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

Deep learning applications in breast cancer histopathological imaging: diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis

Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor among women worldwide and remains one of the leading causes of death among women. Its incidence and mortality rates are continuously rising. In recent years, with the rapid advancement of deep learning (DL) technology, DL has demonstrated significant potential in breast cancer diagnosis, prognosis evaluation, and treatment response prediction. This paper reviews relevant research progress and applies DL models to image enhancement, segmentation, and classification based on large-scale datasets from TCGA and multiple centers. We employed foundational models such as ResNet50, Transformer, and Hover-net to investigate the performance of DL models in breast cancer diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis prediction. The results indicate that DL techniques have significantly improved diagnostic accuracy and efficiency, particularly in predicting breast cancer metastasis and clinical prognosis. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the crucial role of robust databases in developing highly generalizable models. Future research will focus on addressing challenges related to data management, model interpretability, and regulatory compliance, ultimately aiming to provide more precise clinical treatment and prognostic evaluation programs for breast cancer patients.

Accuracy of an Artificial Intelligence System for Interval Breast Cancer Detection at Screening Mammography

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can be used to identify interval breast cancers, although the localizations are not always accurate. Purpose To evaluate AI localizations of interval cancers (ICs) on screening mammograms by IC category and histopathologic characteristics. Materials and Methods A screening mammography data set (median patient age, 57 years [IQR, 52-64 years]) that had been assessed by two human readers from January 2011 to December 2018 was retrospectively analyzed using a commercial AI system. The AI outputs were lesion locations (heatmaps) and the highest per-lesion risk score (range, 0-100) assigned to each case. AI heatmaps were considered false positive (FP) if they occurred on normal screening mammograms or on IC screening mammograms (ie, in patients subsequently diagnosed with IC) but outside the cancer boundary. A panel of consultant radiology experts classified ICs as normal or benign (true negative [TN]), uncertain (minimal signs of malignancy [MS]), or suspicious (false negative [FN]). Several specificity and sensitivity thresholds were applied. Mann-Whitney U tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and χ2 tests were used to compare groups. Results A total of 2052 screening mammograms (514 ICs and 1548 normal mammograms) were included. The median AI risk score was 50 (IQR, 32-82) for TN ICs, 76 (IQR, 41-90) for ICs with MS, and 89 (IQR, 81-95) for FN ICs (P = .005). Higher median AI scores were observed for invasive tumors (62 [IQR, 39-88]) than for noninvasive tumors (33 [IQR, 20-55]; P < .01) and for high-grade (grade 2-3) tumors (62 [IQR, 40-87]) than for low-grade (grade 0-1) tumors (45 [IQR, 26-81]; P = .02). At the 96% specificity threshold, the AI algorithm flagged 121 of 514 (23.5%) ICs and correctly localized the IC in 93 of 121 (76.9%) cases, with 48 FP heatmaps on the mammograms for ICs (rate, 0.093 per case) and 74 FP heatmaps on normal mammograms (rate, 0.048 per case). The AI algorithm correctly localized a lower proportion of TN ICs (54 of 427; 12.6%) than ICs with MS (35 of 76; 46%) and FN ICs (four of eight; 50% [95% CI: 13, 88]; P < .001). The AI algorithm localized a higher proportion of node-positive than node-negative cancers (P = .03). However, no evidence of a difference by cancer type (P = .09), grade (P = .27), or hormone receptor status (P = .12) was found. At 89.8% specificity and 79% sensitivity thresholds, AI detection increased to 181 (35.2%) and 256 (49.8%) of the 514 ICs, respectively, with FP heatmaps on 158 (10.2%) and 307 (19.8%) of the 1548 normal mammograms. Conclusion Use of a standalone AI system improved early cancer detection by correctly identifying some cancers missed by two human readers, with no differences based on histopathologic features except for node-positive cancers. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Enhancing Accuracy in Breast Density Assessment Using Deep Learning: A Multicentric, Multi-Reader Study

