KEYWORDS: Breast, Breast density, Mammography, Data modeling, Education and training, Performance modeling, Deep learning, Reliability, Histograms, Cancer
PurposeBreast density is associated with the risk of developing cancer and can be automatically estimated using deep learning models from digital mammograms. Our aim is to evaluate the capacity and reliability of such models to predict density from low-dose mammograms taken to enable risk estimates for younger women.ApproachWe trained deep learning models on standard-dose and simulated low-dose mammograms. The models were then tested on a mammography dataset with paired standard- and low-dose images. The effect of different factors (including age, density, and dose ratio) on the differences between predictions on standard and low doses is analyzed. Methods to improve performance are assessed, and factors that reduce the model quality are demonstrated.ResultsWe showed that, although many factors have no significant effect on the quality of low-dose density prediction, both density and breast area have an impact. The correlation between density predictions on low- and standard-dose images of breasts with the largest breast area is 0.985 (0.949 to 0.995), whereas that with the smallest is 0.882 (0.697 to 0.961). We also demonstrated that averaging across craniocaudal-mediolateral oblique (CC-MLO) images and across repeatedly trained models can improve predictive performance.ConclusionsLow-dose mammography can be used to produce density and risk estimates that are comparable to standard-dose images. Averaging across CC-MLO and model predictions should improve this performance. The model quality is reduced when making predictions on denser and smaller breasts.
Breast density assessment is an important part of breast cancer risk assessment, as it has been known to correlate with risk. Mammograms would typically be assessed for density by multiple expert readers, however, interobserver variability can be high. Meanwhile, automatic breast density assessment tools are becoming more prevalent, particularly those based on artificial intelligence. We evaluate one such method against expert readers. A cohort of 1329 women going through screening was used to compare between two expert readers selected from a pool of 19, and a single such reader versus a deep learning based model. Whilst the mean differences for the two experiments were statistically similar, the limits of agreement between the AI method and a single reader are substantially lower at +SD 21 (95% CI : 20.07, 22.13) -SD 22 (95% CI : -22.95, -20.90) against +SD 31 (95% CI : 33.09, 28.91) -SD 28 (95% CI : -30.09, -25.91) between two expert readers. Additionally, the absolute intraclass correlation coefficients (two-way random multiple measures) were 0.86 (95% CI : 0.85, 0.88) between the AI and reader and 0.77 (95% CI : 0.75, 0.80) between the two readers achieving statistical significance. Our AI-driven breast density assessment tool has better inter-observer agreement with a randomly selected expert reader than two expert readers (drawn from a pool) do with one another. Additionally, the automatic method has similar inter-view agreement to experts and maintains consistency across density quartiles. Deep learning enabled density methods can offer a solution to the reader bias issue and provide consistent density scores.
Breast density is an important factor in assessing individual breast cancer risk. We aim to identify women at increased risk of developing breast cancer before they enter routine screening, using mammography in combination with known risk factors. This will enable targeting of preventive therapies and personalised screening. To reduce radiation risk, this paper examines whether density measurements in one breast or mammographic view could be used to accurately reflect individual risk. We analysed breast cancer risk using breast density in a 1:3 case-control dataset of mammograms from the Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening Study (PROCAS). Breast density was measured using pVAS, an AI-based approach. Cancer risk in low and high breast density groups was compared using conditional logistic regression. High breast density was independently associated with increased breast cancer risk. Women in the highest breast density quintile averaged across all views had an Odds Ratio (OR) of 4.16 (95% CI 2.90-5.97) compared to those in the lowest. A similar OR was found in both the left 3.77 (95% CI 2.68-5.31) and right 4.52 (95% CI 3.12-6.55) breasts individually. ORs were also significant for each individual view: right mediolateral oblique (MLO) 4.19 (2.92–6.00), right craniocaudal (CC) 4.40 (3.09–6.27), left MLO 3.27 (2.34–4.56) and left CC 3.65 (2.60–5.11). The ability to predict breast cancer risk due to increased breast density was achieved using one breast and even one mammographic view. This provides the possibility of a pre-screening risk assessment using fewer images and therefore less radiation.
