Literature DB >> 30309858

Deep Learning to Distinguish Recalled but Benign Mammography Images in Breast Cancer Screening.

Sarah S Aboutalib1, Aly A Mohamed2, Wendie A Berg2,3, Margarita L Zuley2,3, Jules H Sumkin2,3, Shandong Wu4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: False positives in digital mammography screening lead to high recall rates, resulting in unnecessary medical procedures to patients and health care costs. This study aimed to investigate the revolutionary deep learning methods to distinguish recalled but benign mammography images from negative exams and those with malignancy. EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGN: Deep learning convolutional neural network (CNN) models were constructed to classify mammography images into malignant (breast cancer), negative (breast cancer free), and recalled-benign categories. A total of 14,860 images of 3,715 patients from two independent mammography datasets: Full-Field Digital Mammography Dataset (FFDM) and a digitized film dataset, Digital Dataset of Screening Mammography (DDSM), were used in various settings for training and testing the CNN models. The ROC curve was generated and the AUC was calculated as a metric of the classification accuracy.
RESULTS: Training and testing using only the FFDM dataset resulted in AUC ranging from 0.70 to 0.81. When the DDSM dataset was used, AUC ranged from 0.77 to 0.96. When datasets were combined for training and testing, AUC ranged from 0.76 to 0.91. When pretrained on a large nonmedical dataset and DDSM, the models showed consistent improvements in AUC ranging from 0.02 to 0.05 (all P > 0.05), compared with pretraining only on the nonmedical dataset.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that automatic deep learning CNN methods can identify nuanced mammographic imaging features to distinguish recalled-benign images from malignant and negative cases, which may lead to a computerized clinical toolkit to help reduce false recalls. ©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30309858      PMCID: PMC6297117          DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-1115

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  20 in total

Review 1.  Mammography and computerized decision systems: a review.

Authors:  Antônio C Roque; Túlio C S S André
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 5.691

2.  Representation learning for mammography mass lesion classification with convolutional neural networks.

Authors:  John Arevalo; Fabio A González; Raúl Ramos-Pollán; Jose L Oliveira; Miguel Angel Guevara Lopez
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 5.428

3.  Does diagnostic accuracy in mammography depend on radiologists' experience?

Authors:  J G Elmore; C K Wells; D H Howard
Journal:  J Womens Health       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 2.681

Review 4.  Deep learning.

Authors:  Yann LeCun; Yoshua Bengio; Geoffrey Hinton
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Authors:  Albert L Siu
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach.

Authors:  E R DeLong; D M DeLong; D L Clarke-Pearson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Pan-Canadian study of mammography screening and mortality from breast cancer.

Authors:  Andrew Coldman; Norm Phillips; Christine Wilson; Kathleen Decker; Anna M Chiarelli; Jacques Brisson; Bin Zhang; Jennifer Payne; Gregory Doyle; Rukshanda Ahmad
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-10-01       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital Mammography: Outcomes Analysis From 3 Years of Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Elizabeth S McDonald; Andrew Oustimov; Susan P Weinstein; Marie B Synnestvedt; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 31.777

9.  Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography?

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Carl J D'Orsi; Valerie P Jackson; Lawrence W Bassett; Craig A Beam; Rebecca S Lewis; Philip E Crewson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. New results from the Swedish Two-County Trial.

Authors:  L Tabar; G Fagerberg; H H Chen; S W Duffy; C R Smart; A Gad; R A Smith
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1995-05-15       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  25 in total

1.  Inaccurate Labels in Weakly-Supervised Deep Learning: Automatic Identification and Correction and Their Impact on Classification Performance.

Authors:  Degan Hao; Lei Zhang; Jules Sumkin; Aly Mohamed; Shandong Wu
Journal:  IEEE J Biomed Health Inform       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 5.772

2.  Deep Learning Pre-training Strategy for Mammogram Image Classification: an Evaluation Study.

Authors:  Kadie Clancy; Sarah Aboutalib; Aly Mohamed; Jules Sumkin; Shandong Wu
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 3.  AI-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD): the latest review to read first.

Authors:  Hiroshi Fujita
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2020-01-02

4.  Can AI Help Make Screening Mammography "Lean"?

Authors:  Despina Kontos; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-08-06       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  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

6.  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

Review 7.  Artificial Intelligence for Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Concepts and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Krzysztof J Geras; Ritse M Mann; Linda Moy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Susan G. Komen Big Data for Breast Cancer Initiative: How Patient Advocacy Organizations Can Facilitate Using Big Data to Improve Patient Outcomes.

Authors:  Jerome Jourquin; Stephanie Birkey Reffey; Cheryl Jernigan; Mia Levy; Glendon Zinser; Kimberly Sabelko; Jennifer Pietenpol; George Sledge
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2019-09-12

9.  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

10.  Application of deep learning in the detection of breast lesions with four different breast densities.

Authors:  Hongmei Li; Jing Ye; Hao Liu; Yichuan Wang; Binbin Shi; Juan Chen; Aiping Kong; Qing Xu; Junhui Cai
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 4.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.