| Autor: |
Feng Xu, Chuang Zhu, Zhihao Wang, Lei Zhang, Haifeng Gao, Zhenhai Ma, Yue Gao, Yang Guo, Xuewen Li, Yunzhao Luo, Mengxin Li, Guangqian Shen, He Liu, Yanshuang Li, Chao Zhang, Jianxiu Cui, Jie Li, Hongchuan Jiang, Jun Liu |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Rok vydání: |
2023 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Frontiers in Oncology, Vol 13 (2023) |
| Druh dokumentu: |
article |
| ISSN: |
2234-943X |
| DOI: |
10.3389/fonc.2023.1103145 |
| Popis: |
ObjectiveAs a common breast cancer-related complaint, pathological nipple discharge (PND) detected by ductoscopy is often missed diagnosed. Deep learning techniques have enabled great advances in clinical imaging but are rarely applied in breast cancer with PND. This study aimed to design and validate an Intelligent Ductoscopy for Breast Cancer Diagnostic System (IDBCS) for breast cancer diagnosis by analyzing real-time imaging data acquired by ductoscopy.Materials and methodsThe present multicenter, case-control trial was carried out in 6 hospitals in China. Images for consecutive patients, aged ≥18 years, with no previous ductoscopy, were obtained from the involved hospitals. All individuals with PND confirmed from breast lesions by ductoscopy were eligible. Images from Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital were randomly assigned (8:2) to the training (IDBCS development) and internal validation (performance evaluation of the IDBCS) datasets. Diagnostic performance was further assessed with internal and prospective validation datasets from Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital; further external validation was carried out with datasets from 5 primary care hospitals. Diagnostic accuracies, sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values for IDBCS and endoscopists (expert, competent, or trainee) in the detection of malignant lesions were obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method.ResultsTotally 11305 ductoscopy images in 1072 patients were utilized for developing and testing the IDBCS. Area under the curves (AUCs) in breast cancer detection were 0·975 (95%CI 0·899-0·998) and 0·954 (95%CI 0·925-0·975) in the internal validation and prospective datasets, respectively, and ranged between 0·922 (95%CI 0·866-0·960) and 0·965 (95%CI 0·892-0·994) in the 5 external validation datasets. The IDBCS had superior diagnostic accuracy compared with expert (0.912 [95%CI 0.839-0.959] vs 0.726 [0.672-0.775]; p |
| Databáze: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
