Background Differentiating pancreatic cancer (PC) from normal tissue by computer-aided diagnosis of EUS images were quite useful. The current study was designed to investigate the feasibility of using computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) techniques to extract EUS image parameters for the differential diagnosis of PC and chronic pancreatitis (CP). Methodology/Principal Findings This study recruited 262 patients with PC and 126 patients with CP. Typical EUS images were selected from the sample sets. Texture features were extracted from the region of interest using computer-based techniques. Then the distance between class algorithm and sequential forward selection (SFS) algorithm were used for a better combination of features; and, later, a support vector machine (SVM) predictive model was built, trained, and validated. Overall, 105 features of 9 categories were extracted from the EUS images for pattern classification. Of these features, the 16 were selected as a better combination of features. Then, SVM predictive model was built and trained. The total cases were randomly divided into a training set and a testing set. The training set was used to train the SVM, and the testing set was used to evaluate the performance of the SVM. After 200 trials of randomised experiments, the average accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, the positive and negative predictive values of pancreatic cancer were 94.2±0.1749%,96.25±0.4460%, 93.38±0.2076%, 92.21±0.4249% and 96.68±0.1471%, respectively. Conclusions/Significance Digital image processing and computer-aided EUS image differentiation technologies are highly accurate and non-invasive. This technology provides a kind of new and valuable diagnostic tool for the clinical determination of PC.
Fujita H, Uchiyama Y, Nakagawa T, Fukuoka D, Hatanaka Y, et al. (2008) Computer-aided diagnosis: the emerging of three CAD systems induced by Japanese health care needs. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 92: 238–248.
Zhang MM, Yang H, Jin ZD, Yu JG, Cai ZY, et al. (2010) Differential diagnosis of pancreatic cancer from normal tissue with digital imaging processing and pattern recognition based on a support vector machine of EUS images. Gastrointest Endosc 72: 978–985.
Eloubeidi MA, Jhala D, Chhieng DC, Chen VK, Eltoum I, et al. (2003) Yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy in patients with suspected pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer 99: 285–292.
Fritscher-Ravens A, Brand L, Knofel WT, Bobrowski C, Topalidis T, et al. (2002) Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for focal pancreatic lesions in patients with normal parenchyma and chronic pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 97: 2768–2775.
Horwhat JD, Paulson EK, McGrath K, Branch MS, Baillie J, et al. (2006) A randomized comparison of EUS-guided FNA versus CT or US-guided FNA for the evaluation of pancreatic mass lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 63: 966–975.
Van Holsbeke C, Van Calster B, Valentin L, Testa AC, Ferrazzi E, et al. (2007) External validation of mathematical models to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal tumors: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. Clin Cancer Res 13: 4440–4447.
Van Holsbeke C, Van Calster B, Testa AC, Domali E, Lu C, et al. (2009) Prospective internal validation of mathematical models to predict malignancy in adnexal masses: results from the international ovarian tumor analysis study. Clin Cancer Res 15: 684–691.
Garra BS, Krasner BH, Horii SC, Ascher S, Mun SK, et al. (1993) Improving the distinction between benign and malignant breast lesions: the value of sonographic texture analysis. Ultrason Imaging 15: 267–285.
Mavroforakis ME, Georgiou HV, Dimitropoulos N, Cavouras D, Theodoridis S (2006) Mammographic masses characterization based on localized texture and dataset fractal analysis using linear, neural and support vector machine classifiers. Artif Intell Med 37: 145–162.
Norton ID, Zheng Y, Wiersema MS, Greenleaf J, Clain JE, et al. (2001) Neural network analysis of EUS images to differentiate between pancreatic malignancy and pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 54: 625–629.