Literature DB >> 33504648

Toward robust mammography-based models for breast cancer risk.

Adam Yala1,2, Peter G Mikhael3,2, Fredrik Strand4,5, Gigin Lin6, Kevin Smith7,8, Yung-Liang Wan6, Leslie Lamb9, Kevin Hughes10, Constance Lehman9, Regina Barzilay3,2.   

Abstract

Improved breast cancer risk models enable targeted screening strategies that achieve earlier detection and less screening harm than existing guidelines. To bring deep learning risk models to clinical practice, we need to further refine their accuracy, validate them across diverse populations, and demonstrate their potential to improve clinical workflows. We developed Mirai, a mammography-based deep learning model designed to predict risk at multiple timepoints, leverage potentially missing risk factor information, and produce predictions that are consistent across mammography machines. Mirai was trained on a large dataset from Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in the United States and tested on held-out test sets from MGH, Karolinska University Hospital in Sweden, and Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CGMH) in Taiwan, obtaining C-indices of 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 0.80), 0.81 (0.79 to 0.82), and 0.79 (0.79 to 0.83), respectively. Mirai obtained significantly higher 5-year ROC AUCs than the Tyrer-Cuzick model ( P < 0.001) and prior deep learning models Hybrid DL ( P < 0.001) and Image-Only DL ( P < 0.001), trained on the same dataset. Mirai more accurately identified high-risk patients than prior methods across all datasets. On the MGH test set, 41.5% (34.4 to 48.5) of patients who would develop cancer within 5 years were identified as high risk, compared with 36.1% (29.1 to 42.9) by Hybrid DL ( P = 0.02) and 22.9% (15.9 to 29.6) by the Tyrer-Cuzick model ( P < 0.001).
Copyright © 2021 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33504648     DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aba4373

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Transl Med        ISSN: 1946-6234            Impact factor:   17.956


  13 in total

1.  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

2.  Deep Learning vs Traditional Breast Cancer Risk Models to Support Risk-Based Mammography Screening.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Sarah Mercaldo; Leslie R Lamb; Tari A King; Leif W Ellisen; Michelle Specht; Rulla M Tamimi
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2022-10-06       Impact factor: 11.816

3.  Multi-Institutional Validation of a Mammography-Based Breast Cancer Risk Model.

Authors:  Adam Yala; Peter G Mikhael; Fredrik Strand; Gigin Lin; Siddharth Satuluru; Thomas Kim; Imon Banerjee; Judy Gichoya; Hari Trivedi; Constance D Lehman; Kevin Hughes; David J Sheedy; Lisa M Matthis; Bipin Karunakaran; Karen E Hegarty; Silvia Sabino; Thiago B Silva; Maria C Evangelista; Renato F Caron; Bruno Souza; Edmundo C Mauad; Tal Patalon; Sharon Handelman-Gotlib; Michal Guindy; Regina Barzilay
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-11-12       Impact factor: 50.717

Review 4.  Updates in Artificial Intelligence for Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Manisha Bahl
Journal:  Semin Roentgenol       Date:  2021-12-31       Impact factor: 0.709

Review 5.  Artificial Intelligence and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: 2020 Summative Review.

Authors:  Barbara Kenner; Suresh T Chari; David Kelsen; David S Klimstra; Stephen J Pandol; Michael Rosenthal; Anil K Rustgi; James A Taylor; Adam Yala; Noura Abul-Husn; Dana K Andersen; David Bernstein; Søren Brunak; Marcia Irene Canto; Yonina C Eldar; Elliot K Fishman; Julie Fleshman; Vay Liang W Go; Jane M Holt; Bruce Field; Ann Goldberg; William Hoos; Christine Iacobuzio-Donahue; Debiao Li; Graham Lidgard; Anirban Maitra; Lynn M Matrisian; Sung Poblete; Laura Rothschild; Chris Sander; Lawrence H Schwartz; Uri Shalit; Sudhir Srivastava; Brian Wolpin
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 3.243

6.  A machine and human reader study on AI diagnosis model safety under attacks of adversarial images.

Authors:  Qianwei Zhou; Margarita Zuley; Yuan Guo; Lu Yang; Bronwyn Nair; Adrienne Vargo; Suzanne Ghannam; Dooman Arefan; Shandong Wu
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 14.919

Review 7.  Artificial intelligence in mammographic phenotyping of breast cancer risk: a narrative review.

Authors:  Aimilia Gastounioti; Shyam Desai; Vinayak S Ahluwalia; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2022-02-20       Impact factor: 8.408

8.  Deep learning predicts all-cause mortality from longitudinal total-body DXA imaging.

Authors:  Yannik Glaser; John Shepherd; Lambert Leong; Thomas Wolfgruber; Li-Yung Lui; Peter Sadowski; Steven R Cummings
Journal:  Commun Med (Lond)       Date:  2022-08-16

Review 9.  Deep learning in breast imaging.

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

10.  Predictions of cancer mortality in Europe in 2021: room for hope in the shadow of COVID-19?

Authors:  J M Martin-Moreno; S Lessof
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2021-02-21       Impact factor: 32.976

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.