Literature DB >> 33432076

Deep learning-based computer-aided diagnosis in screening breast ultrasound to reduce false-positive diagnoses.

Soo -Yeon Kim1, Yunhee Choi2, Eun -Kyung Kim3, Boo-Kyung Han4, Jung Hyun Yoon3, Ji Soo Choi4, Jung Min Chang5.   

Abstract

A major limitation of screening breast ultrasound (US) is a substantial number of false-positive biopsy. This study aimed to develop a deep learning-based computer-aided diagnosis (DL-CAD)-based diagnostic model to improve the differential diagnosis of screening US-detected breast masses and reduce false-positive diagnoses. In this multicenter retrospective study, a diagnostic model was developed based on US images combined with information obtained from the DL-CAD software for patients with breast masses detected using screening US; the data were obtained from two hospitals (development set: 299 imaging studies in 2015). Quantitative morphologic features were obtained from the DL-CAD software, and the clinical findings were collected. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to establish a DL-CAD-based nomogram, and the model was externally validated using data collected from 164 imaging studies conducted between 2018 and 2019 at another hospital. Among the quantitative morphologic features extracted from DL-CAD, a higher irregular shape score (P = .018) and lower parallel orientation score (P = .007) were associated with malignancy. The nomogram incorporating the DL-CAD-based quantitative features, radiologists' Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS) final assessment (P = .014), and patient age (P < .001) exhibited good discrimination in both the development and validation cohorts (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.89 and 0.87). Compared with the radiologists' BI-RADS final assessment, the DL-CAD-based nomogram lowered the false-positive rate (68% vs. 31%, P < .001 in the development cohort; 97% vs. 45% P < .001 in the validation cohort) without affecting the sensitivity (98% vs. 93%, P = .317 in the development cohort; each 100% in the validation cohort). In conclusion, the proposed model showed good performance for differentiating screening US-detected breast masses, thus demonstrating a potential to reduce unnecessary biopsies.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33432076      PMCID: PMC7801712          DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-79880-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  29 in total

Review 1.  Screening ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in women with mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  John R Scheel; Janie M Lee; Brian L Sprague; Christoph I Lee; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-06-21       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon for US: interobserver agreement for assessment of breast masses.

Authors:  Nouf Abdullah; Benoît Mesurolle; Mona El-Khoury; Ellen Kao
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Nonpalpable BI-RADS 4 breast lesions: sonographic findings and pathology correlation.

Authors:  Eda Elverici; Ayşe Nurdan Barça; Hafize Aktaş; Arzu Özsoy; Betül Zengin; Mehtap Çavuşoğlu; Levent Araz
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2015 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.630

4.  Performance of Screening Ultrasonography as an Adjunct to Screening Mammography in Women Across the Spectrum of Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Robert F Arao; Brian L Sprague; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman; Robert A Smith; Louise M Henderson; Garth H Rauscher; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 21.873

5.  A deep learning framework for supporting the classification of breast lesions in ultrasound images.

Authors:  Seokmin Han; Ho-Kyung Kang; Ja-Yeon Jeong; Moon-Ho Park; Wonsik Kim; Won-Chul Bang; Yeong-Kyeong Seong
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Automated classification of focal breast lesions according to S-detect: validation and role as a clinical and teaching tool.

Authors:  Mattia Di Segni; Valeria de Soccio; Vito Cantisani; Giacomo Bonito; Antonello Rubini; Gabriele Di Segni; Sveva Lamorte; Valentina Magri; Corrado De Vito; Giuseppe Migliara; Tommaso Vincenzo Bartolotta; Alessio Metere; Laura Giacomelli; Carlo de Felice; Ferdinando D'Ambrosio
Journal:  J Ultrasound       Date:  2018-04-21

7.  Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Clinical application of S-Detect to breast masses on ultrasonography: a study evaluating the diagnostic performance and agreement with a dedicated breast radiologist.

Authors:  Kiwook Kim; Mi Kyung Song; Eun-Kyung Kim; Jung Hyun Yoon
Journal:  Ultrasonography       Date:  2016-04-14

9.  Application of computer-aided diagnosis in breast ultrasound interpretation: improvements in diagnostic performance according to reader experience.

Authors:  Ji-Hye Choi; Bong Joo Kang; Ji Eun Baek; Hyun Sil Lee; Sung Hun Kim
Journal:  Ultrasonography       Date:  2017-08-14

10.  Diagnosis of Thyroid Nodules: Performance of a Deep Learning Convolutional Neural Network Model vs. Radiologists.

Authors:  Vivian Y Park; Kyunghwa Han; Yeong Kyeong Seong; Moon Ho Park; Eun-Kyung Kim; Hee Jung Moon; Jung Hyun Yoon; Jin Young Kwak
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-11-28       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  8 in total

1.  Bio-Imaging-Based Machine Learning Algorithm for Breast Cancer Detection.

Authors:  Sadia Safdar; Muhammad Rizwan; Thippa Reddy Gadekallu; Abdul Rehman Javed; Mohammad Khalid Imam Rahmani; Khurram Jawad; Surbhi Bhatia
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-03

2.  Predicting Breast Tumor Malignancy Using Deep ConvNeXt Radiomics and Quality-Based Score Pooling in Ultrasound Sequences.

Authors:  Mohamed A Hassanien; Vivek Kumar Singh; Domenec Puig; Mohamed Abdel-Nasser
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-22

3.  Dual-Intended Deep Learning Model for Breast Cancer Diagnosis in Ultrasound Imaging.

Authors:  Nicolle Vigil; Madeline Barry; Arya Amini; Moulay Akhloufi; Xavier P V Maldague; Lan Ma; Lei Ren; Bardia Yousefi
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 6.575

4.  Artificial Intelligence for Breast Ultrasound: Will It Impact Radiologists' Accuracy?

Authors:  Manisha Bahl
Journal:  J Breast Imaging       Date:  2021-04-26

Review 5.  Deep learning in breast imaging.

Authors:  Arka Bhowmik; Sarah Eskreis-Winkler
Journal:  BJR Open       Date:  2022-05-13

6.  A deep learning-based diagnostic pattern for ultrasound breast imaging: can it reduce unnecessary biopsy?

Authors:  Yi-Cheng Zhu; Jian-Guo Sheng; Shu-Hao Deng; Quan Jiang; Jia Guo
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2022-09

7.  Ultrasonographic morphological characteristics determined using a deep learning-based computer-aided diagnostic system of breast cancer.

Authors:  Young Seon Kim; Seung Eun Lee; Jung Min Chang; Soo-Yeon Kim; Young Kyung Bae
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 1.889

8.  Influence of the Computer-Aided Decision Support System Design on Ultrasound-Based Breast Cancer Classification.

Authors:  Zuzanna Anna Magnuska; Benjamin Theek; Milita Darguzyte; Moritz Palmowski; Elmar Stickeler; Volkmar Schulz; Fabian Kießling
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-06       Impact factor: 6.639

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.