Literature DB >> 30076083

Transfer Learning From Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Diagnosis: A Comparison of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Full-Field Digital Mammography.

Kayla Mendel1, Hui Li2, Deepa Sheth2, Maryellen Giger2.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: With the growing adoption of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in breast cancer screening, we compare the performance of deep learning computer-aided diagnosis on DBT images to that of conventional full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we retrospectively collected FFDM and DBT images of 78 biopsy-proven lesions from 76 patients. A region of interest was selected for each lesion on FFDM, synthesized 2D, and DBT key slice images. Features were extracted from each lesion using a pretrained convolutional neural network (CNN) and served as input to a support vector machine classifier trained in the task of predicting likelihood of malignancy.
RESULTS: From receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of all 78 lesions, the synthesized 2D image performed best in both the cradiocaudal view (area under the ROC curve [AUC] = 0.81, SE = 0.05) and mediolateral oblique view (AUC = 0.88, SE = 0.04) in the task of lesion characterization. When cradiocaudal and mediolateral oblique data of each lesion were merged through soft voting, DBT key slice image performed best (AUC = 0.89, SE = 0.04). When only masses and architectural distortions (ARDs) were considered, DBT performed significantly better than FFDM (p = 0.024).
CONCLUSION: DBT performed significantly better than FFDM in the merged view classification of mass and ARD lesions. The increased performance suggests that the information extracted by the CNN from DBT images may be more relevant to lesion malignancy status than the information extracted from FFDM images. Therefore, this study provides supporting evidence for the efficacy of computer-aided diagnosis on DBT in the evaluation of mass and ARD lesions.
Copyright © 2018 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Computer-aided diagnosis; Convolutional neural networks; Deep learning; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Mammography

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30076083      PMCID: PMC6355376          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2018.06.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  26 in total

1.  Computerized mass detection for digital breast tomosynthesis directly from the projection images.

Authors:  I Reiser; R M Nishikawa; M L Giger; T Wu; E A Rafferty; R Moore; D B Kopans
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 2.  Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications.

Authors:  Jeong Mi Park; Edmund A Franken; Megha Garg; Laurie L Fajardo; Loren T Niklason
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 5.333

3.  Mammographic appearance of nonpalpable breast cancer reflects pathologic characteristics.

Authors:  Csaba Gajdos; Paul Ian Tartter; Ira J Bleiweiss; George Hermann; John de Csepel; Alison Estabrook; Alfred W Rademaker
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study.

Authors:  David Gur; Gordon S Abrams; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; Ronald L Perrin; Grace Y Rathfon; Jules H Sumkin; Margarita L Zuley; Andriy I Bandos
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 5.  Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature.

Authors:  Jay A Baker; Joseph Y Lo
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Mass detection in reconstructed digital breast tomosynthesis volumes with a computer-aided detection system trained on 2D mammograms.

Authors:  Guido van Schie; Matthew G Wallis; Karin Leifland; Mats Danielsson; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  M J Michell; A Iqbal; R K Wasan; D R Evans; C Peacock; C P Lawinski; A Douiri; R Wilson; P Whelehan
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 2.350

8.  A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Mutual information-based template matching scheme for detection of breast masses: from mammography to digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Maciej A Mazurowski; Joseph Y Lo; Brian P Harrawood; Georgia D Tourassi
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2011-05-01       Impact factor: 6.317

10.  A deep feature fusion methodology for breast cancer diagnosis demonstrated on three imaging modality datasets.

Authors:  Natalia Antropova; Benjamin Q Huynh; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-08-12       Impact factor: 4.071

View more
  22 in total

1.  Reviewing Machine Learning and Image Processing Based Decision-Making Systems for Breast Cancer Imaging.

Authors:  Hasnae Zerouaoui; Ali Idri
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 4.460

2.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: integration of image modalities enhances deep learning-based breast mass classification.

Authors:  Xin Li; Genggeng Qin; Qiang He; Lei Sun; Hui Zeng; Zilong He; Weiguo Chen; Xin Zhen; Linghong Zhou
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-11-05       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  CAD and AI for breast cancer-recent development and challenges.

Authors:  Heang-Ping Chan; Ravi K Samala; Lubomir M Hadjiiski
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  [Establishment of a deep feature-based classification model for distinguishing benign and malignant breast tumors on full-filed digital mammography].

Authors:  Cuixia Liang; Mingqiang Li; Zhaoying Bian; Wenbing Lv; Dong Zeng; Jianhua Ma
Journal:  Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao       Date:  2019-01-30

5.  Improving mammography lesion classification by optimal fusion of handcrafted and deep transfer learning features.

Authors:  Meredith A Jones; Rowzat Faiz; Yuchen Qiu; Bin Zheng
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2022-02-21       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Toward understanding deep learning classification of anatomic sites: lessons from the development of a CBCT projection classifier.

Authors:  Juan P Cruz-Bastida; Erik Pearson; Hania Al-Hallaq
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2022-07-25

7.  Comparison of Breast MRI Tumor Classification Using Human-Engineered Radiomics, Transfer Learning From Deep Convolutional Neural Networks, and Fusion Methods.

Authors:  Heather M Whitney; Hui Li; Yu Ji; Peifang Liu; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  Proc IEEE Inst Electr Electron Eng       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 10.961

8.  Generalization error analysis for deep convolutional neural network with transfer learning in breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Ravi K Samala; Heang-Ping Chan; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Mark A Helvie; Caleb D Richter
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2020-05-11       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 9.  Machine Meets Biology: a Primer on Artificial Intelligence in Cardiology and Cardiac Imaging.

Authors:  Matthew E Dilsizian; Eliot L Siegel
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2018-10-18       Impact factor: 2.931

10.  Deep learning modeling using normal mammograms for predicting breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Dooman Arefan; Aly A Mohamed; Wendie A Berg; Margarita L Zuley; Jules H Sumkin; Shandong Wu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2019-11-19       Impact factor: 4.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.