OBJECTIVE: To train a generic deep learning software (DLS) to classify breast cancer on ultrasound images and to compare its performance to human readers with variable breast imaging experience. METHODS: In this retrospective study, all breast ultrasound examinations from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 at our institution were reviewed. Patients with post-surgical scars, initially indeterminate, or malignant lesions with histological diagnoses or 2-year follow-up were included. The DLS was trained with 70% of the images, and the remaining 30% were used to validate the performance. Three readers with variable expertise also evaluated the validation set (radiologist, resident, medical student). Diagnostic accuracy was assessed with a receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: 82 patients with malignant and 550 with benign lesions were included. Time needed for training was 7 min (DLS). Evaluation time for the test data set were 3.7 s (DLS) and 28, 22 and 25 min for human readers (decreasing experience). Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed non-significant differences (p-values 0.45-0.47) in the area under the curve of 0.84 (DLS), 0.88 (experienced and intermediate readers) and 0.79 (inexperienced reader). CONCLUSION: DLS may aid diagnosing cancer on breast ultrasound images with an accuracy comparable to radiologists, and learns better and faster than a human reader with no prior experience. Further clinical trials with dedicated algorithms are warranted. Advances in knowledge: DLS can be trained classify cancer on breast ultrasound images high accuracy even with comparably few training cases. The fast evaluation speed makes real-time image analysis feasible.
OBJECTIVE: To train a generic deep learning software (DLS) to classify breast cancer on ultrasound images and to compare its performance to human readers with variable breast imaging experience. METHODS: In this retrospective study, all breast ultrasound examinations from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 at our institution were reviewed. Patients with post-surgical scars, initially indeterminate, or malignant lesions with histological diagnoses or 2-year follow-up were included. The DLS was trained with 70% of the images, and the remaining 30% were used to validate the performance. Three readers with variable expertise also evaluated the validation set (radiologist, resident, medical student). Diagnostic accuracy was assessed with a receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: 82 patients with malignant and 550 with benign lesions were included. Time needed for training was 7 min (DLS). Evaluation time for the test data set were 3.7 s (DLS) and 28, 22 and 25 min for human readers (decreasing experience). Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed non-significant differences (p-values 0.45-0.47) in the area under the curve of 0.84 (DLS), 0.88 (experienced and intermediate readers) and 0.79 (inexperienced reader). CONCLUSION: DLS may aid diagnosing cancer on breast ultrasound images with an accuracy comparable to radiologists, and learns better and faster than a human reader with no prior experience. Further clinical trials with dedicated algorithms are warranted. Advances in knowledge: DLS can be trained classify cancer on breast ultrasound images high accuracy even with comparably few training cases. The fast evaluation speed makes real-time image analysis feasible.
Authors: Christian F Baumgartner; Konstantinos Kamnitsas; Jacqueline Matthew; Tara P Fletcher; Sandra Smith; Lisa M Koch; Bernhard Kainz; Daniel Rueckert Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Nishant Uniyal; Hani Eskandari; Purang Abolmaesumi; Samira Sojoudi; Paula Gordon; Linda Warren; Robert N Rohling; Septimiu E Salcudean; Mehdi Moradi Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2014-10-24 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Elisabetta Giannotti; Sarah Vinnicombe; Kim Thomson; Dennis McLean; Colin Purdie; Lee Jordan; Andy Evans Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Alexander Ciritsis; Cristina Rossi; Matthias Eberhard; Magda Marcon; Anton S Becker; Andreas Boss Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 5.315