The evaluation of mammographic breast density, a critical indicator of breast cancer risk, is traditionally performed by radiologists via visual inspection of mammography images, utilizing the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density categories. However, this method is subject to substantial interobserver variability, leading to inconsistencies and potential inaccuracies in density assessment and subsequent risk estimations. To address this, we present a deep learning-based automatic detection algorithm (DLAD) designed for the automated evaluation of breast density. Our multicentric, multi-reader study leverages a diverse dataset of 122 full-field digital mammography studies (488 images in CC and MLO projections) sourced from three institutions. We invited two experienced radiologists to conduct a retrospective analysis, establishing a ground truth for 72 mammography studies (BI-RADS class A: 18, BI-RADS class B: 43, BI-RADS class C: 7, BI-RADS class D: 4). The efficacy of the DLAD was then compared to the performance of five independent radiologists with varying levels of experience. The DLAD showed robust performance, achieving an accuracy of 0.819 (95% CI: 0.736-0.903), along with an F1 score of 0.798 (0.594-0.905), precision of 0.806 (0.596-0.896), recall of 0.830 (0.650-0.946), and a Cohen's Kappa (κ) of 0.708 (0.562-0.841). The algorithm achieved robust performance that matches and in four cases exceeds that of individual radiologists. The statistical analysis did not reveal a significant difference in accuracy between DLAD and the radiologists, underscoring the model's competitive diagnostic alignment with professional radiologist assessments. These results demonstrate that the deep learning-based automatic detection algorithm can enhance the accuracy and consistency of breast density assessments, offering a reliable tool for improving breast cancer screening outcomes.

Artificial Intelligence-Driven Mammography-Based Future Breast Cancer Risk Prediction: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To summarize the literature regarding the performance of mammography-image based artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms, with and without additional clinical data, for future breast cancer risk prediction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed using six databases (medRixiv, bioRxiv, Embase, Engineer Village, IEEE Xplore, and PubMed) from 2012 through September 30, 2022. Studies were included if they used real-world screening mammography examinations to validate AI algorithms for future risk prediction based on images alone or in combination with clinical risk factors. The quality of studies was assessed, and predictive accuracy was recorded as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Sixteen studies met inclusion and exclusion criteria, of which 14 studies provided AUC values. The median AUC performance of AI image-only models was 0.72 (range 0.62-0.90) compared with 0.61 for breast density or clinical risk factor-based tools (range 0.54-0.69). Of the seven studies that compared AI image-only performance directly to combined image + clinical risk factor performance, six demonstrated no significant improvement, and one study demonstrated increased improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Early efforts for predicting future breast cancer risk based on mammography images alone demonstrate comparable or better accuracy to traditional risk tools with little or no improvement when adding clinical risk factor data. Transitioning from clinical risk factor-based to AI image-based risk models may lead to more accurate, personalized risk-based screening approaches.

Breast Ultrasound Images Augmentation and Segmentation Using GAN with Identity Block and Modified U-Net 3

One of the most prevalent diseases affecting women in recent years is breast cancer. Early breast cancer detection can help in the treatment, lower the infection risk, and worsen the results. This paper presents a hybrid approach for augmentation and segmenting breast cancer. The framework contains two main stages: augmentation and segmentation of ultrasound images. The augmentation of the ultrasounds is applied using generative adversarial networks (GAN) with nonlinear identity block, label smoothing, and a new loss function. The segmentation of the ultrasounds applied a modified U-Net 3+. The hybrid approach achieves efficient results in the segmentation and augmentation steps compared with the other available methods for the same task. The modified version of the GAN with the nonlinear identity block overcomes different types of modified GAN in the ultrasound augmentation process, such as speckle GAN, UltraGAN, and deep convolutional GAN. The modified U-Net 3+ also overcomes the different architectures of U-Nets in the segmentation process. The GAN with nonlinear identity blocks achieved an inception score of 14.32 and a Fréchet inception distance of 41.86 in the augmenting process. The GAN with identity achieves a smaller value in Fréchet inception distance (FID) and a bigger value in inception score; these results prove the model's efficiency compared with other versions of GAN in the augmentation process. The modified U-Net 3+ architecture achieved a Dice Score of 95.49% and an Accuracy of 95.67%.

