A deep learning system for detection of early Barrett's neoplasia: a model development and validation study.

BACKGROUND: Computer-aided detection (CADe) systems could assist endoscopists in detecting early neoplasia in Barrett's oesophagus, which could be difficult to detect in endoscopic images. The aim of this study was to develop, test, and benchmark a CADe system for early neoplasia in Barrett's oesophagus. METHODS: The CADe system was first pretrained with ImageNet followed by domain-specific pretraining with GastroNet. We trained the CADe system on a dataset of 14 046 images (2506 patients) of confirmed Barrett's oesophagus neoplasia and non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus from 15 centres. Neoplasia was delineated by 14 Barrett's oesophagus experts for all datasets. We tested the performance of the CADe system on two independent test sets. The all-comers test set comprised 327 (73 patients) non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus images, 82 (46 patients) neoplastic images, 180 (66 of the same patients) non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus videos, and 71 (45 of the same patients) neoplastic videos. The benchmarking test set comprised 100 (50 patients) neoplastic images, 300 (125 patients) non-dysplastic images, 47 (47 of the same patients) neoplastic videos, and 141 (82 of the same patients) non-dysplastic videos, and was enriched with subtle neoplasia cases. The benchmarking test set was evaluated by 112 endoscopists from six countries (first without CADe and, after 6 weeks, with CADe) and by 28 external international Barrett's oesophagus experts. The primary outcome was the sensitivity of Barrett's neoplasia detection by general endoscopists without CADe assistance versus with CADe assistance on the benchmarking test set. We compared sensitivity using a mixed-effects logistic regression model with conditional odds ratios (ORs; likelihood profile 95% CIs). FINDINGS: Sensitivity for neoplasia detection among endoscopists increased from 74% to 88% with CADe assistance (OR 2·04; 95% CI 1·73-2·42; p<0·0001 for images and from 67% to 79% [2·35; 1·90-2·94; p<0·0001] for video) without compromising specificity (from 89% to 90% [1·07; 0·96-1·19; p=0·20] for images and from 96% to 94% [0·94; 0·79-1·11; ] for video; p=0·46). In the all-comers test set, CADe detected neoplastic lesions in 95% (88-98) of images and 97% (90-99) of videos. In the benchmarking test set, the CADe system was superior to endoscopists in detecting neoplasia (90% vs 74% [OR 3·75; 95% CI 1·93-8·05; p=0·0002] for images and 91% vs 67% [11·68; 3·85-47·53; p<0·0001] for video) and non-inferior to Barrett's oesophagus experts (90% vs 87% [OR 1·74; 95% CI 0·83-3·65] for images and 91% vs 86% [2·94; 0·99-11·40] for video). INTERPRETATION: CADe outperformed endoscopists in detecting Barrett's oesophagus neoplasia and, when used as an assistive tool, it improved their detection rate. CADe detected virtually all neoplasia in a test set of consecutive cases. FUNDING: Olympus.

Restriction Spectrum Imaging Improves Risk Stratification in Patients with Glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: ADC as a marker of tumor cellularity has been promising for evaluating the response to therapy in patients with glioblastoma but does not successfully stratify patients according to outcomes, especially in the upfront setting. Here we investigate whether restriction spectrum imaging, an advanced diffusion imaging model, performed after an operation but before radiation therapy, could improve risk stratification in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma relative to ADC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre-radiation therapy diffusion-weighted and structural imaging of 40 patients with glioblastoma were examined retrospectively. Restriction spectrum imaging and ADC-based hypercellularity volume fraction (restriction spectrum imaging-FLAIR volume fraction, restriction spectrum imaging-contrast-enhanced volume fraction, ADC-FLAIR volume fraction, ADC-contrast-enhanced volume fraction) and intensities (restriction spectrum imaging-FLAIR 90th percentile, restriction spectrum imaging-contrast-enhanced 90th percentile, ADC-FLAIR 10th percentile, ADC-contrast-enhanced 10th percentile) within the contrast-enhanced and FLAIR hyperintensity VOIs were calculated. The association of diffusion imaging metrics, contrast-enhanced volume, and FLAIR hyperintensity volume with progression-free survival and overall survival was evaluated by using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Among the diffusion metrics, restriction spectrum imaging-FLAIR volume fraction was the strongest prognostic metric of progression-free survival (P = .036) and overall survival (P = .007) in a multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis, with higher values indicating earlier progression and shorter survival. Restriction spectrum imaging-FLAIR 90th percentile was also associated with overall survival (P = .043), with higher intensities, indicating shorter survival. None of the ADC metrics were associated with progression-free survival/overall survival. Contrast-enhanced volume exhibited a trend toward significance for overall survival (P = .063). CONCLUSIONS: Restriction spectrum imaging-derived cellularity in FLAIR hyperintensity regions may be a more robust prognostic marker than ADC and conventional imaging for early progression and poorer survival in patients with glioblastoma. However, future studies with larger samples are needed to explore its predictive ability.

Validation of data quality in the Swedish National Register for Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Swedish National Register for Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer (NREV) was launched in 2006. Data are reported at diagnosis (diagnostic survey), at the time of surgery (surgical survey) and at first outpatient follow-up (follow-up survey). The aim of this study was to evaluate data originating from NREV in terms of comparability, completeness, accuracy and timeliness. METHODS: Coding routines were compared with international standards and completeness was evaluated by means of a 5-year (2009-2013) comparison with mandatory national registers. Validity was tested by comparison with reabstracted data from source medical records in 400 patients chosen randomly with stratification for hospital size and catchment area population. Timeliness of registration was described. RESULTS: Coding routines followed national and international guidelines. Compared with the Swedish Cancer Registry from 2009 to 2013, 6069 (95·5 per cent) of 6354 patients were registered in NREV at the time of data extraction. Of 60 variables investigated, 10 966 of 12 035 original entries were correct in the reabstraction, resulting in an exact agreement of 91·1 per cent in the register. There were 782 (6·5 per cent) incorrect and 287 (2·4 per cent) missing entries. Median time to registration was 3·9, 3·4 and 4·1 months for diagnostic, surgical and follow-up surveys respectively. CONCLUSION: NREV has reached a position with good coverage of those with the relevant diagnoses, and contains comparable and valid data. Quality data on each variable are available. Timeliness is an area with potential for improvement.