Purpose: Around 30% of PDAC less than 2-cm tend to go undetected on CT due to their subtle imaging signatures. Automated detection of PDAC using AI represents an opportunity to augment physician expertise and to improve outcomes through early detection of PDAC. Our purpose was to develop a 3D-CNN for fully automated detection of PDAC and to further evaluate the impact of inclusion of pancreas segmentation on the accuracy of this 3D-CNN. Methods: A Medical Imaging Data Readiness Scale (MIDaR) level A dataset (portal venous phase CTs, slice thickness ≤ 3.75 mm) of 466 treatment-naïve biopsy-proven PDAC and 1994 subjects with normal pancreas was created after exclusion of CTs with suboptimal image quality or biliary stents. Volumetric pancreas and tumor segmentations on CTs were done by two radiologists using 3D Slicer. A total of 370 CTs with PDAC and 370 CTs with normal pancreas were randomly selected for separate training and validation sets, and 396 CTs (96 CTs with PDAC and 300 CTs with normal pancreas) were utilized for testing. Two separate 3D-CNNs were trained. A three-stage bounding-box-only model (A): stage 1 was based on a UNET-like architecture and localized the pancreas on CT with a bounding box; stage 2 utilized an Inception ResNet architecture and classified each slice through the pancreas into PDAC vs. normal; and stage 3 utilized the output of stage 2 to generate final classification for a given CT. Conversely, a four-stage pancreas segmentation-based model (B) included stage 1 of model A followed by an additional stage of automated pancreas and tumor segmentation (stage 2), classification of each slice through the pancreas into PDAC vs. normal (stage 3) and, finally, generation of final classification score (stage 4) for a given CT. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the two models were compared on the test set. Results: Mean (SD) PDAC diameter in the test set was 1.1 (0.43) cm. Model A (three-stage bounding-box-only) correctly classified 305 (77%) out of 396 CTs from the test set into PDAC vs. normal. It incorrectly classified 12/96 (12.5%) CTs with PDAC as normal and 79/300 (26%) normal CTs as PDAC. AUROC for model A was 0.85. Model B (four-stage pancreas segmentation-based) correctly classified 351 (88%) out of 396 CTs. It incorrectly classified 13/96 (13.5%) CTs with PDAC as normal and 32/300 (10.7%) normal CTs as PDAC. AUROC for model B was 0.94. AUROC for model B was significantly higher than model A (p<0.005). Conclusion: A 3D-CNN can detect small PDAC with high accuracy using automated localization of pancreas with a bounding box without relying on separate pancreas segmentation. Inclusion of an additional automated pancreas segmentation step reduced false positives with consequent incremental gain in the model’s accuracy. Prospective validation and subsequent integration of such models into clinical workflows has the potential to reduce inadvertent errors in detection of subtle or small PDAC on standard-of-care CT scans.

Citation Format: Anurima Patra, Korfiatis Panagiotis, Garima Suman, Ananya Panda, Sushil Kumar Garg, Ajit Goenka. Automated detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) on CT scans using artificial intelligence (AI): Impact of inclusion of automated pancreas segmentation on the accuracy of 3D-convolutional neural network (CNN) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Special Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging; 2021 Jan 13-14. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2021;27(5_Suppl):Abstract nr PO-084.