Use of novel artificial intelligence computer-assisted detection (AI-CAD) for screening mammography: an analysis of 17,884 consecutive two-view full-field digital mammography screening exams

BACKGROUND

Novel artificial intelligence computer-assisted detection (AI-CAD) systems based on deep learning (DL) promise to support screen reading.

PURPOSE

To test a DL-AI-CAD system compared to human reading on consecutive screening mammograms.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, 17,884 consecutive anonymized screening mammograms, double-read from January to November 2018, were processed by the DL-AI-CAD system. AI-CAD reading was considered positive if the AI-CAD case scores exceeded 30 (range = 1-100) and the lesion was correctly marked. Likewise, human reading (R1 or R2, respectively) was considered positive if the lesion was correctly identified and called. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed and accuracy data were calculated. Ground truth for benign lesions: absence of malignancy after cancer registry matching (2022); for malignancy: histopathologic proof; evaluation was patient-based.

RESULTS

In total, 114 screen-detected and 17 interval cancers (ICA) occurred. ROC analysis of screen-detected cancers yielded an AUC of 89% for AI-CAD. Sensitivity/specificity was 81.7%/80.2% for AI-CAD; 77.1%/91.7% for R1; 78.6/91.6% for R2. Combining each human reading with AI-CAD was as sensitive as human double-reading (all approximately 88%), but less specific (approximately 75%) compared to human double-reading (approximately 87%). These AI-CAD combinations required consensus readings for twice as many cases as the human combination. Four of 17 ICA exceeded a case score of 30; two of four CAD correctly marked the quadrant of the subsequent ICA.

CONCLUSION

Including ICA cases, this AI-CAD achieved comparable sensitivity to human reading at lower specificity. Combining human reading and AI-CAD allows increasing sensitivity compared to single-reading.

Deep Learning Approaches with Digital Mammography for Evaluating Breast Cancer Risk, a Narrative Review

Breast cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women worldwide. Current screening regimens and clinical breast cancer risk assessment models use risk factors such as demographics and patient history to guide policy and assess risk. Applications of artificial intelligence methods (AI) such as deep learning (DL) and convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to evaluate individual patient information and imaging showed promise as personalized risk models. We reviewed the current literature for studies related to deep learning and convolutional neural networks with digital mammography for assessing breast cancer risk. We discussed the literature and examined the ongoing and future applications of deep learning techniques in breast cancer risk modeling.

Differentiation between Phyllodes Tumors and Fibroadenomas through Breast Ultrasound: Deep-Learning Model Outperforms Ultrasound Physicians

The preoperative differentiation of breast phyllodes tumors (PTs) from fibroadenomas (FAs) plays a critical role in identifying an appropriate surgical treatment. Although several imaging modalities are available, reliable differentiation between PT and FA remains a great challenge for radiologists in clinical work. Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted diagnosis has shown promise in distinguishing PT from FA. However, a very small sample size was adopted in previous studies. In this work, we retrospectively enrolled 656 breast tumors (372 FAs and 284 PTs) with 1945 ultrasound images in total. Two experienced ultrasound physicians independently evaluated the ultrasound images. Meanwhile, three deep-learning models (i.e., ResNet, VGG, and GoogLeNet) were applied to classify FAs and PTs. The robustness of the models was evaluated by fivefold cross validation. The performance of each model was assessed by using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were also calculated. Among the three models, the ResNet model yielded the highest AUC value, of 0.91, with an accuracy value of 95.3%, a sensitivity value of 96.2%, and a specificity value of 94.7% in the testing data set. In contrast, the two physicians yielded an average AUC value of 0.69, an accuracy value of 70.7%, a sensitivity value of 54.4%, and a specificity value of 53.2%. Our findings indicate that the diagnostic performance of deep learning is better than that of physicians in the distinction of PTs from FAs. This further suggests that AI is a valuable tool for aiding clinical diagnosis, thereby advancing precision therapy.

