Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Feb 9;8(1):2762.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-21215-1.

Applying Data-driven Imaging Biomarker in Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening: Preliminary Study

Affiliations

Applying Data-driven Imaging Biomarker in Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening: Preliminary Study

Eun-Kyung Kim et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

We assessed the feasibility of a data-driven imaging biomarker based on weakly supervised learning (DIB; an imaging biomarker derived from large-scale medical image data with deep learning technology) in mammography (DIB-MG). A total of 29,107 digital mammograms from five institutions (4,339 cancer cases and 24,768 normal cases) were included. After matching patients' age, breast density, and equipment, 1,238 and 1,238 cases were chosen as validation and test sets, respectively, and the remainder were used for training. The core algorithm of DIB-MG is a deep convolutional neural network; a deep learning algorithm specialized for images. Each sample (case) is an exam composed of 4-view images (RCC, RMLO, LCC, and LMLO). For each case in a training set, the cancer probability inferred from DIB-MG is compared with the per-case ground-truth label. Then the model parameters in DIB-MG are updated based on the error between the prediction and the ground-truth. At the operating point (threshold) of 0.5, sensitivity was 75.6% and 76.1% when specificity was 90.2% and 88.5%, and AUC was 0.903 and 0.906 for the validation and test sets, respectively. This research showed the potential of DIB-MG as a screening tool for breast cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overall architecture – 19 convolutions followed by a global-average-pooling (GPavg).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Hierarchical feature abstraction, DIB map generation, and cancer probability generation.
Figure 3
Figure 3
DIB example with ground-truth lesion. A 44-year-old woman with invasive ductal carcinoma of the right breast. A 22 mm-sized mass was correctly highlighted by DIB. The confidence score for cancer of DIB was 1.0 and 0.026 for the right and left breast.

References

    1. Hendrick, R. E., Smith, R. A., Rutledge, J. H., III & Smart, C. R. Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40–49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs 87–92 (1997). - PubMed
    1. Tabar L, et al. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer. 2001;91:1724–1731. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(20010501)91:9<1724::AID-CNCR1190>3.0.CO;2-V. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Oeffinger KC, et al. Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society. Jama. 2015;314:1599–1614. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.12783. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nelson HD, et al. Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis to Update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Annals of internal medicine. 2016;164:244–255. doi: 10.7326/M15-0969. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Siu AL, Force USPST. Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Annals of internal medicine. 2016;164:279–296. doi: 10.7326/M15-2886. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types