PURPOSE: The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon was developed to standardize mammographic reporting to assess cancer risk and facilitate the decision to biopsy. Because of substantial interobserver variability in the application of the BI-RADS lexicon, the decision to biopsy varies greatly and results in overdiagnosis and excessive biopsies. The false-positive rate from mammograms is estimated to be 7% to approximately 10% overall, but within the BI-RADS 4 category, it is greater than 70%. Therefore, we developed the Breast Cancer Risk Calculator (BRISK) to target a well-characterized and specific patient subgroup (BI-RADS 4) rather than a broad heterogeneous group in assessing breast cancer risk. METHODS: BRISK provides a novel precise risk assessment model to reduce overdiagnosis and unnecessary biopsies. It was developed by applying natural language processing and deep learning methods on 5,147 patient records archived in the Houston Methodist systemwide data warehouse from 2006 to May 2015, including imaging and pathology reports, mammographic images, and patient demographics. Key characteristics for BI-RADS 4 patients were collected and computed to output an index measure for biopsy recommendation that is clinically relevant and informative and improves upon the traditional BI-RADS 4 scores. RESULTS: For the validation set, we assessed data from 1,247 BI-RADS 4 patients, including mammographic images and medical reports. The BRISK model sensitivity to predict malignancy was 100%, whereas the specificity was 74%. The total accuracy of our implemented model in BRISK was 81%. Overall area under the curve was 0.93. CONCLUSION: BRISK for abnormal mammogram uses integrative artificial intelligence technology and has demonstrated high sensitivity in the prediction of malignancy. Prospective evaluation is under way and can lead to improvement in patient-physician engagement in making informed decisions with regard to biopsy.
PURPOSE: The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon was developed to standardize mammographic reporting to assess cancer risk and facilitate the decision to biopsy. Because of substantial interobserver variability in the application of the BI-RADS lexicon, the decision to biopsy varies greatly and results in overdiagnosis and excessive biopsies. The false-positive rate from mammograms is estimated to be 7% to approximately 10% overall, but within the BI-RADS 4 category, it is greater than 70%. Therefore, we developed the Breast Cancer Risk Calculator (BRISK) to target a well-characterized and specific patient subgroup (BI-RADS 4) rather than a broad heterogeneous group in assessing breast cancer risk. METHODS: BRISK provides a novel precise risk assessment model to reduce overdiagnosis and unnecessary biopsies. It was developed by applying natural language processing and deep learning methods on 5,147 patient records archived in the Houston Methodist systemwide data warehouse from 2006 to May 2015, including imaging and pathology reports, mammographic images, and patient demographics. Key characteristics for BI-RADS 4 patients were collected and computed to output an index measure for biopsy recommendation that is clinically relevant and informative and improves upon the traditional BI-RADS 4 scores. RESULTS: For the validation set, we assessed data from 1,247 BI-RADS 4 patients, including mammographic images and medical reports. The BRISK model sensitivity to predict malignancy was 100%, whereas the specificity was 74%. The total accuracy of our implemented model in BRISK was 81%. Overall area under the curve was 0.93. CONCLUSION: BRISK for abnormal mammogram uses integrative artificial intelligence technology and has demonstrated high sensitivity in the prediction of malignancy. Prospective evaluation is under way and can lead to improvement in patient-physician engagement in making informed decisions with regard to biopsy.
Authors: Michael Tran Duong; Andreas M Rauschecker; Jeffrey D Rudie; Po-Hao Chen; Tessa S Cook; R Nick Bryan; Suyash Mohan Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Tiancheng He; Joy Nolte Fong; Linda W Moore; Chika F Ezeana; David Victor; Mukul Divatia; Matthew Vasquez; R Mark Ghobrial; Stephen T C Wong Journal: Comput Med Imaging Graph Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Adam Spandorfer; Cody Branch; Puneet Sharma; Pooyan Sahbaee; U Joseph Schoepf; James G Ravenel; John W Nance Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2019-09-23