The prevention and early detection of breast cancer hinges on precise prediction of individual breast cancer risk. Whilst well-established clinical risk factors can be used to stratify the population into risk groups, the addition of genetic information and breast density has been shown to improve prediction. Deep learning based approach have been shown to automatically extract complex information from images. However, this is a challenging area of research, partly due to the lack of data within the field, therefore there is scope for novel approaches. Our method uses Multiple Instance Learning in tandem with attention in order to make accurate, short-term risk predictions from full-sized mammograms taken prior to the detection of cancer. This approach ensures small features like calcifications are not lost in a downsizing process and the whole mammogram is analysed effectively. An attention pooling mechanism is designed to highlight patches of increased importance and improve performance. We also use transfer learning in order to utilise a rich source of screen-detected cancers and evaluate whether a model trained to detect cancers in mammograms allows us also to predict risk in priors. Our model achieves an AUC of 0.620 (0.585,0.657) in cancer-free screening mammograms of women who went on to a screen-detected or interval cancer between 5 and 55 months later, including for common breast cancer risk factors. Additionally, our model is able to discriminate interval cancers at an AUC of 0.638 (0.572, 0.703) and highlights the potential for such a model to be used alongside national screening programmes.
Accurate prediction of individual breast cancer risk paves the way for personalised prevention and early detection. Whilst well-established clinical risk factors can be used to stratify the population into risk groups, the addition of genetic information and breast density has been shown to improve prediction. Machine learning enabled automatic risk prediction provides key advantages over existing methods such as the ability to extract more complex information from mammograms. However, this is a challenging area of research, partly due to the lack of data within the field, therefore there is scope for novel approaches. Our method uses Multiple Instance Learning in tandem with attention in order to make accurate, short-term risk predictions from full-sized mammograms taken prior to the detection of cancer. This approach ensures small features like calcifications are not lost in a downsizing process and the whole mammogram is analysed effectively. An attention pooling mechanism is designed to highlight patches of increased importance and improve performance. Additionally, this increases the interpretability of our model as important patches can be shown in a saliency map. We also use transfer learning in order to utilise a rich source of screen-detected cancers and evaluate whether a model trained to detect cancers in mammograms allows us also to predict risk in priors. Our model achieves an AUC of 0.635 (0.600,0.669) in cancer-free screening mammograms of women who went on to a screen-detected or interval cancer between 5 and 55 months and an AUC of 0.804 (0.777,0.830) in screen-detected cancers.
Estimation of breast density for cancer risk prediction is generally achieved by analysis of full-field digital mammograms. Conventional digital mammography should be avoided if possible in young women because of concerns about potential cancer induction, particularly in those with dense breasts who receive higher doses. This precludes repeated examinations over a short timescale to assess density change. We assess whether density can be accurately estimated in low dose mammograms with one-tenth of the standard dose, with the aim of providing a safe and effective method for use in younger women which is suitable for serial density measurement. We present analysis of data from an on-going clinical trial in which both standard and low dose mammograms are acquired under the same compression. We used both an existing convolutional neural network model designed to estimate breast density and a new model developed using a transfer learning approach. We then applied three methods to estimate density on the low dose mammograms: training on a different mammogram dataset; using simulated low dose data; and training directly on low dose mammograms using cross-validation. Pearson correlation coefficients between measurements on full dose and low dose mammograms ranged from 0.92 to 0.98 with the root mean squared error ranging between 3.37 and 7.27. Our results indicate that accurate density measurements can be made using low dose mammograms.
Access to the requested content is limited to institutions that have purchased or subscribe to SPIE eBooks.
You are receiving this notice because your organization may not have SPIE eBooks access.*
*Shibboleth/Open Athens users─please
sign in
to access your institution's subscriptions.
To obtain this item, you may purchase the complete book in print or electronic format on
SPIE.org.
INSTITUTIONAL Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.
PERSONAL Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.