Literature DB >> 34767469

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

Adam Yala1,2, Peter G Mikhael1,2, Fredrik Strand3,4, Gigin Lin5, Siddharth Satuluru6, Thomas Kim7, Imon Banerjee8, Judy Gichoya9, Hari Trivedi9, Constance D Lehman10, Kevin Hughes11, David J Sheedy12, Lisa M Matthis12, Bipin Karunakaran12, Karen E Hegarty13, Silvia Sabino14, Thiago B Silva14, Maria C Evangelista14, Renato F Caron14, Bruno Souza14, Edmundo C Mauad14, Tal Patalon15, Sharon Handelman-Gotlib15, Michal Guindy16, Regina Barzilay1,2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Accurate risk assessment is essential for the success of population screening programs in breast cancer. Models with high sensitivity and specificity would enable programs to target more elaborate screening efforts to high-risk populations, while minimizing overtreatment for the rest. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based risk models have demonstrated a significant advance over risk models used today in clinical practice. However, the responsible deployment of novel AI requires careful validation across diverse populations. To this end, we validate our AI-based model, Mirai, across globally diverse screening populations.
METHODS: We collected screening mammograms and pathology-confirmed breast cancer outcomes from Massachusetts General Hospital, USA; Novant, USA; Emory, USA; Maccabi-Assuta, Israel; Karolinska, Sweden; Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan; and Barretos, Brazil. We evaluated Uno's concordance index for Mirai in predicting risk of breast cancer at one to five years from the mammogram.
RESULTS: A total of 128,793 mammograms from 62,185 patients were collected across the seven sites, of which 3,815 were followed by a cancer diagnosis within 5 years. Mirai obtained concordance indices of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.78), 0.75 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.80), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.79), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.81), 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.82), 0.79 (95% CI, 0.76 to 0.83), and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.88) at Massachusetts General Hospital, Novant, Emory, Maccabi-Assuta, Karolinska, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, and Barretos, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Mirai, a mammography-based risk model, maintained its accuracy across globally diverse test sets from seven hospitals across five countries. This is the broadest validation to date of an AI-based breast cancer model and suggests that the technology can offer broad and equitable improvements in care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34767469      PMCID: PMC9148689          DOI: 10.1200/JCO.21.01337

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   50.717


  15 in total

1.  Toward robust mammography-based models for breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Adam Yala; Peter G Mikhael; Fredrik Strand; Gigin Lin; Kevin Smith; Yung-Liang Wan; Leslie Lamb; Kevin Hughes; Constance Lehman; Regina Barzilay
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2021-01-27       Impact factor: 17.956

2.  Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in Asian and Pacific Islander American women.

Authors:  Rayna K Matsuno; Joseph P Costantino; Regina G Ziegler; Garnet L Anderson; Huilin Li; David Pee; Mitchell H Gail
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-05-11       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Supplemental MRI Screening for Women with Extremely Dense Breast Tissue.

Authors:  Marije F Bakker; Stéphanie V de Lange; Ruud M Pijnappel; Ritse M Mann; Petra H M Peeters; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Marleen J Emaus; Claudette E Loo; Robertus H C Bisschops; Marc B I Lobbes; Matthijn D F de Jong; Katya M Duvivier; Jeroen Veltman; Nico Karssemeijer; Harry J de Koning; Paul J van Diest; Willem P T M Mali; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Wouter B Veldhuis; Carla H van Gils
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2019-11-28       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Prospective approach to breast cancer risk prediction in African American women: the black women's health study model.

Authors:  Deborah A Boggs; Lynn Rosenberg; Lucile L Adams-Campbell; Julie R Palmer
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-01-26       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  The reliability of a deep learning model in clinical out-of-distribution MRI data: A multicohort study.

Authors:  Gustav Mårtensson; Daniel Ferreira; Tobias Granberg; Lena Cavallin; Ketil Oppedal; Alessandro Padovani; Irena Rektorova; Laura Bonanni; Matteo Pardini; Milica G Kramberger; John-Paul Taylor; Jakub Hort; Jón Snædal; Jaime Kulisevsky; Frederic Blanc; Angelo Antonini; Patrizia Mecocci; Bruno Vellas; Magda Tsolaki; Iwona Kłoszewska; Hilkka Soininen; Simon Lovestone; Andrew Simmons; Dag Aarsland; Eric Westman
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 8.545

Review 6.  Cancer screening in the United States, 2019: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.

Authors:  Robert A Smith; Kimberly S Andrews; Durado Brooks; Stacey A Fedewa; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Debbie Saslow; Richard C Wender
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2019-03-15       Impact factor: 508.702

7.  Breast Cancer Screening in Women at Higher-Than-Average Risk: Recommendations From the ACR.

Authors:  Debra L Monticciolo; Mary S Newell; Linda Moy; Bethany Niell; Barbara Monsees; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2018-01-19       Impact factor: 5.532

8.  A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors.

Authors:  Jonathan Tyrer; Stephen W Duffy; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Variable generalization performance of a deep learning model to detect pneumonia in chest radiographs: A cross-sectional study.

Authors:  John R Zech; Marcus A Badgeley; Manway Liu; Anthony B Costa; Joseph J Titano; Eric Karl Oermann
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  A Multi-million Mammography Image Dataset and Population-Based Screening Cohort for the Training and Evaluation of Deep Neural Networks-the Cohort of Screen-Aged Women (CSAW).

Authors:  Karin Dembrower; Peter Lindholm; Fredrik Strand
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 4.056

View more
  5 in total

1.  Cancer Risk Prediction Paradigm Shift: Using Artificial Intelligence to Improve Performance and Health Equity.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2022-10-06       Impact factor: 11.816

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.  Feasibility and Acceptability of Personalized Breast Cancer Screening (DECIDO Study): A Single-Arm Proof-of-Concept Trial.

Authors:  Celmira Laza-Vásquez; Montserrat Martínez-Alonso; Carles Forné-Izquierdo; Jordi Vilaplana-Mayoral; Inés Cruz-Esteve; Isabel Sánchez-López; Mercè Reñé-Reñé; Cristina Cazorla-Sánchez; Marta Hernández-Andreu; Gisela Galindo-Ortego; Montserrat Llorens-Gabandé; Anna Pons-Rodríguez; Montserrat Rué
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-08-21       Impact factor: 4.614

4.  Artificial intelligence for assessing the severity of microtia via deep convolutional neural networks.

Authors:  Dawei Wang; Xue Chen; Yiping Wu; Hongbo Tang; Pei Deng
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-09-08

5.  Joanne Knight Breast Health Cohort at Siteman Cancer Center.

Authors:  Graham A Colditz; Debbie L Bennett; Jennifer Tappenden; Courtney Beers; Nicole Ackermann; Ningying Wu; Jingqin Luo; Sarah Humble; Erin Linnenbringer; Kia Davis; Shu Jiang; Adetunji T Toriola
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 2.506

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.