Literature DB >> 30746393

Prediction of reader estimates of mammographic density using convolutional neural networks.

Georgia V Ionescu1, Martin Fergie2, Michael Berks2,3, Elaine F Harkness2,4,5, Johan Hulleman3, Adam R Brentnall6, Jack Cuzick6, D Gareth Evans5,7,8, Susan M Astley2,4,5.   

Abstract

Mammographic density is an important risk factor for breast cancer. In recent research, percentage density assessed visually using visual analogue scales (VAS) showed stronger risk prediction than existing automated density measures, suggesting readers may recognize relevant image features not yet captured by hand-crafted algorithms. With deep learning, it may be possible to encapsulate this knowledge in an automatic method. We have built convolutional neural networks (CNN) to predict density VAS scores from full-field digital mammograms. The CNNs are trained using whole-image mammograms, each labeled with the average VAS score of two independent readers. Each CNN learns a mapping between mammographic appearance and VAS score so that at test time, they can predict VAS score for an unseen image. Networks were trained using 67,520 mammographic images from 16,968 women and for model selection we used a dataset of 73,128 images. Two case-control sets of contralateral mammograms of screen detected cancers and prior images of women with cancers detected subsequently, matched to controls on age, menopausal status, parity, HRT and BMI, were used for evaluating performance on breast cancer prediction. In the case-control sets, odd ratios of cancer in the highest versus lowest quintile of percentage density were 2.49 (95% CI: 1.59 to 3.96) for screen-detected cancers and 4.16 (2.53 to 6.82) for priors, with matched concordance indices of 0.587 (0.542 to 0.627) and 0.616 (0.578 to 0.655), respectively. There was no significant difference between reader VAS and predicted VAS for the prior test set (likelihood ratio chi square, p = 0.134 ). Our fully automated method shows promising results for cancer risk prediction and is comparable with human performance.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; deep learning; mammographic density; risk; visual analogue scales

Year:  2019        PMID: 30746393      PMCID: PMC6357906          DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.6.3.031405

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)        ISSN: 2329-4302


  24 in total

1.  The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities.

Authors:  J W Byng; N F Boyd; E Fishell; R A Jong; M J Yaffe
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  Norman F Boyd; Helen Guo; Lisa J Martin; Limei Sun; Jennifer Stone; Eve Fishell; Roberta A Jong; Greg Hislop; Anna Chiarelli; Salomon Minkin; Martin J Yaffe
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-01-18       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Automatic breast density segmentation: an integration of different approaches.

Authors:  Michiel G J Kallenberg; Mariëtte Lokate; Carla H van Gils; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-04-05       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  A concordance index for matched case-control studies with applications in cancer risk.

Authors:  Adam R Brentnall; Jack Cuzick; John Field; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 5.  Mammographic density-a review on the current understanding of its association with breast cancer.

Authors:  C W Huo; G L Chew; K L Britt; W V Ingman; M A Henderson; J L Hopper; E W Thompson
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Mammographic features of breast cancers at single reading with computer-aided detection and at double reading in a large multicenter prospective trial of computer-aided detection: CADET II.

Authors:  Jonathan J James; Fiona J Gilbert; Matthew G Wallis; Maureen G C Gillan; Susan M Astley; Caroline R M Boggis; Olorunsola F Agbaje; Adam R Brentnall; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  First results from the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS-I): a randomised prevention trial.

Authors:  J Cuzick; J Forbes; R Edwards; M Baum; S Cawthorn; A Coates; A Hamed; A Howell; T Powles
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-09-14       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  An automated approach for estimation of breast density.

Authors:  John J Heine; Michael J Carston; Christopher G Scott; Kathleen R Brandt; Fang-Fang Wu; Vernon Shane Pankratz; Thomas A Sellers; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case-control study of six alternative density assessment methods.

Authors:  Amanda Eng; Zoe Gallant; John Shepherd; Valerie McCormack; Jingmei Li; Mitch Dowsett; Sarah Vinnicombe; Steve Allen; Isabel dos-Santos-Silva
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2014-09-20       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  Assessing individual breast cancer risk within the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Program: a new paradigm for cancer prevention.

Authors:  D Gareth R Evans; Jane Warwick; Susan M Astley; Paula Stavrinos; Sarah Sahin; Sarah Ingham; Helen McBurney; Barbara Eckersley; Michelle Harvie; Mary Wilson; Ursula Beetles; Ruth Warren; Alan Hufton; Jamie C Sergeant; William G Newman; Iain Buchan; Jack Cuzick; Anthony Howell
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2012-05-11
View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Artificial intelligence and convolution neural networks assessing mammographic images: a narrative literature review.

Authors:  Dennis Jay Wong; Ziba Gandomkar; Wan-Jing Wu; Guijing Zhang; Wushuang Gao; Xiaoying He; Yunuo Wang; Warren Reed
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2020-03-05

2.  Long-Term Evaluation of Women Referred to a Breast Cancer Family History Clinic (Manchester UK 1987-2020).

Authors:  Anthony Howell; Ashu Gandhi; Sacha Howell; Mary Wilson; Anthony Maxwell; Susan Astley; Michelle Harvie; Mary Pegington; Lester Barr; Andrew Baildam; Elaine Harkness; Penelope Hopwood; Julie Wisely; Andrea Wilding; Rosemary Greenhalgh; Jenny Affen; Andrew Maurice; Sally Cole; Julia Wiseman; Fiona Lalloo; David P French; D Gareth Evans
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 6.639

3.  Medical image analysis based on deep learning approach.

Authors:  Muralikrishna Puttagunta; S Ravi
Journal:  Multimed Tools Appl       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 2.757

4.  An Intelligent Decision-Making Support System for the Detection and Staging of Prostate Cancer in Developing Countries.

Authors:  Jun Zhang; Zhigang Chen; Jia Wu; Kanghuai Liu
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2020-08-17       Impact factor: 2.238

5.  Mammographic density change in a cohort of premenopausal women receiving tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention over 5 years.

Authors:  Adam R Brentnall; Ruth Warren; Elaine F Harkness; Susan M Astley; Julia Wiseman; Jill Fox; Lynne Fox; Mikael Eriksson; Per Hall; Jack Cuzick; D Gareth Evans; Anthony Howell
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2020-09-29       Impact factor: 6.466

6.  Architectural Distortion-Based Digital Mammograms Classification Using Depth Wise Convolutional Neural Network.

Authors:  Khalil Ur Rehman; Jianqiang Li; Yan Pei; Anaa Yasin; Saqib Ali; Yousaf Saeed
Journal:  Biology (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-23
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.