positive rate with 70% sensitivity and 96% specificity. The receiver operating curve is shown below. Conclusions: Automated analysis of OCT images using a trained CNN to identify ROIs suspicious for DCIS or IDC in LMs is feasible, demonstrating high concordance with permanent pathology. These findings indicate the utility of AI for screening OCT images with potential utilization for intraoperative evaluation of LMs. A pivotal prospective clinical trial will be necessary to evaluate breast specimens in real time to determine if this application may improve re-excision rates in lumpectomy. Citation Format: David Rempel, Andrew Berkeley, Chandandeep Nagi, Vladimir Pekar, Margaret Burns, Beryl Augustine, Alia Nazarullah, Ismail Jatoi, Kelly K. Hunt, Alastair Thompson, Savitri Krishnamurthy. Development and validation of convolutional neural network to identify regions of interest in lumpectomy margins using optical coherence tomography [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 458.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.301
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207