Back

Creation of synthetic contrast-enhanced computed tomography images using deep neural networks to screen for renal cell carcinoma

Sassa, N.; Kameya, Y.; Takahashi, T.; Matsukawa, Y.; Majima, T.; Tsuruta, K.; Kobayashi, I.; Kajikawa, K.; Kawanishi, H.; Kurosu, H.; Yamagiwa, S.; Takahashi, M.; Hotta, K.; Yamada, K.; Yamamoto, T.

2022-01-12 urology
10.1101/2022.01.12.22269120 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesTo elucidate if synthetic contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT) images created from plain CT images using deep neural networks (DNN) could be used for screening, clinical diagnosis, and postoperative follow-up of small-diameter renal tumors by comparing the concordance rate between real and synthetic CECT images and the diagnoses according to 10 urologists. MethodsThis retrospective, multicenter study included 155 patients (artificial intelligence training cohort [n=99], validation cohort [n=56]) who underwent surgery for small-diameter ([&le;]40 mm) renal tumors, with the pathological diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma, during 2010-2020. Preoperatively, dynamic plain CT and CECT images were obtained. We created a learned DNN using pix2pix. We examined the quality of the synthetic CECT images created using this DNN and compared them with real CECT images using the zero-mean normalized cross-correlation parameter. We assessed concordance rates between real and synthetic images and diagnoses according to 10 urologists by creating a receiver operating characteristic curve and calculating the area under the curve (AUC). ResultsThe synthetic CECT images were highly concordant with the real CECT images, regardless of the existence or morphology of the renal tumor. Regarding the concordance rate, a greater AUC was obtained with synthetic CECT (AUC=0.892) than with only CT (AUC=0.720; p<0.001). ConclusionsThis study is the first to use DNN to create a high-quality synthetic CECT image that was highly concordant with a real CECT image. Synthetic CECT images could be used for urological diagnoses and clinical screening.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.4%
2
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.3%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.5%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 8%
8.7%
50% of probability mass above
5
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.1%
6
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
7
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.0%
8
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
9
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.5%
10
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.5%
11
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
12
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
13
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
14
Journal of Pathology Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
15
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
16
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
17
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
18
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.3%
19
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
20
Bioengineering
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
21
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
22
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%
23
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%