Advertisement

Deep Interactive Learning: An Efficient Labeling Approach for Deep Learning-Based Osteosarcoma Treatment Response Assessment

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12265)

Abstract

Osteosarcoma is the most common malignant primary bone tumor. Standard treatment includes pre-operative chemotherapy followed by surgical resection. The response to treatment as measured by ratio of necrotic tumor area to overall tumor area is a known prognostic factor for overall survival. This assessment is currently done manually by pathologists by looking at glass slides under the microscope which may not be reproducible due to its subjective nature. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) can be used for automated segmentation of viable and necrotic tumor on osteosarcoma whole slide images. One bottleneck for supervised learning is that large amounts of accurate annotations are required for training which is a time-consuming and expensive process. In this paper, we describe Deep Interactive Learning (DIaL) as an efficient labeling approach for training CNNs. After an initial labeling step is done, annotators only need to correct mislabeled regions from previous segmentation predictions to improve the CNN model until the satisfactory predictions are achieved. Our experiments show that our CNN model trained by only 7 h of annotation using DIaL can successfully estimate ratios of necrosis within expected inter-observer variation rate for non-standardized manual surgical pathology task.

Keywords

Computational pathology Interactive learning Osteosarcoma 

References

  1. 1.
    Arunachalam, H.B., et al.: Viable and necrotic tumor assessment from whole slide images of osteosarcoma using machine-learning and deep-learning models. PLoS ONE 14(4), e0210706 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bandi, P., et al.: From detection of individual metastases to classification of lymph node status at the patient level: the CAMELYON17 challenge. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 38(2), 550–560 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bankhead, P., et al.: QuPath: open source software for digital pathology image analysis. Sci. Rep. 7, 16878 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berg, S., et al.: ilastik: interactive machine learning for (bio)image analysis. Nat. Methods 16, 1226–1232 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bokhorst, J.M., et al.: Learning from sparsely annotated data for semantic segmentation in histopathology images. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Medical Imaging with Deep Learning, pp. 84–91 (2019)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breiman, L.: Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45(1), 5–32 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ehteshami Bejnordi, B., et al.: Diagnostic assessment of deep learning algorithms for detection of lymph node metastases in women with breast cancer. JAMA 318(22), 2199–2210 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fails, J.A., Olsen, D.R.: Interactive machine learning. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 39–45 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fu, C., et al.: Nuclei segmentation of fluorescence microscopy images using convolutional neural networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, pp. 704–708 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fuchs, T.J., Buhmann, J.M.: Computational pathology: challenges and promises for tissue analysis. Comput. Med. Imaging Graph. 35(7), 515–530 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glorot. X., Bengio, Y.: Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp. 249–256 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ho, D.J., et al.: Deep multi-magnification networks for multi-class breast cancer image segmentation. arXiv preprint, arXiv:1910.13042 (2019)
  13. 13.
    Huvos, A.G., Rosen, G., Marcove, R.C.: Primary osteogenic sarcoma: pathologic aspects in 20 patients after treatment with chemotherapy en bloc resection, and prosthetic bone replacement. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 101(1), 14–18 (1977)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee, B., Paeng, K.: A robust and effective approach towards accurate metastasis detection and pN-stage classification in breast cancer. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp. 841–850 (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Long, J., Shelhamer, E., Darrell, T.: Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 3431–3440 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ottaviani, G., Jaffe, N.: The epidemiology of osteosarcoma. Pediatric and Adolescent Osteosarcoma 152, 3–13 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paszke, A., et al.: PyTorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. In: Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 8024–8035 (2019)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U-Net: convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp. 234–241 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosen, G., et al.: Preoperative chemotherapy for osteogenic sarcoma: selection of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy based on the response of the primary tumor to preoperative chemotherapy. Cancer 49(6), 1221–1230 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schüffler, P.J., Fuchs, T.J., Ong, C.S., Wild, P., Buhmann, J.M.: TMARKER: a free software toolkit for histopathological cell counting and staining estimation. J. Pathol. Inform. 4(2), S2 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sommer, C., Straehle, C., Koethe, U., Hamprecht, F. A.: ilastik: interactive learning and segmentation toolkit. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, pp. 230–233 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Srinidhi, C. L., Ciga, O., Martel, A. L.: Deep neural network models for computational histopathology: a survey. arXiv preprint, arXiv:1912.12378 (2019)
  23. 23.
    Viray, H., et al.: A prospective, multi-institutional diagnostic trial to determine pathologist accuracy in estimation of percentage of malignant cells. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 137(11), 1545–1549 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang, D., Khosla, A., Gargeya, R., Irshad, H., Beck, A. H.: Deep learning for identifying metastatic breast cancer. arXiv preprint, arXiv:1606.05718 (2016)

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Weill Cornell Graduate School for Medical SciencesNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations