Dataset Information

A Multisite Study of a Breast Density Deep Learning Model for Full-Field Digital Mammography and Synthetic Mammography.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To develop a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density deep learning (DL) model in a multisite setting for synthetic two-dimensional mammographic (SM) images derived from digital breast tomosynthesis examinations by using full-field digital mammographic (FFDM) images and limited SM data.

Materials and methods

A DL model was trained to predict BI-RADS breast density by using FFDM images acquired from 2008 to 2017 (site 1: 57 492 patients, 187 627 examinations, 750 752 images) for this retrospective study. The FFDM model was evaluated by using SM datasets from two institutions (site 1: 3842 patients, 3866 examinations, 14 472 images, acquired from 2016 to 2017; site 2: 7557 patients, 16 283 examinations, 63 973 images, 2015 to 2019). Each of the three datasets were then split into training, validation, and test. Adaptation methods were investigated to improve performance on the SM datasets, and the effect of dataset size on each adaptation method was considered. Statistical significance was assessed by using CIs, which were estimated by bootstrapping.

Results

Without adaptation, the model demonstrated substantial agreement with the original reporting radiologists for all three datasets (site 1 FFDM: linearly weighted Cohen κ [κ_w] = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.74, 0.76]; site 1 SM: κ_w = 0.71 [95% CI: 0.64, 0.78]; site 2 SM: κ_w = 0.72 [95% CI: 0.70, 0.75]). With adaptation, performance improved for site 2 (site 1: κ_w = 0.72 [95% CI: 0.66, 0.79], 0.71 vs 0.72, P = .80; site 2: κ_w = 0.79 [95% CI: 0.76, 0.81], 0.72 vs 0.79, P < .001) by using only 500 SM images from that site.

Conclusion

A BI-RADS breast density DL model demonstrated strong performance on FFDM and SM images from two institutions without training on SM images and improved by using few SM images.Supplemental material is available for this article.Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

SUBMITTER: Matthews TP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8082294 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionMammographic density has been established as a strong risk factor for breast cancer, primarily using digitized film mammograms. Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) is replacing film mammography, has different properties than film, and provides both raw and processed clinical display representation images. We evaluated and compared FFDM raw and processed breast density measures and their associations with breast cancer.MethodsA case-control study of 180 cases and 180 controls matched by age, postmenopausal hormone use, and screening history was conducted. Mammograms were acquired from a General Electric Senographe 2000D FFDM unit. Percent density (PD) was assessed for each FFDM representation using the operator-assisted Cumulus method. Reproducibility within image type (n = 80) was assessed using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (rc). Correlation of PD between image representations (n = 360) was evaluated using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) on the continuous measures and the weighted kappa statistic (?) for quartiles. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for the PD and breast cancer associations for both image representations with 95% confidence intervals. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess the discriminatory accuracy.ResultsPercent density from the two representations provided similar intra-reader reproducibility (rc= 0.92 for raw and rc= 0.87 for processed images) and was correlated (r = 0.82 and ? = 0.64). When controlling for body mass index, the associations of quartiles of PD with breast cancer and discriminatory accuracy were similar for the raw (OR: 1.0 (ref.), 2.6 (1.2 to 5.4), 3.1 (1.4 to 6.8), 4.7 (2.1 to 10.6); AUC = 0.63) and processed representations (OR: 1.0 (ref.), 2.2 (1.1 to 4.1), 2.2 (1.1 to 4.4), 3.1 (1.5 to 6.6); AUC = 0.64).ConclusionsPercent density measured with an operator-assisted method from raw and processed FFDM images is reproducible and correlated. Both percent density measures provide similar associations with breast cancer.

Project description:Optimization of exposure parameters (target, filter, and kVp) in digital mammography necessitates maximization of the image signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), while simultaneously minimizing patient dose. The goal of this study is to compare, for each of the major commercially available full field digital mammography (FFDM) systems, the impact of the selection of technique factors on image SNR and radiation dose for a range of breast thickness and tissue types. This phantom study is an update of a previous investigation and includes measurements on recent versions of two of the FFDM systems discussed in that article, as well as on three FFDM systems not available at that time. The five commercial FFDM systems tested, the Senographe 2000D from GE Healthcare, the Mammomat Novation DR from Siemens, the Selenia from Hologic, the Fischer Senoscan, and Fuji's 5000MA used with a Lorad M-IV mammography unit, are located at five different university test sites. Performance was assessed using all available x-ray target and filter combinations and nine different phantom types (three compressed thicknesses and three tissue composition types). Each phantom type was also imaged using the automatic exposure control (AEC) of each system to identify the exposure parameters used under automated image acquisition. The figure of merit (FOM) used to compare technique factors is the ratio of the square of the image SNR to the mean glandular dose. The results show that, for a given target/filter combination, in general FOM is a slowly changing function of kVp, with stronger dependence on the choice of target/filter combination. In all cases the FOM was a decreasing function of kVp at the top of the available range of kVp settings, indicating that higher tube voltages would produce no further performance improvement. For a given phantom type, the exposure parameter set resulting in the highest FOM value was system specific, depending on both the set of available target/filter combinations, and on the receptor type. In most cases, the AECs of the FFDM systems successfully identified exposure parameters resulting in FOM values near the maximum ones, however, there were several examples where AEC performance could be improved.

