Deep learning for the ovarian lesion localization and discrimination between borderline and malignant ovarian tumors based on routine MR imaging

• Published in: Scientific reports 2023-02, Vol.13 (1), p.2770-2770, Article 2770
• Main Authors: Wang, Yida, Zhang, He, Wang, Tianping, Yao, Liangqing, Zhang, Guofu, Liu, Xuefen, Yang, Guang, Yuan, Lei
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 631/67/1517; 631/67/2321; Accuracy; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Communications systems; Deep Learning; Female; Humanities and Social Sciences; Humans; Lesions; Localization; Magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; multidisciplinary; Ovarian cancer; Ovarian Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Retrospective Studies; Science; Science (multidisciplinary); Segmentation; Tumors
• ISSN: 2045-2322; 2045-2322
• DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-29814-3

To establish a deep learning (DL) model in differentiating borderline ovarian tumor (BOT) from epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) on conventional MR imaging. We retrospectively enrolled 201 patients of 102 pathologically proven BOTs and 99 EOCs at OB/GYN hospital Fudan University, between January 2015 and December 2017. All imaging data were reviewed on picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) server. Both T1-weighted imaging (T1WI) and T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) MR images were used for lesion area determination. We trained a U-net++ model with deep supervision to segment the lesion area on MR images. Then, the segmented regions were fed into a classification model based on DL network to categorize ovarian masses automatically. For ovarian lesion segmentation, the mean dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of the trained U-net++ model in the testing dataset achieved 0.73 ± 0.25, 0.76 ± 0.18, and 0.60 ± 0.24 in the sagittal T2WI, coronal T2WI, and axial T1WI images, respectively. The DL model by combined T2WI computerized network could differentiate BOT from EOC with a significantly higher AUC of 0.87, an accuracy of 83.7%, a sensitivity of 75.0% and a specificity of 87.5%. In comparison, the AUC yielded by radiologist was only 0.75, with an accuracy of 75.5%, a sensitivity of 96.0% and specificity of 54.2% ( P