Literature DB >> 34860574

The lesion detection efficacy of deep learning on automatic breast ultrasound and factors affecting its efficacy: a pilot study.

Xiao Luo PhD1,2,3, Min Xu1,2,4, Guoxue Tang1,2,5, Yi Wang PhD6, Na Wang6, Dong Ni PhD6, Xi Lin PhD1,2, An-Hua Li1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the detection efficacy of deep learning (DL) for automatic breast ultrasound (ABUS) and factors affecting its efficacy.
METHODS: Females who underwent ABUS and handheld ultrasound from May 2016 to June 2017 (N = 397) were enrolled and divided into training (n = 163 patients with breast cancer and 33 with benign lesions), test (n = 57) and control (n = 144) groups. A convolutional neural network was optimized to detect lesions in ABUS. The sensitivity and false positives (FPs) were evaluated and compared for different breast tissue compositions, lesion sizes, morphologies and echo patterns.
RESULTS: In the training set, with 688 lesion regions (LRs), the network achieved sensitivities of 93.8%, 97.2% and 100%, based on volume, lesion and patient, respectively, with 1.9 FPs per volume. In the test group with 247 LRs, the sensitivities were 92.7%, 94.5% and 96.5%, respectively, with 2.4 FPs per volume. The control group, with 900 volumes, showed 0.24 FPs per volume. The sensitivity was 98% for lesions > 1 cm3, but 87% for those ≤1 cm3 (p < 0.05). Similar sensitivities and FPs were observed for different breast tissue compositions (homogeneous, 97.5%, 2.1; heterogeneous, 93.6%, 2.1), lesion morphologies (mass, 96.3%, 2.1; non-mass, 95.8%, 2.0) and echo patterns (homogeneous, 96.1%, 2.1; heterogeneous 96.8%, 2.1).
CONCLUSIONS: DL had high detection sensitivity with a low FP but was affected by lesion size. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: DL is technically feasible for the automatic detection of lesions in ABUS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34860574      PMCID: PMC8822545          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210438

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  25 in total

1.  Ultrasonic Diagnosis of Breast Nodules Using Modified Faster R-CNN.

Authors:  Zihao Zhang; Xuesheng Zhang; Xiaona Lin; Licong Dong; Sure Zhang; Xueling Zhang; Desheng Sun; Kehong Yuan
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.578

2.  Performance and Reading Time of Automated Breast US with or without Computer-aided Detection.

Authors:  Shanling Yang; Xican Gao; Liwen Liu; Rui Shu; Jingru Yan; Ge Zhang; Yao Xiao; Yan Ju; Ni Zhao; Hongping Song
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Shear wave elastography in the diagnosis of breast non-mass lesions: factors associated with false negative and false positive results.

Authors:  So Yoon Park; Ji Soo Choi; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Young Ko; Eun Sook Ko
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  1000-Case Reader Study of Radiologists' Performance in Interpretation of Automated Breast Volume Scanner Images with a Computer-Aided Detection System.

Authors:  Xiaojing Xu; Lingyun Bao; Yanjuan Tan; Luoxi Zhu; Fanlei Kong; Wei Wang
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2018-05-28       Impact factor: 2.998

5.  Deeply-Supervised Networks With Threshold Loss for Cancer Detection in Automated Breast Ultrasound.

Authors:  Yi Wang; Na Wang; Min Xu; Junxiong Yu; Chenchen Qin; Xiao Luo; Xin Yang; Tianfu Wang; Anhua Li; Dong Ni
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 10.048

6.  Computer-aided tumor detection in automated breast ultrasound using a 3-D convolutional neural network.

Authors:  Woo Kyung Moon; Yao-Sian Huang; Chin-Hua Hsu; Ting-Yin Chang Chien; Jung Min Chang; Su Hyun Lee; Chiun-Sheng Huang; Ruey-Feng Chang
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2020-01-25       Impact factor: 5.428

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.  False-negative results on computer-aided detection software in preoperative automated breast ultrasonography of breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Youngjune Kim; Jiwon Rim; Sun Mi Kim; Bo La Yun; So Yeon Park; Hye Shin Ahn; Bohyoung Kim; Mijung Jang
Journal:  Ultrasonography       Date:  2020-03-24

9.  A multicenter hospital-based diagnosis study of automated breast ultrasound system in detecting breast cancer among Chinese women.

Authors:  Xi Zhang; Xi Lin; Yanjuan Tan; Ying Zhu; Hui Wang; Ruimei Feng; Guoxue Tang; Xiang Zhou; Anhua Li; Youlin Qiao
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 5.087

10.  Dedicated computer-aided detection software for automated 3D breast ultrasound; an efficient tool for the radiologist in supplemental screening of women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Jan C M van Zelst; Tao Tan; Paola Clauser; Angels Domingo; Monique D Dorrius; Daniel Drieling; Michael Golatta; Francisca Gras; Mathijn de Jong; Ruud Pijnappel; Matthieu J C M Rutten; Nico Karssemeijer; Ritse M Mann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-02-07       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.