Literature DB >> 34491131

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

Xun Zhu1, Thomas K Wolfgruber1, Lambert Leong1, Matthew Jensen1, Christopher Scott1, Stacey Winham1, Peter Sadowski1, Celine Vachon1, Karla Kerlikowske1, John A Shepherd1.   

Abstract

Background The ability of deep learning (DL) models to classify women as at risk for either screening mammography-detected or interval cancer (not detected at mammography) has not yet been explored in the literature. Purpose To examine the ability of DL models to estimate the risk of interval and screening-detected breast cancers with and without clinical risk factors. Materials and Methods This study was performed on 25 096 digital screening mammograms obtained from January 2006 to December 2013. The mammograms were obtained in 6369 women without breast cancer, 1609 of whom developed screening-detected breast cancer and 351 of whom developed interval invasive breast cancer. A DL model was trained on the negative mammograms to classify women into those who did not develop cancer and those who developed screening-detected cancer or interval invasive cancer. Model effectiveness was evaluated as a matched concordance statistic (C statistic) in a held-out 26% (1669 of 6369) test set of the mammograms. Results The C statistics and odds ratios for comparing patients with screening-detected cancer versus matched controls were 0.66 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.69) and 1.25 (95% CI: 1.17, 1.33), respectively, for the DL model, 0.62 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.65) and 2.14 (95% CI: 1.32, 3.45) for the clinical risk factors with the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density model, and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.69) and 1.21 (95% CI: 1.13, 1.30) for the combined DL and clinical risk factors model. For comparing patients with interval cancer versus controls, the C statistics and odds ratios were 0.64 (95% CI: 0.58, 0.71) and 1.26 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.45), respectively, for the DL model, 0.71 (95% CI: 0.65, 0.77) and 7.25 (95% CI: 2.94, 17.9) for the risk factors with BI-RADS density (b rated vs non-b rated) model, and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.78) and 1.10 (95% CI: 0.94, 1.29) for the combined DL and clinical risk factors model. The P values between the DL, BI-RADS, and combined model's ability to detect screen and interval cancer were .99, .002, and .03, respectively. Conclusion The deep learning model outperformed in determining screening-detected cancer risk but underperformed for interval cancer risk when compared with clinical risk factors including breast density. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bae and Kim in this issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34491131      PMCID: PMC8630596          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021203758

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


  25 in total

Review 1.  Advanced breast cancer and breast cancer mortality in randomized controlled trials on mammography screening.

Authors:  Philippe Autier; Clarisse Héry; Jari Haukka; Mathieu Boniol; Graham Byrnes
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-11-02       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Unsupervised Deep Learning Applied to Breast Density Segmentation and Mammographic Risk Scoring.

Authors:  Michiel Kallenberg; Kersten Petersen; Mads Nielsen; Andrew Y Ng; Christian Igel; Celine M Vachon; Katharina Holland; Rikke Rass Winkel; Nico Karssemeijer; Martin Lillholm
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 10.048

3.  Role of MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) versus conventional imaging for breast cancer presurgical staging in young women or with dense breast.

Authors:  N Biglia; V E Bounous; L Martincich; E Panuccio; V Liberale; L Ottino; R Ponzone; P Sismondi
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 4.424

4.  Comparison of Clinical and Automated Breast Density Measurements: Implications for Risk Prediction and Supplemental Screening.

Authors:  Kathleen R Brandt; Christopher G Scott; Lin Ma; Amir P Mahmoudzadeh; Matthew R Jensen; Dana H Whaley; Fang Fang Wu; Serghei Malkov; Carrie B Hruska; Aaron D Norman; John Heine; John Shepherd; V Shane Pankratz; Karla Kerlikowske; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-12-22       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Predicting Breast Cancer by Applying Deep Learning to Linked Health Records and Mammograms.

Authors:  Ayelet Akselrod-Ballin; Michal Chorev; Yoel Shoshan; Adam Spiro; Alon Hazan; Roie Melamed; Ella Barkan; Esma Herzel; Shaked Naor; Ehud Karavani; Gideon Koren; Yaara Goldschmidt; Varda Shalev; Michal Rosen-Zvi; Michal Guindy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening With Molecular Breast Imaging for Women With Dense Breast Tissue.

Authors:  Robin B Shermis; Keith D Wilson; Malcolm T Doyle; Tamara S Martin; Dawn Merryman; Haris Kudrolli; R James Brenner
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Impact of the transition from screen-film to digital screening mammography on interval cancer characteristics and treatment - a population based study from the Netherlands.

Authors:  Joost Nederend; Lucien E M Duijm; Marieke W J Louwman; Jan Willem Coebergh; Rudi M H Roumen; Paul N Lohle; Jan A Roukema; Matthieu J C M Rutten; Liza N van Steenbergen; Miranda F Ernst; Frits H Jansen; Menno L Plaisier; Marianne J H H Hooijen; Adri C Voogd
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2013-10-25       Impact factor: 9.162

8.  Deep learning networks find unique mammographic differences in previous negative mammograms between interval and screen-detected cancers: a case-case study.

Authors:  Benjamin Hinton; Lin Ma; Amir Pasha Mahmoudzadeh; Serghei Malkov; Bo Fan; Heather Greenwood; Bonnie Joe; Vivian Lee; Karla Kerlikowske; John Shepherd
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2019-06-22       Impact factor: 3.909

9.  Deep learning in breast cancer risk assessment: evaluation of convolutional neural networks on a clinical dataset of full-field digital mammograms.

Authors:  Hui Li; Maryellen L Giger; Benjamin Q Huynh; Natalia O Antropova
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-09-13

Review 10.  Artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection in mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: State of the art.

Authors:  Ioannis Sechopoulos; Jonas Teuwen; Ritse Mann
Journal:  Semin Cancer Biol       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 15.707

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.