Association Between Time Since Administration of Pegylated G-CSF (Pegfilgrastim) and Bone Marrow Uptake on FDG PET/CT: Determination of a Minimum Interval

Deep learning for [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-PET-CT classification in patients with lymphoma: a dual-centre retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

The rising global cancer burden has led to an increasing demand for imaging tests such as [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG)-PET-CT. To aid imaging specialists in dealing with high scan volumes, we aimed to train a deep learning artificial intelligence algorithm to classify [18F]FDG-PET-CT scans of patients with lymphoma with or without hypermetabolic tumour sites.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis we collected 16 583 [18F]FDG-PET-CTs of 5072 patients with lymphoma who had undergone PET-CT before or after treatment at the Memorial Sloa Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Using maximum intensity projection (MIP), three dimensional (3D) PET, and 3D CT data, our ResNet34-based deep learning model (Lymphoma Artificial Reader System [LARS]) for [18F]FDG-PET-CT binary classification (Deauville 1-3 vs 4-5), was trained on 80% of the dataset, and tested on 20% of this dataset. For external testing, 1000 [18F]FDG-PET-CTs were obtained from a second centre (Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria). Seven model variants were evaluated, including MIP-based LARS-avg (optimised for accuracy) and LARS-max (optimised for sensitivity), and 3D PET-CT-based LARS-ptct. Following expert curation, areas under the curve (AUCs), accuracies, sensitivities, and specificities were calculated.

FINDINGS

In the internal test cohort (3325 PET-CTs, 1012 patients), LARS-avg achieved an AUC of 0·949 (95% CI 0·942-0·956), accuracy of 0·890 (0·879-0·901), sensitivity of 0·868 (0·851-0·885), and specificity of 0·913 (0·899-0·925); LARS-max achieved an AUC of 0·949 (0·942-0·956), accuracy of 0·868 (0·858-0·879), sensitivity of 0·909 (0·896-0·924), and specificity of 0·826 (0·808-0·843); and LARS-ptct achieved an AUC of 0·939 (0·930-0·948), accuracy of 0·875 (0·864-0·887), sensitivity of 0·836 (0·817-0·855), and specificity of 0·915 (0·901-0·927). In the external test cohort (1000 PET-CTs, 503 patients), LARS-avg achieved an AUC of 0·953 (0·938-0·966), accuracy of 0·907 (0·888-0·925), sensitivity of 0·874 (0·843-0·904), and specificity of 0·949 (0·921-0·960); LARS-max achieved an AUC of 0·952 (0·937-0·965), accuracy of 0·898 (0·878-0·916), sensitivity of 0·899 (0·871-0·926), and specificity of 0·897 (0·871-0·922); and LARS-ptct achieved an AUC of 0·932 (0·915-0·948), accuracy of 0·870 (0·850-0·891), sensitivity of 0·827 (0·793-0·863), and specificity of 0·913 (0·889-0·937).

INTERPRETATION

Deep learning accurately distinguishes between [18F]FDG-PET-CT scans of lymphoma patients with and without hypermetabolic tumour sites. Deep learning might therefore be potentially useful to rule out the presence of metabolically active disease in such patients, or serve as a second reader or decision support tool.

FUNDING

National Institutes of Health-National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support Grant.

FDG-PET findings associated with various medical procedures and treatments

[¹⁸F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) is a well-established modality with high sensitivity for the diagnosis and staging of oncologic patients. FDG is taken up by the glucose transporter of the cell membrane and becomes trapped within the cell. In addition to malignant neoplasms, active inflammatory lesions and some kinds of benign tumors also accumulate FDG. Moreover, the degree of uptake into normal organs and tissues depends on various physiological conditions, which is affected by various medical procedures, treatments, and drugs. To avoid misleading interpretations, it is important to recognize possible situations of unexpected abnormal accumulation that mimic tumor lesions. In this review, we present various FDG findings associated with surgical or medical procedures and treatments. Some findings reflect the expected physiological reaction to treatment, and some show inflammation due to prior procedures. Occasionally, FDG-PET visualizes other disorders that are unrelated to the malignancy, which may be associated with the adverse effects of certain drugs that the patient is taking. Careful review of medical records and detailed interviews of patients are thus necessary.