TY - JOUR
T1 - Deep learning predicts interval and screening-detected cancer from screening mammograms
T2 - A case-case-control study in 6369 women
AU - Zhu, Xun
AU - Wolfgruber, Thomas K.
AU - Leong, Lambert
AU - Jensen, Matthew
AU - Scott, Christopher
AU - Winham, Stacey
AU - Sadowski, Peter
AU - Vachon, Celine
AU - Kerlikowske, Karla
AU - Shepherd, John A.
N1 - Funding Information:
Supported by the National Cancer Institute (grants P01CA154292, R01CA177150, and R01CA166269) and an investigator-initiated grant from GE Healthcare.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Radiological Society of North America Inc.. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/12
Y1 - 2021/12
N2 - Background: The ability of deep learning (DL) models to classify women as at risk for either screening mammography-detected or interval cancer (not detected at mammography) has not yet been explored in the literature. Purpose: To examine the ability of DL models to estimate the risk of interval and screening-detected breast cancers with and without clinical risk factors. Materials and Methods: This study was performed on 25 096 digital screening mammograms obtained from January 2006 to December 2013. The mammograms were obtained in 6369 women without breast cancer, 1609 of whom developed screeningdetected breast cancer and 351 of whom developed interval invasive breast cancer. A DL model was trained on the negative mammograms to classify women into those who did not develop cancer and those who developed screening-detected cancer or interval invasive cancer. Model effectiveness was evaluated as a matched concordance statistic (C statistic) in a held-out 26% (1669 of 6369) test set of the mammograms. Results: The C statistics and odds ratios for comparing patients with screening-detected cancer versus matched controls were 0.66 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.69) and 1.25 (95% CI: 1.17, 1.33), respectively, for the DL model, 0.62 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.65) and 2.14 (95% CI: 1.32, 3.45) for the clinical risk factors with the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density model, and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.69) and 1.21 (95% CI: 1.13, 1.30) for the combined DL and clinical risk factors model. For comparing patients with interval cancer versus controls, the C statistics and odds ratios were 0.64 (95% CI: 0.58, 0.71) and 1.26 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.45), respectively, for the DL model, 0.71 (95% CI: 0.65, 0.77) and 7.25 (95% CI: 2.94, 17.9) for the risk factors with BIRADS density (b rated vs non-b rated) model, and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.78) and 1.10 (95% CI: 0.94, 1.29) for the combined DL and clinical risk factors model. The P values between the DL, BI-RADS, and combined model's ability to detect screen and interval cancer were .99, .002, and .03, respectively. Conclusion: The deep learning model outperformed in determining screening-detected cancer risk but underperformed for interval cancer risk when compared with clinical risk factors including breast density.
AB - Background: The ability of deep learning (DL) models to classify women as at risk for either screening mammography-detected or interval cancer (not detected at mammography) has not yet been explored in the literature. Purpose: To examine the ability of DL models to estimate the risk of interval and screening-detected breast cancers with and without clinical risk factors. Materials and Methods: This study was performed on 25 096 digital screening mammograms obtained from January 2006 to December 2013. The mammograms were obtained in 6369 women without breast cancer, 1609 of whom developed screeningdetected breast cancer and 351 of whom developed interval invasive breast cancer. A DL model was trained on the negative mammograms to classify women into those who did not develop cancer and those who developed screening-detected cancer or interval invasive cancer. Model effectiveness was evaluated as a matched concordance statistic (C statistic) in a held-out 26% (1669 of 6369) test set of the mammograms. Results: The C statistics and odds ratios for comparing patients with screening-detected cancer versus matched controls were 0.66 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.69) and 1.25 (95% CI: 1.17, 1.33), respectively, for the DL model, 0.62 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.65) and 2.14 (95% CI: 1.32, 3.45) for the clinical risk factors with the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density model, and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.69) and 1.21 (95% CI: 1.13, 1.30) for the combined DL and clinical risk factors model. For comparing patients with interval cancer versus controls, the C statistics and odds ratios were 0.64 (95% CI: 0.58, 0.71) and 1.26 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.45), respectively, for the DL model, 0.71 (95% CI: 0.65, 0.77) and 7.25 (95% CI: 2.94, 17.9) for the risk factors with BIRADS density (b rated vs non-b rated) model, and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.78) and 1.10 (95% CI: 0.94, 1.29) for the combined DL and clinical risk factors model. The P values between the DL, BI-RADS, and combined model's ability to detect screen and interval cancer were .99, .002, and .03, respectively. Conclusion: The deep learning model outperformed in determining screening-detected cancer risk but underperformed for interval cancer risk when compared with clinical risk factors including breast density.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85118476838&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85118476838&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1148/radiol.2021203758
DO - 10.1148/radiol.2021203758
M3 - Article
C2 - 34491131
AN - SCOPUS:85118476838
SN - 0033-8419
VL - 301
SP - 550
EP - 558
JO - Radiology
JF - Radiology
IS - 3
ER -