Literature DB >> 36242643

Mammography diagnosis of breast cancer screening through machine learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Junjie Liu1, Jiangjie Lei1, Yuhang Ou1, Yilong Zhao1, Xiaofeng Tuo1, Baoming Zhang2,3,4, Mingwang Shen5,6.   

Abstract

Breast cancer was the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, and early mammography screening could decrease the breast cancer mortality. Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted diagnose system based on machine learning (ML) methods can help improve the screening accuracy and efficacy. This study aimed to systematically review and make a meta-analysis on the diagnostic accuracy of mammography diagnosis of breast cancer through various ML methods. Springer Link, Science Direct (Elsevier), IEEE Xplore, PubMed and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies published from January 2000 to September 2021. The study was registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (protocol no. CRD42021284227). A Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the included studies, and reporting was evaluated using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The pooled summary estimates for sensitivity, specificity, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for three ML methods (convolutional neural network [CNN], artificial neural network [ANN], support vector machine [SVM]) were calculated. A total of 32 studies with 23,804 images were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled estimate for sensitivity, specificity and AUC was 0.914 [95% CI 0.868-0.945], 0.916 [95% CI 0.873-0.945] and 0.945 for mammography diagnosis of breast cancer through three ML methods. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC of CNN were 0.961 [95% CI 0.886-0.988], 0.950 [95% CI 0.924-0.967] and 0.974. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC of ANN were 0.837 [95% CI 0.772-0.886], 0.894 [95% CI 0.764-0.957] and 0.881. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC of SVM were 0.889 [95% CI 0.807-0.939], 0.843 [95% CI 0.724-0.916] and 0.913. Machine learning methods (especially CNN) show excellent performance in mammography diagnosis of breast cancer screening based on retrospective studies. More rigorous prospective studies are needed to evaluate the longitudinal performance of AI.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer screening; Machine learning; Meta-analysis; Systematic review

Year:  2022        PMID: 36242643     DOI: 10.1007/s10238-022-00895-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Exp Med        ISSN: 1591-8890            Impact factor:   5.057


  37 in total

1.  Breast-cancer screening--viewpoint of the IARC Working Group.

Authors:  Béatrice Lauby-Secretan; Chiara Scoccianti; Dana Loomis; Lamia Benbrahim-Tallaa; Véronique Bouvard; Franca Bianchini; Kurt Straif
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  Stage at diagnosis of breast cancer in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Elima Jedy-Agba; Valerie McCormack; Clement Adebamowo; Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva
Journal:  Lancet Glob Health       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 26.763

3.  Breast cancer statistics, 2019.

Authors:  Carol E DeSantis; Jiemin Ma; Mia M Gaudet; Lisa A Newman; Kimberly D Miller; Ann Goding Sauer; Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca L Siegel
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2019-10-02       Impact factor: 508.702

4.  Global cancer statistics, 2002.

Authors:  D Max Parkin; Freddie Bray; J Ferlay; Paola Pisani
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 508.702

5.  Global cancer statistics.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Freddie Bray; Melissa M Center; Jacques Ferlay; Elizabeth Ward; David Forman
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2011-02-04       Impact factor: 508.702

6.  Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries.

Authors:  Hyuna Sung; Jacques Ferlay; Rebecca L Siegel; Mathieu Laversanne; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Ahmedin Jemal; Freddie Bray
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 508.702

7.  Global cancer statistics, 2012.

Authors:  Lindsey A Torre; Freddie Bray; Rebecca L Siegel; Jacques Ferlay; Joannie Lortet-Tieulent; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 508.702

8.  Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries.

Authors:  Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 508.702

9.  Socio-economic and health access determinants of breast and cervical cancer screening in low-income countries: analysis of the World Health Survey.

Authors:  Tomi F Akinyemiju
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.