Literature DB >> 31845842

Comparison of a Deep Learning Risk Score and Standard Mammographic Density Score for Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.

Karin Dembrower1, Yue Liu1, Hossein Azizpour1, Martin Eklund1, Kevin Smith1, Peter Lindholm1, Fredrik Strand1.   

Abstract

Background Most risk prediction models for breast cancer are based on questionnaires and mammographic density assessments. By training a deep neural network, further information in the mammographic images can be considered. Purpose To develop a risk score that is associated with future breast cancer and compare it with density-based models. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, all women aged 40-74 years within the Karolinska University Hospital uptake area in whom breast cancer was diagnosed in 2013-2014 were included along with healthy control subjects. Network development was based on cases diagnosed from 2008 to 2012. The deep learning (DL) risk score, dense area, and percentage density were calculated for the earliest available digital mammographic examination for each woman. Logistic regression models were fitted to determine the association with subsequent breast cancer. False-negative rates were obtained for the DL risk score, age-adjusted dense area, and age-adjusted percentage density. Results A total of 2283 women, 278 of whom were later diagnosed with breast cancer, were evaluated. The age at mammography (mean, 55.7 years vs 54.6 years; P < .001), the dense area (mean, 38.2 cm2 vs 34.2 cm2; P < .001), and the percentage density (mean, 25.6% vs 24.0%; P < .001) were higher among women diagnosed with breast cancer than in those without a breast cancer diagnosis. The odds ratios and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) were higher for age-adjusted DL risk score than for dense area and percentage density: 1.56 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.48, 1.64; AUC, 0.65), 1.31 (95% CI: 1.24, 1.38; AUC, 0.60), and 1.18 (95% CI: 1.11, 1.25; AUC, 0.57), respectively (P < .001 for AUC). The false-negative rate was lower: 31% (95% CI: 29%, 34%), 36% (95% CI: 33%, 39%; P = .006), and 39% (95% CI: 37%, 42%; P < .001); this difference was most pronounced for more aggressive cancers. Conclusion Compared with density-based models, a deep neural network can more accurately predict which women are at risk for future breast cancer, with a lower false-negative rate for more aggressive cancers. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bahl in this issue.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31845842     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019190872

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  24 in total

Review 1.  Deep learning in breast radiology: current progress and future directions.

Authors:  William C Ou; Dogan Polat; Basak E Dogan
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Harnessing the Power of Deep Learning to Assess Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Manisha Bahl
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Breast cancer screening programs: does one risk fit all?

Authors:  Federica Pediconi; Francesca Galati
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2020-04

4.  Fully Automated Volumetric Breast Density Estimation from Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Aimilia Gastounioti; Lauren Pantalone; Christopher G Scott; Eric A Cohen; Fang F Wu; Stacey J Winham; Matthew R Jensen; Andrew D A Maidment; Celine M Vachon; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-09-14       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Deep Learning Predicts Interval and Screening-detected Cancer from Screening Mammograms: A Case-Case-Control Study in 6369 Women.

Authors:  Xun Zhu; Thomas K Wolfgruber; Lambert Leong; Matthew Jensen; Christopher Scott; Stacey Winham; Peter Sadowski; Celine Vachon; Karla Kerlikowske; John A Shepherd
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-09-07       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Evaluation of LIBRA Software for Fully Automated Mammographic Density Assessment in Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.

Authors:  Aimilia Gastounioti; Christine Damases Kasi; Christopher G Scott; Kathleen R Brandt; Matthew R Jensen; Carrie B Hruska; Fang F Wu; Aaron D Norman; Emily F Conant; Stacey J Winham; Karla Kerlikowske; Despina Kontos; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 7.  Artificial Intelligence: A Primer for Breast Imaging Radiologists.

Authors:  Manisha Bahl
Journal:  J Breast Imaging       Date:  2020-06-19

Review 8.  Assessing Risk of Breast Cancer: A Review of Risk Prediction Models.

Authors:  Geunwon Kim; Manisha Bahl
Journal:  J Breast Imaging       Date:  2021-02-19

9.  Dynamic Changes of Convolutional Neural Network-based Mammographic Breast Cancer Risk Score Among Women Undergoing Chemoprevention Treatment.

Authors:  Haley Manley; Simukayi Mutasa; Peter Chang; Elise Desperito; Katherine Crew; Richard Ha
Journal:  Clin Breast Cancer       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 3.225

10.  Computational Breast Anatomy Simulation Using Multi-Scale Perlin Noise.

Authors:  Bruno Barufaldi; Craig K Abbey; Miguel A Lago; Trevor L Vent; Raymond J Acciavatti; Predrag R Bakic; Andrew D A Maidment
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 10.048

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.