Project description:Importance:Expensive and lengthy clinical trials can delay regulatory evaluation of innovative technologies, affecting patient access to high-quality medical products. Simulation is increasingly being used in product development but rarely in regulatory applications. Objectives:To conduct a computer-simulated imaging trial evaluating digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) as a replacement for digital mammography (DM) and to compare the results with a comparative clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants:The simulated Virtual Imaging Clinical Trial for Regulatory Evaluation (VICTRE) trial was designed to replicate a clinical trial that used human patients and radiologists. Images obtained with in silico versions of DM and DBT systems via fast Monte Carlo x-ray transport were interpreted by a computational reader detecting the presence of lesions. A total of 2986 synthetic image-based virtual patients with breast sizes and radiographic densities representative of a screening population and compressed thicknesses from 3.5 to 6 cm were generated using an analytic approach in which anatomical structures are randomly created within a predefined breast volume and compressed in the craniocaudal orientation. A positive cohort contained a digitally inserted microcalcification cluster or spiculated mass. Main Outcomes and Measures:The trial end point was the difference in area under the receiver operating characteristic curve between modalities for lesion detection. The trial was sized for an SE of 0.01 in the change in area under the curve (AUC), half the uncertainty in the comparative clinical trial. Results:In this trial, computational readers analyzed 31?055 DM and 27?960 DBT cases from 2986 virtual patients with the following Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System densities: 286 (9.6%) extremely dense, 1200 (40.2%) heterogeneously dense, 1200 (40.2%) scattered fibroglandular densities, and 300 (10.0%) almost entirely fat. The mean (SE) change in AUC was 0.0587 (0.0062) (P?<?.001) in favor of DBT. The change in AUC was larger for masses (mean [SE], 0.0903 [0.008]) than for calcifications (mean [SE], 0.0268 [0.004]), which was consistent with the findings of the comparative trial (mean [SE], 0.065 [0.017] for masses and -0.047 [0.032] for calcifications). Conclusions and Relevance:The results of the simulated VICTRE trial are consistent with the performance seen in the comparative trial. While further research is needed to assess the generalizability of these findings, in silico imaging trials represent a viable source of regulatory evidence for imaging devices.

Project description:BackgroundOur objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the breast cancer detection rate (CDR), invasive CDR, recall rate, and positive predictive value 1 (PPV1) of digital mammography (DM) alone, combined digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and DM, combined DBT and synthetic 2-dimensional mammography (S2D), and DBT alone.MethodsMEDLINE and Embase were searched until April 2020 to identify comparative design studies reporting on patients undergoing routine breast cancer screening. Random effects model proportional meta-analyses estimated CDR, invasive CDR, recall rate, and PPV1. Meta-regression modeling was used to compare imaging modalities. All statistical tests were 2-sided.ResultsForty-two studies reporting on 2 606 296 patients (13 003 breast cancer cases) were included. CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (6.36 per 1000 screened, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.62 to 7.14, P < .001), and combined DBT and S2D (7.40 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 6.49 to 8.37, P < .001) compared with DM alone (4.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.28 to 5.11). Invasive CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (4.53 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.97 to 5.12, P = .003) and combined DBT and S2D (5.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.43 to 7.09, P < .001) compared with DM alone (3.42 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.02 to 3.83). Recall rate was lowest in combined DBT and S2D (42.3 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 37.4 to 60.4, P<.001). PPV1 was highest in combined DBT and DM (10.0%, 95% CI = 8.0% to 12.0%, P = .004), and combined DBT and S2D (16.0%, 95% CI = 10.0% to 23.0%, P < .001), whereas no difference was detected for DBT alone (7.0%, 95% CI = 6.0% to 8.0%, P = .75) compared with DM alone (7.0%, 95.0% CI = 5.0% to 8.0%).ConclusionsOur findings provide evidence on key performance metrics for DM, DBT alone, combined DBT and DM, and combined DBT and S2D, which may inform optimal application of these modalities for breast cancer screening.

Project description:The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast composition descriptors are used for standardized mammographic reporting and are assessed visually. This reporting is clinically relevant because breast composition can impact mammographic sensitivity and is a breast cancer risk factor. New techniques are presented and evaluated for generating automated BI-RADS breast composition descriptors using both raw and calibrated full field digital mammography (FFDM) image data.A matched case-control dataset with FFDM images was used to develop three automated measures for the BI-RADS breast composition descriptors. Histograms of each calibrated mammogram in the percent glandular (pg) representation were processed to create the new BR(pg) measure. Two previously validated measures of breast density derived from calibrated and raw mammograms were converted to the new BR(vc) and BR(vr) measures, respectively. These three measures were compared with the radiologist-reported BI-RADS compositions assessments from the patient records. The authors used two optimization strategies with differential evolution to create these measures: method-1 used breast cancer status; and method-2 matched the reported BI-RADS descriptors. Weighted kappa (κ) analysis was used to assess the agreement between the new measures and the reported measures. Each measure's association with breast cancer was evaluated with odds ratios (ORs) adjusted for body mass index, breast area, and menopausal status. ORs were estimated as per unit increase with 95% confidence intervals.The three BI-RADS measures generated by method-1 had κ between 0.25-0.34. These measures were significantly associated with breast cancer status in the adjusted models: (a) OR = 1.87 (1.34, 2.59) for BR(pg); (b) OR = 1.93 (1.36, 2.74) for BR(vc); and (c) OR = 1.37 (1.05, 1.80) for BR(vr). The measures generated by method-2 had κ between 0.42-0.45. Two of these measures were significantly associated with breast cancer status in the adjusted models: (a) OR = 1.95 (1.24, 3.09) for BR(pg); (b) OR = 1.42 (0.87, 2.32) for BR(vc); and (c) OR = 2.13 (1.22, 3.72) for BR(vr). The radiologist-reported measures from the patient records showed a similar association, OR = 1.49 (0.99, 2.24), although only borderline statistically significant.A general framework was developed and validated for converting calibrated mammograms and continuous measures of breast density to fully automated approximations for the BI-RADS breast composition descriptors. The techniques are general and suitable for a broad range of clinical and research applications.