Quality control system for mammographic breast positioning using deep learning

This study proposes a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) classification for the quality control and validation of breast positioning criteria in mammography. A total of 1631 mediolateral oblique mammographic views were collected from an open database. We designed two main steps for mammographic verification: automated detection of the positioning part and classification of three scales that determine the positioning quality using DCNNs. After acquiring labeled mammograms with three scales visually evaluated based on guidelines, the first step was automatically detecting the region of interest of the subject part by image processing. The next step was classifying mammographic positioning accuracy into three scales using four representative DCNNs. The experimental results showed that the DCNN model achieved the best positioning classification accuracy of 0.7836 using VGG16 in the inframammary fold and a classification accuracy of 0.7278 using Xception in the nipple profile. Furthermore, using the softmax function, the breast positioning criteria could be evaluated quantitatively by presenting the predicted value, which is the probability of determining positioning accuracy. The proposed method can be quantitatively evaluated without the need for an individual qualitative evaluation and has the potential to improve the quality control and validation of breast positioning criteria in mammography.

Radiologist Preferences for Artificial Intelligence-Based Decision Support During Screening Mammography Interpretation

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) may improve cancer detection and risk prediction during mammography screening, but radiologists' preferences regarding its characteristics and implementation are unknown.

PURPOSE

To quantify how different attributes of AI-based cancer detection and risk prediction tools affect radiologists' intentions to use AI during screening mammography interpretation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Through qualitative interviews with radiologists, we identified five primary attributes for AI-based breast cancer detection and four for breast cancer risk prediction. We developed a discrete choice experiment based on these attributes and invited 150 US-based radiologists to participate. Each respondent made eight choices for each tool between three alternatives: two hypothetical AI-based tools versus screening without AI. We analyzed samplewide preferences using random parameters logit models and identified subgroups with latent class models.

RESULTS

Respondents (n = 66; 44% response rate) were from six diverse practice settings across eight states. Radiologists were more interested in AI for cancer detection when sensitivity and specificity were balanced (94% sensitivity with <25% of examinations marked) and AI markup appeared at the end of the hanging protocol after radiologists complete their independent review. For AI-based risk prediction, radiologists preferred AI models using both mammography images and clinical data. Overall, 46% to 60% intended to adopt any of the AI tools presented in the study; 26% to 33% approached AI enthusiastically but were deterred if the features did not align with their preferences.

CONCLUSION

Although most radiologists want to use AI-based decision support, short-term uptake may be maximized by implementing tools that meet the preferences of dissuadable users.

A Review of Breast Cancer Risk Factors in Adolescents and Young Adults

Simple Summary

Cancer diagnosed in patients between the ages of 15 and 39 deserves special consideration. Diagnoses within this cohort of adolescents and young adults include childhood cancers which present at an older age than expected, or an early presentation of cancers that are typically observed in older adults, such as breast cancer. Cancers within this age group are associated with worse disease-free and overall survival rates, and the incidence of these cases are rising. Knowing an individual’s susceptibility to disease can change their clinical management and allow for the risk-testing of relatives. This review discusses the risk factors that contribute to breast cancer in this unique cohort of patients, including inherited genetic risk factors, as well as environmental and lifestyle factors. We also describe risk models that allow clinicians to quantify a patient’s lifetime risk of developing disease.

Abstract

Cancer in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) deserves special consideration for several reasons. AYA cancers encompass paediatric malignancies that present at an older age than expected, or early-onset of cancers that are typically observed in adults. However, disease diagnosed in the AYA population is distinct to those same cancers which are diagnosed in a paediatric or older adult setting. Worse disease-free and overall survival outcomes are observed in the AYA setting, and the incidence of AYA cancers is increasing. Knowledge of an individual’s underlying cancer predisposition can influence their clinical care and may facilitate early tumour surveillance strategies and cascade testing of at-risk relatives. This information can further influence reproductive decision making. In this review we discuss the risk factors contributing to AYA breast cancer, such as heritable predisposition, environmental, and lifestyle factors. We also describe a number of risk models which incorporate genetic factors that aid clinicians in quantifying an individual’s lifetime risk of disease.